In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


I see that the FCC is not anticipating any changes in the Morse code
licensing requirements before 2006.


Where did you see that, Mike?

http://www.arrl.org/?news_list_off=15

Well, they've been right about it so far. Way back in 2003 they said "at
least
two years" which seemed incredible at the time. Many of us thought they'd
just
dump Element 1 by MO&O (if that's the right acronym) in a few weeks/months.
There were even several petitions to that effect. But it's pretty clear that
FCC is going the whole NPRM route, and in no big hurry to do so.

I hope it's true.

I want the situation to stabilize. In a world where the testing
requirements are in a state of flux - and it is a given that the testing
regimin is likely to get easier, not more difficult - many people will
take the path of least resistance and wait until requirements are
dropped.

I think a few people will. Just as some people will wait until an item drops
below a certain price before they'll buy one, or replace the one they've got.

Status quo MUST be held as long as possible...? :-)

Why?

However I don't think there are large numbers of people waiting for Element 1
to go away before they get their amateur licenses.

The only ones who've claimed "large numbers" is the ARRL in
their regular propaganda "news." :-)

Actually, in the hobby activities in the USA, amateur radio is NOT
very high on the list. That's reality, despite all the self-interest of
the very ardent ham fanatics.

That is *if* they are dropped. But as I noted, there is always
*someone* to say that the element one test is going to be eliminated
"any day now"...

It's been a year and a half since WRC 2003 and there's no change in sight.
NPRM
cycles are long enough that it's very reasonable to expect no action until
2006. So once again, ARRL news is right on the money.

If the ARRL says it, it MUST be true. :-)

Belief system is working well, we see...

Of course there are always a noisy few who will say they're going to get a
ham
license, but who never seem to get the proverbial round tuit. I recall one
very
regular poster here who told us, way back in January 2000, that he was going
for Extra "right out of the box". He just didn't say *when*. Shall we
continue
to lower the standards of the ARS to accomodate such people? I say no.

Of course not...morsemanship is the very HIGHEST attainable
goal in radio amateurism. All MUST aspire to be the best "radio
operator" circa 1930s era if they are amateurs. And with very
rigid, inflexible rules of behavior as if the hobby were a sort of
profession where all rules MUST be followed.

Removing the morse test is a 1930-standards "dumbing down."
Can't have that! Time is held in stasis in amateurism and all must
remain as it was when all the superextras took Their tests. It
has no validity in this new millennium.

After all, when the morse test is eliminated, all those superextras
won't have much to brag about, will they? :-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:



I see that the FCC is not anticipating any changes in the Morse code
licensing requirements before 2006.


Where did you see that, Mike?

http://www.arrl.org/?news_list_off=15

Well, they've been right about it so far. Way back in 2003 they said "at
least
two years" which seemed incredible at the time. Many of us thought they'd
just
dump Element 1 by MO&O (if that's the right acronym) in a few weeks/months.
There were even several petitions to that effect. But it's pretty clear that
FCC is going the whole NPRM route, and in no big hurry to do so.

I hope it's true.

I want the situation to stabilize. In a world where the testing
requirements are in a state of flux - and it is a given that the testing
regimin is likely to get easier, not more difficult - many people will
take the path of least resistance and wait until requirements are
dropped.

I think a few people will. Just as some people will wait until an item drops
below a certain price before they'll buy one, or replace the one they've got.


Status quo MUST be held as long as possible...? :-)

Why?


However I don't think there are large numbers of people waiting for Element 1
to go away before they get their amateur licenses.


The only ones who've claimed "large numbers" is the ARRL in
their regular propaganda "news." :-)

Actually, in the hobby activities in the USA, amateur radio is NOT
very high on the list. That's reality, despite all the self-interest of
the very ardent ham fanatics.

Assuming that we place stock in the popularity of a hobby as the reason
for getting into the hobby. I don't get into hobbies because other
people are into them, I get into them because they interest me.


That is *if* they are dropped. But as I noted, there is always
*someone* to say that the element one test is going to be eliminated
"any day now"...

It's been a year and a half since WRC 2003 and there's no change in sight.
NPRM
cycles are long enough that it's very reasonable to expect no action until
2006. So once again, ARRL news is right on the money.


If the ARRL says it, it MUST be true. :-)

I see no reason to disbelieve the story. Have some evidence that it
might not be credible?

Belief system is working well, we see...



Of course there are always a noisy few who will say they're going to get a
ham
license, but who never seem to get the proverbial round tuit. I recall one
very
regular poster here who told us, way back in January 2000, that he was going
for Extra "right out of the box". He just didn't say *when*. Shall we
continue
to lower the standards of the ARS to accomodate such people? I say no.


Of course not...morsemanship is the very HIGHEST attainable
goal in radio amateurism.

Incorrect.

All MUST aspire to be the best "radio
operator" circa 1930s era if they are amateurs.

Incorrect.
And with very
rigid, inflexible rules of behavior as if the hobby were a sort of
profession where all rules MUST be followed.

I don't know how "rigid" the rules are, but yes there are rules to
follow, and most of them seem straightforward enough.


Removing the morse test is a 1930-standards "dumbing down."
Can't have that! Time is held in stasis in amateurism and all must
remain as it was when all the superextras took Their tests. It
has no validity in this new millennium.

After all, when the morse test is eliminated, all those superextras
won't have much to brag about, will they? :-)

Your mythical superextra will then have MORE to brag about, and they
will be able to sit back in their lounge chair or around the pot bellied
stove, puff out their chests and proclaim how they had to pass the REAL
tests, and on and on and on and on.......

- mike KB3EIA -

Actually, in the hobby activities in the USA, amateur radio is NOT
very high on the list. That's reality, despite all the self-interest of
the very ardent ham fanatics.


It's roughly comparable to other hobby activities like
amateur astronomy, model railroading, model airplanes, and such.
Model railroaders and amateur astronomers, as well as
ham, are concerned about low numbers of younger people
getting into their activities. And these other activities
don't need a license.

Mike Coslo wrote:



I don't know how "rigid" the rules are, but yes there are rules to
follow, and most of them seem straightforward enough.


Most of the rules are sensible enough. Even that one about
"no pecuniary interest". That rule exists to protect our
ham bands from being taken over by business people who
happen to have amateur licenses. We don't want taxi companies
clogging 2 meters.

Some rules are a bit strange in the sense that it doesn't
take more skill to operate on 14.165 SSB than at 14.323 SSb.
The FCC did it because it's very easy to determine your
carrier frequency from a remote location. It's a lot
harder for them to figure out how much power you are
running unless they pay you a visit.

robert casey wrote:



Actually, in the hobby activities in the USA, amateur radio is NOT
very high on the list. That's reality, despite all the
self-interest of
the very ardent ham fanatics.


It's roughly comparable to other hobby activities like
amateur astronomy, model railroading, model airplanes, and such.
Model railroaders and amateur astronomers, as well as
ham, are concerned about low numbers of younger people
getting into their activities. And these other activities
don't need a license.

I think that the way people get into these hobbies is changing. Whereas
so many Hams I know now have been hams for about a gazillion years, I
may be part of the new paradigm. I got my first license when I was 45
years old. I got into amateur astronomy when I was 40. Amateur radio
takes some more outlay to get into than it used to (yeah, I suppose a
young technician could lay out 75 bucks for a really cheap HT, but
getting on a repeater isn't my idea of a really fun hobby. GEtting on HF
is. And Astronomy has a double whammy in that most young people can't do
much observing in their back yards with the terrible state of light
pollution. Most of the time, I pack up my scope and drive to one of
three spots. The closest is an hour away, and the other two are 2 and
3.5 hours away respectively. Not many young'uns will be able to do that
kind of thing.

So I think Ham radio is simply changing its face more than going away.

- Mike KB3EIA -

robert casey wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:



I don't know how "rigid" the rules are, but yes there are rules to
follow, and most of them seem straightforward enough.


Most of the rules are sensible enough. Even that one about
"no pecuniary interest". That rule exists to protect our
ham bands from being taken over by business people who
happen to have amateur licenses. We don't want taxi companies
clogging 2 meters.

And how!

Some rules are a bit strange in the sense that it doesn't
take more skill to operate on 14.165 SSB than at 14.323 SSb.
The FCC did it because it's very easy to determine your
carrier frequency from a remote location. It's a lot
harder for them to figure out how much power you are
running unless they pay you a visit.

- mike KB3EIA -

In article , (Jeffrey Herman)
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

But, in 2004, U.S. radio amateurs MUST still pass a morse test
to "qualify" for operating an amateur radio transmitter on HF. No
other radio service (other than certain Maritime radio services)
require morsemanship testing.

Since you opened the door, let's do some further comparisons of the ARS to
other services:

* We purposely operate using as little power as possible (QRP), they don't

Heh heh heh. Crock of something. All one has to do is listen
to the HF bands during contests and observe the S-Meter readings.

Tsk. The military has built-in "QRP" (equivalent) controls to HF
through UHF transceivers and has done so since at least 1989.

* We have antenna measuring contests with home-built antennas, they don't

Most other radio services use already-measured antennas with
professional installations plus more measurements after
installations. No "contests" needed. :-)

* We conduct emergency comms when other services are down, they're down

Another crock. Tsk. You should see some of the urban
emergency services' communications facilities, their training
plans, listen to their on-air exercises and drills.

Better yet, live through a real, live emergency and see how the
entire network can operate with "work-arounds." Case in point:
The 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles where all the
public safety and utility companies' were "netted" together to
keep things going. The only thing "down" was buildings, poles,
etc., but the emergency power was there and working...even
though the primary AC power to 10 million was cut off for hours.

* We don't have to operate on pre-assigned frequencies, they do

Tsk. Ham repeaters "operate on pre-assigned frequencies."
:-)

Radio amateurs are obliged BY LAW to stay WITHIN their
allocated bands. See Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.

* We have on-the-air contests (lots of them), they can't

"They can't?!?" Why should "they?"

Broadcasters have "sweeps" periods...which have more at
stake than winning fancy certificates.

* We can vary our power from 0 to 2KW, they can't

Please, make a QSO with 0 KW RF output. I dare ya. :-)

[Yes, I've heard that "CW gets through when nothing else will"
but ham transmitters need SOME kind of electric power... :-) ]

* We exchange post cards after a QSO, they don't

Wow! [a big Ben Stein "wow..."]

Post cards from the edge? :-)

I know of no non-amateur radio organization who has a "QSL Buro."

* We're frequency-agile with a VFO, they aren't

Not all of you. A few of you "own" a frequency. :-)

International Civil Aviation regulations (also FAA) allow aircraft to
change any communications frequency they need over the
entire civil aviation band.

Several HF-using radio services are allowed to change frequencies
as needed to continue communications. See ALE (Automatic
Link Establishment) as done by government agencies...or the
maritime radio services on HF or on VHF in harbor and inland
waterways. [just a few examples]

* We have swapmeets ("ham fests"), they don't

Non-ham licensees have NO NEED of "ham fests." :-)

* We can build our own equipment, they can't

Untrue, even in broadcasting service. Get details on studio
electronics in broadcasting sometime.

The major reason that there's so little "homebuilding" with other
(non-ham) radio services is CO$T. Cheaper to buy ready-made
than to homebrew.

* We operate for the fun of it, they don't

First thing you've written that is close to the truth...

* We have radio club meetings, they don't

WRONG. The very first radio club is the Radio Club of America,
incorporated 1909 (five years before the ARRL and before every
other local/national radio club here). RCA is still alive and meeting
but they've gone away from amateurism. They have a website with
lots of informative, historical data there.

* We can ragchew for hours, they can't

You don't listen to "Talk Radio" do you? :-)

Tsk. Almost every radio service (other than broadcasting) has a
form of "ragchewing," including the military.

* We can operate at will, they can't

As long as you don't operate ON Will, it's okay...unless you are
an MD. You can operate WITH a Will if you are an attorney. :-)

* We go on DXpeditions, they don't

Cook and Magellan had amateur radio licenses? Columbus?
Vasco de Gama?

Hams "discover" the undiscovered country? I don't think so.

* We're licensed, you're not

WRONG! I have several licenses. :-)

I just don't have an amateur radio license.

I could show you my poetic license ability but then I'd have to
bill you for services. :-)

No 73 for you, Jeff KH6O

Tsk. No "best regards?" Not even an "88?" :-)

Lecture on those numbers, sweetums. Close your classroom door
on the way out. Bye....

Lenof21 wrote:
In article ,
(Jeffrey Herman)
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

But, in 2004, U.S. radio amateurs MUST still pass a morse test
to "qualify" for operating an amateur radio transmitter on HF.
No
other radio service (other than certain Maritime radio services)
require morsemanship testing.

Since you opened the door, let's do some further comparisons of the
ARS to
other services:

* We purposely operate using as little power as possible (QRP), they
don't

Heh heh heh. Crock of something. All one has to do is listen
to the HF bands during contests and observe the S-Meter readings.

Please, Lennie..tell us all about your SWLing activites on ANY
band. Got bored listening to LAX ATIS or AWOS...???

Tsk. The military has built-in "QRP" (equivalent) controls to HF
through UHF transceivers and has done so since at least 1989.

Not all of them, Lennie.

* We have antenna measuring contests with home-built antennas, they
don't

Most other radio services use already-measured antennas with
professional installations plus more measurements after
installations. No "contests" needed.

"Other radio services" are not interested in improving antenna
efficiency. Indeed, many antenna systems are installed with the intent
to attenuate radiation in certain patterns!

* We conduct emergency comms when other services are down, they're
down

Another crock. Tsk. You should see some of the urban
emergency services' communications facilities, their training
plans, listen to their on-air exercises and drills.

And Leonard H. Anderson once again makes a really assinine comment
in the face of contemporary, independently reported fact to the
contrary.

Better yet, live through a real, live emergency and see how the
entire network can operate with "work-arounds." Case in point:
The 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles where all the
public safety and utility companies' were "netted" together to
keep things going. The only thing "down" was buildings, poles,
etc., but the emergency power was there and working...even
though the primary AC power to 10 million was cut off for hours.

Here we have Lennie once again retelling his tale of single-handed
stay-at-home heroism of an event that happend over a decade ago.

Of course it's the ONLY example he has to use.

And the really ironic part is that Lennie's the one who's always
lambasitng us (Amateurs) for "living in the past", etc.

At least it's a bit more "modern" than his tales of Korean War era
heroism in a rear area Army radio relay station is the mid fifties.

* We don't have to operate on pre-assigned frequencies, they do

Tsk. Ham repeaters "operate on pre-assigned frequencies."

They are not "assigned", Lennie.

Radio amateurs are obliged BY LAW to stay WITHIN their
allocated bands. See Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.

Uh huh. Bands YOU are not authorized to use, I might add!

* We have on-the-air contests (lots of them), they can't

"They can't?!?" Why should "they?"

Broadcasters have "sweeps" periods...which have more at
stake than winning fancy certificates.

* We can vary our power from 0 to 2KW, they can't

Please, make a QSO with 0 KW RF output. I dare ya.

Almost close to a funny, Lennie!

[Yes, I've heard that "CW gets through when nothing else will"
but ham transmitters need SOME kind of electric power...]

* We exchange post cards after a QSO, they don't

Wow! [a big Ben Stein "wow..."]

Post cards from the edge? :-)

I know of no non-amateur radio organization who has a "QSL Buro."

* We're frequency-agile with a VFO, they aren't

Not all of you. A few of you "own" a frequency.

Uhhhhhh....None of us "own" a frequency.

Not even GROL licensed ex-technicians with no station license.

International Civil Aviation regulations (also FAA) allow aircraft
to
change any communications frequency they need over the
entire civil aviation band.

Those ARE assigned frequencies. And they may NOT change to ANY
frequency over the ENTIRE civil aviation band, Lennie.

Several HF-using radio services are allowed to change frequencies
as needed to continue communications. See ALE (Automatic
Link Establishment) as done by government agencies...or the
maritime radio services on HF or on VHF in harbor and inland
waterways. [just a few examples]

Again...Discreet, assigned frequencies by international
convention.

* We have swapmeets ("ham fests"), they don't

Non-ham licensees have NO NEED of "ham fests."

* We can build our own equipment, they can't

Untrue, even in broadcasting service. Get details on studio
electronics in broadcasting sometime.

Sorry...broadcast facilities MUST use FCC type accepted gear,
Lennie.

A REAL "radio professional" would know that.

The major reason that there's so little "homebuilding" with other
(non-ham) radio services is CO$T. Cheaper to buy ready-made
than to homebrew.

"Cheaper" than the FCC fine which would accompany the use of
non-type accepted equipment.

* We operate for the fun of it, they don't

First thing you've written that is close to the truth...

* We have radio club meetings, they don't

WRONG. The very first radio club is the Radio Club of America,
incorporated 1909 (five years before the ARRL and before every
other local/national radio club here). RCA is still alive and
meeting
but they've gone away from amateurism. They have a website with
lots of informative, historical data there.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....1909...Pre-dates the ARRL by 6 years...How
does this fit in to your rants about US relying on ARRL, Lennie...???

* We can ragchew for hours, they can't

You don't listen to "Talk Radio" do you?

Participants on "talk radio" do it via telephone, not two way
radio.

Tsk. Almost every radio service (other than broadcasting) has a
form of "ragchewing," including the military.

* We can operate at will, they can't

As long as you don't operate ON Will, it's okay...unless you are
an MD. You can operate WITH a Will if you are an attorney. :-)

It's amazing what you will append with a smiley, Lennie. You're
really impressed with yourself, aren't you...???

* We go on DXpeditions, they don't

Cook and Magellan had amateur radio licenses? Columbus?
Vasco de Gama?

Hams "discover" the undiscovered country? I don't think so.

Sure they have. And before Leonard H. Anderson was old enough to
stick his banana-peeler into his diaper and wonder why the pudding
tasted so bad.

* We're licensed, you're not

WRONG! I have several licenses.

I just don't have an amateur radio license.

That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie.

I could show you my poetic license ability but then I'd have to
bill you for services.

If it's over $1.25, you're ripping folks off.

No 73 for you, Jeff KH6O

Tsk. No "best regards?" Not even an "88?" :-)

Lecture on those numbers, sweetums. Close your classroom door
on the way out. Bye....

Be still my heart..could Lennie TRULY be leaving...???
Naaaaaah....No one is THAT lucky!

Steve, K4YZ

Please, make a QSO with 0 KW RF output. I dare ya.


Almost close to a funny, Lennie!

Wonder if "Echolink" would qualify, but the ham using the
computer tied to the internet isn't using the RF spectrum
in the usual sense. But that would be 0 KW.... Unless
he links to a repeater in some city on teh other side
of the world.



* We exchange post cards after a QSO, they don't

Wow! [a big Ben Stein "wow..."]

Post cards from the edge? :-)

I know of no non-amateur radio organization who has a "QSL Buro."

Some CB or freebanders do exchange cards, though I don't
know if they use callbooks or what to get each other's
addresses. And not be found by the Funny Cookie Corporation.


* We're frequency-agile with a VFO, they aren't

Not all of you. A few of you "own" a frequency.



International Civil Aviation regulations (also FAA) allow aircraft

to

change any communications frequency they need over the
entire civil aviation band.


Those ARE assigned frequencies. And they may NOT change to ANY
frequency over the ENTIRE civil aviation band, Lennie.


Several HF-using radio services are allowed to change frequencies
as needed to continue communications. See ALE (Automatic
Link Establishment) as done by government agencies...or the
maritime radio services on HF or on VHF in harbor and inland
waterways. [just a few examples]


Again...Discreet, assigned frequencies by international
convention.

Even CB sets come with 40 different frequencies the users
can select at will. Not VFO though.


* We have swapmeets ("ham fests"), they don't

Non-ham licensees have NO NEED of "ham fests."

SOme CB clubs have flea markets that look a lot like
hamfests.


* We can build our own equipment, they can't

Untrue, even in broadcasting service. Get details on studio
electronics in broadcasting sometime.

That's not the transmitter. The transmitter and
antenna is the only part the FCC cares about, from
a technical viewpoint. There's a bunch of other
rules about nontechnical aspects, but nothing that
much cares about studio equipment.


Sorry...broadcast facilities MUST use FCC type accepted gear,
Lennie.

A REAL "radio professional" would know that.


The major reason that there's so little "homebuilding" with other
(non-ham) radio services is CO$T. Cheaper to buy ready-made
than to homebrew.


"Cheaper" than the FCC fine which would accompany the use of
non-type accepted equipment.

Other services are not likely to build radios when
they can buy what they need from off the shelf approved
equipment. For a lot less money. For them a radio
is a box that does something useful to get something they
want done.


* We operate for the fun of it, they don't

Kids on CB seem to have fun fooling around.
Not that that is a feature of that service....

First thing you've written that is close to the truth...




* We can ragchew for hours, they can't

You don't listen to "Talk Radio" do you?


Participants on "talk radio" do it via telephone, not two way
radio.


Tsk. Almost every radio service (other than broadcasting) has a
form of "ragchewing," including the military.

I doubt that a police dept would want their cops
ragchewing over their radios....





* We're licensed, you're not

WRONG! I have several licenses.

I just don't have an amateur radio license.


That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie.

Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough
to get it without much study, Len.

I could show you my poetic license ability but then I'd have to
bill you for services.


If it's over $1.25, you're ripping folks off.

I think the DMV revoked his poetic license.


:-)

In article t, robert casey
writes:

That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie.

Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough
to get it without much study, Len.

Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-)

I can't see such a personal identification as applying to my
advocacy to remove the morse code test from any test.
The subject of morse code testing should stand by itself,
without all the hoopla over test-passing.

The reality of the radio world is that morse code mode is
either dead or dying or was never born in every other radio
service but amateur radio hobby activity. Even then, morse
code is used only by a minority of those licensed as radio
amateurs.

The attempt to "justify" (realistic word is rationalize) the
morse code test is specious. It serves no real purpose to
anyone desiring an amateur radio license...other than to act
as an "initiation rite" that is kept only because so many others
in the past were required to take that test. The federal
government is NOT obliged to maintain fraternal order
initiation rites. That is something for membership groups,
not something for anything codified into law as regulations.

The argument maintenance of the long-timers boils down to
(via brainwashing by even longer-timers) them having to take
the morse test, therefore all others have to take it also. That
would be valid only if the ARS were an Amateur Radiotelegraphy
Service. It is not.

The morse code test in test element 1 is considered by the FCC
as inapplicable to their need to determine the licensing
qualification of amateur radio license applicants. It remains
(apparently) under pressure by the long-timers and the ARRL
(not the oldest radio club) keeping it in regulations...because
they all feel that it is "necessary" (they had to take a morse
test, therefore all others have to).

Some morse code devotees consider the test necessary to
"preserve and protect" manual telegraphy skills. The FCC is
not chartered as either a historic preservation agency nor as an
academic one. Its lawful activity is simply to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio.

Unless there has been some covert activity to circumvent the
Constitution of the United States, all U.S. citizens have the right
to "petition their government with their grievances." In smaller
words that means they can comment to any agency of the
government about any laws or regulations made by that government.
"Membership" in any particular agency's activity is NOT required.

Apparently, some in here seem to think that ONLY licensed radio
amateurs "should" comment on amateur regulations or that any
who so comment are "wishing to get a license." I do not so "wish."
That is NOT a "requirement" nor is there any "motivation" to do so.
The elimination of the morse code test is simply long overdue and
should be done for the benefit of ALL citizens, not some aging
fraternity boys wanting to keep an initiation rite forced upon others
for no reason but their own personal desires. Those individuals
are NOT a regulatory agency at all despite their implications.

The elimination OR the retention of morse code testing can be
discussed on its own merits, not the "accomplishments" of a few
who cannot justify their side of the discussion.

You would do better to copy the methods of others and attempt
defamation of the person of those wishing to eliminate the code test.
That IS the way of those PCTA extras found in here.



Posted on 17 Jan 05