From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm


wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm
wrote:


Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's.

Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here!

The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the
PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always
been and so shall it always be..."

indeed the ARRL tried to pander to people Jim with code for extra class
proposal

I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL
officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they
would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or
could do best.

There is no quantitative "factual" accounting of that
opinion other than the obvious private-party exchanges
(mostly off-line). The league can't admit that it does
what it did and merely "sin by omission" of NOT saying
anything bad about itself. [they will not since they
are the self-styled "representative" of amateur radio
and cannot keep memberships by being self-negative]




As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any
rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the
60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the
government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they
called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war
on terror). So the morse code test stayed in.


We could have done away with Morse Code tsts as early as the first AM
voice set, might have been a bit choatic at first, but it have been
done logicaly have done away when ever there was first voice

Not possible for the administration committed to honoring
the USA membership in the ITU and its radio regulations.
The first widely-heard AM radio transmission was in 1906,
hardly a time for AM to become universal. Forget about
FM and PM then until the vacuum tube was perfected; the
first triode was created in 1906. AM broadcasting did not
become practical until the 1920s.

The change in amateur radio regulations COULD have been
broached at WARC-79 but - as far as amateur radio was
concerned - the year 1979 at WARC was the matter of the
"40m issue" between amateurs and SW BC people. That
didn't get any firm resolution for 24 more years (WRC-03).

However, BY 2003, the IARU had swung around to eliminate
the compulsory radio regulation (S25.5) requiring manual
morse code testing for any license having below-30-MHz
privileges. That was a change that was LONG overdue.

Those that control the influences in amateur radio are
generally the olde-tymers who were grounded in the older
traditions...such as the "need" to demonstrate morse skill
vital to a much earlier era. The league is a good example
of extreme conservatism insofar as amateur radio licensing
is concerned. The IARU has swung around from such extreme
conservatism despite being composed of the (generally) same
lot of olde-tymers. They CAN see the future more clearly
than the American league (of self-distinguished gentlemen).

At one time in the PAST there was a need to demonstrate
manual radiotelegraphy skills. The problem with so many
is that they keep on venerating the past with a passion,
a nostalgia for times before they existed. Tradition
is a fine thing but it loses value when it is codified
into law as a requirement for all.

wrote:
From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm


wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm
wrote:


Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's.

Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here!

The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the
PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always
been and so shall it always be..."

indeed the ARRL tried to pander to people Jim with code for extra class
proposal

I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL
officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they
would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or
could do best.

well my aphasia grabed the keyboard let me think i like pander to
people LIKE jim oh well

but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of
that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in
the USSR near the end

There is no quantitative "factual" accounting of that
opinion other than the obvious private-party exchanges
(mostly off-line). The league can't admit that it does
what it did and merely "sin by omission" of NOT saying
anything bad about itself. [they will not since they
are the self-styled "representative" of amateur radio
and cannot keep memberships by being self-negative]




As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any
rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the
60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the
government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they
called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war
on terror). So the morse code test stayed in.


We could have done away with Morse Code tsts as early as the first AM
voice set, might have been a bit choatic at first, but it have been
done logicaly have done away when ever there was first voice

Not possible for the administration committed to honoring
the USA membership in the ITU and its radio regulations.
The first widely-heard AM radio transmission was in 1906,
hardly a time for AM to become universal. Forget about
FM and PM then until the vacuum tube was perfected; the
first triode was created in 1906. AM broadcasting did not
become practical until the 1920s.

we could strutured oh so very different with the magic wand that sweeps
all problem out of the way

you rightly point the 1906 a 100 years in the past

The change in amateur radio regulations COULD have been
broached at WARC-79 but - as far as amateur radio was
concerned - the year 1979 at WARC was the matter of the
"40m issue" between amateurs and SW BC people. That
didn't get any firm resolution for 24 more years (WRC-03).

However, BY 2003, the IARU had swung around to eliminate
the compulsory radio regulation (S25.5) requiring manual
morse code testing for any license having below-30-MHz
privileges. That was a change that was LONG overdue.

painfully long

Those that control the influences in amateur radio are
generally the olde-tymers who were grounded in the older
traditions...such as the "need" to demonstrate morse skill
vital to a much earlier era. The league is a good example
of extreme conservatism insofar as amateur radio licensing
is concerned. The IARU has swung around from such extreme
conservatism despite being composed of the (generally) same
lot of olde-tymers. They CAN see the future more clearly
than the American league (of self-distinguished gentlemen).

At one time in the PAST there was a need to demonstrate
manual radiotelegraphy skills. The problem with so many
is that they keep on venerating the past with a passion,
a nostalgia for times before they existed. Tradition
is a fine thing but it loses value when it is codified
into law as a requirement for all.

I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you
must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all
since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all

Morse code testing was in Judgement a very helpful tool of regulation
but we could have done without it if had wanted to

From: an Old friend on Jan 1, 5:35 pm

wrote:
From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm
wrote:


I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL
officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they
would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or
could do best.

well my aphasia grabed the keyboard let me think i like pander to
people LIKE jim oh well

No problem to me in understanding you, Mark. :-)

but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of
that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in
the USSR near the end

Ahem...that's a bit drastic in comparison, but unfortunately apt.

shrug



I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you
must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all
since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all

When it was the ONLY mode possible in radio, it made sense.

Morse code testing was in Judgement a very helpful tool of regulation
but we could have done without it if had wanted to

Not TECHNICALLY. The first "radio transmitters" used by hams
were the Spark jobbies. Easy enough to construct at the time
of the first U.S. radio regulating agency created in 1912.
A Spark transmitter - of the ham variety - could ONLY be
turned on or off. Since that was the way the landline
telegraph worked, morse code was adapted for radio.

There weren't many other ways to communicate with those
technically primitive "radios." ANY on-off code scheme
would have worked. "Morse" happened to be a then-mature
way to go so that was it.

I doubt that any ham in 1906 tried putting a "high-power"
carbon microphone in series with their antenna lead a la
Reggie Fessenden...even after Fessenden proved it could be
done. [no other AM broadcaster tried it for broadcasting
service...har!]

The vacuum tube was needed for "clean" CW generation. Once
those were more perfected, damped wave oscillation ("spark")
was declared forbidden for use. Rightly so since it took up
many, many Kilocycles of bandwidth that only a galena
crystal receiver could love. :-)

MAYBE the code test could have been dropped from amateur radio
licensing in 1934 when the FCC was created. Personally, I don't
think so from the political situation brewing in radio and all
of "electronic" communications through USA membership in the
CCITT. [the CCITT morphed into the ITU once the UN was born]

By 1960 the vast majority of message traffic around the world
was being done by TTY. [yes, Hans, the USN DID use morse on
ships] MAYBE the time was ripe then for a code-test-free
license. No, said the olde-tymers of that time, they were
(now generally retired) champions of morsemanship and weren't
about to let go. They "knew what was best for (their) ham
radio!"

By 1970 the code-test-free license was an even greater
possibility. Offshore-designed/built radios were showing up
on the ham market and the VHF-and-up HT was a practical piece
of radio goods. The olde-tyme morsemen were still adamant
and getting more stern. NO #$%^!!! code-test-free license
for ham radio, no sir! :-)

By 1980 the code-test-free license now had supporters, even a
few of the clearer-thinking olde-tyme morsemen (!)...but there
were many against this (shocking) revolution. That didn't come
to pass until 1990 and FCC 90-53...which resulted in the no-
code-test Tech class beginning in 1991.

The 1990s had the steamroller of streamlining going faster
and faster...and the result being, of course, recent history
in amateur regulations.

On 1 Jan 2006 19:59:18 -0800, wrote:

From: an Old friend on Jan 1, 5:35 pm

wrote:
From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm
wrote:


I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL
officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they
would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or
could do best.

well my aphasia grabed the keyboard let me think i like pander to
people LIKE jim oh well

No problem to me in understanding you, Mark. :-)

but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of
that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in
the USSR near the end

Ahem...that's a bit drastic in comparison, but unfortunately apt.

shrug

agreed the states involed in choosing your allies and enemies unwisely
were Much higher in that Now defunct body but the operationing
mechiansisms show striking comparisions



I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you
must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all
since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all

When it was the ONLY mode possible in radio, it made sense.

yep then it did but just when did that stop being the case?

WW I? I think

Morse code testing was in Judgement a very helpful tool of regulation
but we could have done without it if had wanted to

Not TECHNICALLY. The first "radio transmitters" used by hams
were the Spark jobbies. Easy enough to construct at the time
of the first U.S. radio regulating agency created in 1912.
A Spark transmitter - of the ham variety - could ONLY be
turned on or off. Since that was the way the landline
telegraph worked, morse code was adapted for radio.

There weren't many other ways to communicate with those
technically primitive "radios." ANY on-off code scheme
would have worked. "Morse" happened to be a then-mature
way to go so that was it.

I doubt that any ham in 1906 tried putting a "high-power"
carbon microphone in series with their antenna lead a la
Reggie Fessenden...even after Fessenden proved it could be
done. [no other AM broadcaster tried it for broadcasting
service...har!]

The vacuum tube was needed for "clean" CW generation. Once
those were more perfected, damped wave oscillation ("spark")
was declared forbidden for use. Rightly so since it took up
many, many Kilocycles of bandwidth that only a galena
crystal receiver could love. :-)

MAYBE the code test could have been dropped from amateur radio
licensing in 1934 when the FCC was created. Personally, I don't
think so from the political situation brewing in radio and all
of "electronic" communications through USA membership in the
CCITT. [the CCITT morphed into the ITU once the UN was born]

about is where I eean then it could alothough it was very conveint
still in those days


By 1960 the vast majority of message traffic around the world
was being done by TTY. [yes, Hans, the USN DID use morse on
ships] MAYBE the time was ripe then for a code-test-free
license. No, said the olde-tymers of that time, they were
(now generally retired) champions of morsemanship and weren't
about to let go. They "knew what was best for (their) ham
radio!"

By 1970 the code-test-free license was an even greater
possibility. Offshore-designed/built radios were showing up
on the ham market and the VHF-and-up HT was a practical piece
of radio goods. The olde-tyme morsemen were still adamant
and getting more stern. NO #$%^!!! code-test-free license
for ham radio, no sir! :-)

By 1980 the code-test-free license now had supporters, even a
few of the clearer-thinking olde-tyme morsemen (!)...but there
were many against this (shocking) revolution. That didn't come
to pass until 1990 and FCC 90-53...which resulted in the no-
code-test Tech class beginning in 1991.

The 1990s had the steamroller of streamlining going faster
and faster...and the result being, of course, recent history
in amateur regulations.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote


Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.


Not the same at all, Jim.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference
between operating at 3524 vs 3526, obviating any rational regulatory reason for
carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
wrote


Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.


Not the same at all, Jim.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

You are correct.

As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference
between operating at 3524 vs 3526, obviating any rational regulatory reason for
carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees.

Yep. Jim starts saying things that he wishes he hadn't when faced with
one of your restructuring ideas. On the last one, he said that a Morse
Code exam would be a barrier to Morse Code use. That statement could
have been made by Carl, and it would have been false. It could have
been made by Bill Sohl, and it would have been false. It could have
been made by Len Anderson and it would have been false. But it was
made by Jim, and it has always been true.

73, de Hans, K0HB

bb

KØHB wrote:
wrote


Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.


Not the same at all, Jim.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

althought the level needed to achieve the safety advantage is another
matter

As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference
between operating at 3524 vs 3526, obviating any rational regulatory reason for
carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
wrote

Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.

Not the same at all, Jim.

How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not
some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

Agreed!

But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is
a
50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not
a 100 W transmitter?

Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable
number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs
and simply not run them at full power.

As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference
between operating at 3524 vs 3526,

What is the fundamental difference between operating a 50 W transmitter
and a 100 W transmitter? Under your plan, the former would be legal
for Class B but not the latter.

If your reason is RF exposure, consider that 50 W to an antenna with
gain
can be far more hazardous than 100 W to an antenna with no gain. Since
your proposed Class B could run 50 W on any authorized amateur
frequency,
including UHF, some RF exposure testing would be needed anyway.

obviating any rational regulatory reason for
carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees.

Instead, what you propose is keeping the "lower class" at a low power
level,
even though the power limit proposed is not backed by any real safety
issue.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote

Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.

Not the same at all, Jim.

How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not
some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

Agreed!

But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is
a
50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not
a 100 W transmitter?

Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable
number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs
and simply not run them at full power.

indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary

an Old friend wrote:
wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote

Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.

Not the same at all, Jim.

How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not
some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experiencedusers,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

Agreed!

But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is
a
50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not
a 100 W transmitter?

Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable
number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs
and simply not run them at full power.

indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary

As if you'd know, Markie. You can't even afford third hand equipment
from the bargin bin.