QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940224.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 23.4 KB

Date: Fri, 27 May 94 04:30:15 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #224
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Fri, 27 May 94       Volume 94 : Issue  224

Today's Topics:
                      Code test speeds (4 msgs)
                     Code test speeds (question)
           CW speed? When will the wingers stop ?? (2 msgs)
                          Not Again (2 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 05:06:40 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!lerc.nasa.gov!kira.cc.uakron.edu!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted![e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, Dan Pickersgill ([e-mail]) writes:
>Jeff, there are more CW QSO's because the mode is so greatly INefficent
>that its thruput requires half the availiable spectrum to communicate what
>could be done on other modes in a tenth the space/time.
>

Now this is just silly talk.  There are *more* CW QSO's because it is
such an inefficient mode!  Does this mean that CW useage has
*increased* as other "more efficient" modes have been developed?  I'd
like to see that graph, starting at near zero around 1910, rising
steadily until about 1980, and then exploding off the page!

I think the fact that so many hams use code when they don't have to is
the elephant in the parlor for the anti-coders.  They don't understand
how it came to be there, they don't understand why it won't go away, so
they'll just ignore it if you will.  The reason is not that CW has so
brain-damaged these folks that they no longer realize how backwards and
outmoded they are, and neither is the answer that they just like to have
fun with this quaint old mode, kind of like molding your own musket
balls. Many hams use CW because of the very real benefits of increased
range, reduced interference and lower equipment cost and complexity.

Mike, KK6GM


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 20:33:27 GMT
From: brunix!pstc3![e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Silva) writes:

|> Now this is just silly talk.  There are *more* CW QSO's because it is
|> such an inefficient mode!  Does this mean that CW useage has
|> *increased* as other "more efficient" modes have been developed?  I'd
|> like to see that graph, starting at near zero around 1910, rising
|> steadily until about 1980, and then exploding off the page!

One cannot coorelate the number of QSOs to a mode's "efficiency". In fact,
I'd say just the opposite - if CW were so inefficient, then why would
so many people use it to communicate? If there are on average 1000 CW
QSOs, and 500 QSOs, in their respective band portions on a given night,
its not possible to conclude that there are more QSOs in CW because
it is "less efficient".

I would contend that you may be able to link efficiency to the length
of an average QSO (i.e. a CW QSO takes 50% longer) - however, in this
case, you also need to take into account bandwidth usage. For example,
if the average CW QSO uses 500hz of bandwidth and lasts 5 minutes,
that QSO has roughly the same amount of efficiency that a 1 minute
2.4khz SSB QSO does (2500 hertz-minutes verses 2400 hertz-minutes).
Yes, it takes 5 times longer, but you can also fit 5 times the number of
QSOs in the same amount of spectrum that a single SSB contact would take.


If you want truely efficient communications, then I would contend that
we should also eliminate SSB and go to straight 9600bps digitized speech
packet bursts.


MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- RI Center For Political Incorrectness & Environment Ignorance
-- Gasoline: Waste all you want. We'll refine more.

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1994 21:31:05 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!ddsw1!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!cmoore@network.
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

Michael P. Deignan ([e-mail]) wrote:

: If you want truely efficient communications, then I would contend that
: we should also eliminate SSB and go to straight 9600bps digitized speech
: packet bursts. -- Michael P. Deignan

Michael, what equipment are you using to send 9600bps digitized speech
in real time under fading HF conditions that takes less than 2.5 KHz
bandwidth?

73, KG7BK, [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1994 21:26:01 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews![e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

Michael Silva ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Many hams use CW because of the very real benefits of increased
: range, reduced interference and lower equipment cost and complexity.
: Mike, KK6GM

Exactly what I have been doing for 40 years, Mike, but I don't believe
in stuffing it down anybody else's throat. CW is not a God, it is just
a mode. How would you like it if only members of MENSA were allowed to
be hams? IQ is more important to amateur radio than CW, wouldn't you
agree?

73, KG7BK, [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:05:51 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!ra![e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds (question)
To: [e-mail]

   Just out of curiosity, what are the code requirements to obtain an
amateur radio license in other countries?  Here in the US it's 5, 13, and
20 wpm.  What are they in, say, Great Britain, Canada, France, Togo, etc.?

-Dave
---
David Drumheller, KA3QBQ          phone: [phone]
Acoustics Division, Code 7140       fax: [phone]
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375-5350   e-mail: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 94 08:19:58 EDT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!lynx.unm.edu!pacs.sunbelt.net![e-mail]
Subject: CW speed? When will the wingers stop ??
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Redvers Llewellyn Davies) writes:
>        There are four good reasons why the CW cannot be abolished.
>
>1)      It is required by international treaty.
>2)      Over 50% of HF traffic is CW and it is better to be bi-lingual.
>3)      Some kind of filtering system is needed to slow down the stream of
>                people going onto HF.
>
>        and... Most importantly...
>
>4)      I HAD TO DO IT AND SO YOU CAN SUFFER TOO!!!!
>
>
>        Being serious for a moment though, the way I look at this is this.
>The blurb on my licence says that my station is for "... the self-education of
>the licencee for the establishment..." Blah... etc.  IE: The idea being that
>the amateur system was for radio training.
>
>        Now, hands up all these people who use their calls for research, or
>self-training...???
>
>        Originally to get a UK licence you needed a plan of research.  This
>would then be approved or thrown out.  How many people would qualify for that?
>
>        Now, the only REAL barrier is CW.  People state that CW is un-needed.
>Fine, why don't we abolish the radio theory exam too, I mean, who needs radio
>theory to operate one of these new "Black-Box" radios???
>
>        Do you see my point??  It is just a case of people who cannot be
>bothered to make an effort.  If someone is unwilling to make the effort to
>learn CW to 13wpm (US speed I think?) then they do not DESERVE to use HF.  It
>is a sacrifice of time, a show of determination.  If, after doing the test you
>decide you never want to see another key again... Good for you.  I will
>respect you for putting the EFFORT in.
>
>        Good Luck, 73.
>
>        Red, GW0TJO.
>
>[e-mail]
>
>P.S. Morse is my mode, but I would never have made the effort to learn it if I
>didn't have to.  Hands up any CW ops who would have learned it if they didn't
>have to.  I didn't think so :).
>
>
Red,

I agree completely.  CW is a "gatekeeper" for ham radio, and in order to
keep the hobby from getting corrupted we need to keep it, along with the
theory tests.  But, as you mentioned, CW is also a lot of fun...and sometimes
it's the only mode that will get through.  There's something in ham radio
for everyone, and I think it's fine to have a no-code tech (although when
I was a tech I had to do 5wpm) - but we really need to keep CW in order
to maintain what little sanity there is left on the HF bands (80 M phone
may already be a lost cause..hi hi!)

Thanks and 73

Dorr
N4QIX

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 16:38:44 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!mixcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: CW speed? When will the wingers stop ??
To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>- but we really need to keep CW in order
>to maintain what little sanity there is left on the HF bands

If THAT is what passes for sanity, then I am giving up amateur radio.
This hobby is no longer concerned with advancing the state of the
radio art.  I doubt if it ever was.

--
  /`-_           [e-mail]  |  Vote Libertarian!
 {     }/                                 |
  \    /      N9SQB, ARRL, Amateur Radio  |  Call 1-800-682-1776
   |__*|   N9SQB @ WA9POV.#MKE.WI.USA.NA  |  for more information.

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 94 13:13:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Not Again
To: [e-mail]

>Kind of deja vu on this group.  Be away from it for a little and then
>logged on to catch up. Low and behold apparently the only "policy" issues are
>the code speeds.  Almost the same people responding with the same
>opinions, voiced the same way.  Seems a little boring.

probably.  this time around, the manufacturers are calling for a drop in code
speeds to spur sales of higher margin HF radios than the low-margin VHF HTs.

Be interesting if they are successful with this approach.


bill wb9ivr

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 13:39:46 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!cs.utk.edu!stc06r.CTD.ORNL.GOV!ornl!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Not Again
To: [e-mail]

>From: Erich Franz Stocker <[e-mail]>>Newsgroups:
rec.radio.amateur.policy>Subject: Not Again>Date: 25 May 1994 10:51:32 GMT
>Organization: NASA/GSFC TSDIS Code 902.3
>Lines: 30
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <2rvajk$[e-mail]>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: trmmstocker.gsfc.nasa.gov
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Newsreader: Nuntius Version 1.2
>X-XXMessage-ID: <[e-mail]>
>X-XXDate: Wed, 25 May 1994 11:56:10 GMT


>Kind of deja vu on this group.  Be away from it for a little and then
>logged
>on to catch up. Low and behold apparently the only "policy" issues are
>the code speeds.  Almost the same people responding with the same
>opinions, voiced the same way.  Seems a little boring.

>Just as a change of pace!

>  Considerable concern has been expressed
>by some in the ham community that we are in danger of losing
>spectrum.  I believe that since the majority of hams are only
>interested in working HF and that since the HF bands are not of
>real interest to the spectrum gobblers that we should just let the
>government auction off all ham (primary and secondary) spectrum above
>1.2GHz (maybe just leave a little band for mode S work).

>Not many hams are really interested in these frequencies (except that
>it is considered sacreligious to advocate giving up Ham allotments
>whether used or unused) so why not auction them to commercial
>interests to help pay off some of the national debt.

>*******************************************
>*  Erich Franz Stocker                    *
>*  N3OXM                                  *
>*  [e-mail]          *
>*                                         *
>* My ideas are my own and do not represent*
>* the opinions of the federal government, *
>* NASA or Goddard Space Flight Center.    *
>*******************************************

My sentiments exactly.  If responsible people have their "code is good, code
is bad, blah, blah" filters cranked as tight as mine, no person with any
authority is listening to this forum or any other forum where one is
inundated with such flighty arguments.  If these "CG,CB,B,B" energies were
focused on issues that really count, such as finding a home or defining a
growth path for the current inrush of amateurs and the satellite and data
wideband (DWB)service, it would make a great difference.  Not only would the
current spectrum be secure, probably the U.S. Amateurs could increase their
spectrum assignments.  Otherwise we give the appearance of a tow sack full of
tom cats.


73,
C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX
[e-mail]

=========================================================================
= Cooperation requires participation.  Competition teaches cooperation. =
=========================================================================
       ..._  .. ..._  ._   _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. .... _.__

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 15:16:04 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!att-out!walter!dancer.cc.bellcore.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Code test speeds

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>>
> I go away for 2 months and return and still see the same weak arguments
>against the code. Thus, I will give the same strong arguments for code:
>
>Coast Guard Radioman School took in folks who had no backround in code or
>radio. After 5 months 95% of these people graduated as USCG Radiomen with
>a code speed of 22 wpm. The 5% failure rate was due to:
>* disipline problems (military life isn't for everyone)
>* repeatedly failing a particular block exam (radio fundamentals, code, etc)
>
>So MORE THAN 95% were able to learn code.

Ability to learn code, or anything else, is not a valid justification
to test for code proficiency.

>Prospective hams who can't learn the code should either put more effort
>into it, get the no-code license, or choose another aspect of the
>radio hobby (11M or 1750M, or shortwave listening), or just choose another
>hobby.

Why should one mode of operation be a pass/fail gateway to the many
other modes of operation?  It is only CW that is afforded such
a privaledged position in the testing process.  If, as has been stated,
CW is used regularly by 38% of hams, then it doesn't even constitute a
majority of the ham population as to such usage.

>It seems that up until the invention of the radio newsgroups on USENET
>no one complained about learning the code to get a license. I can't recall
>reading ANY letters to the editor in QST in the 60's or 70's about anyone
>whinning about the code.

Well, thanks be to USENET, as this is the only medium that provides the
immediate ability to hold such discussions before a rather large
audience of hams where each and everyone can provide input.  Letters
to the editor in CQ magazine, QST and other publications simply don't
generate the responsive interaction found in USENET.

>What is it about USENET that makes people so mentally and physically lazy?

That is a totally false assumption and one that seems to be raised
as another weak argument against those that suggest lowering CW
requirements.

>>You can, I can, does NOT mean EVERYONE can.
>
>More than 95% can.

If the testing element is not significantly relavent to the privaledges
being gained by the license, then it makes no difference that 95%
or ebven a 100% could study and pass if they spent the time and
effort doing so.

>I wanted to be a commercial pilot but I couldn't pass the eye exam; I took
>up sailing instead. Should I petition the FAA to delete the eye exam?
>Certainly not. Just accept your weaknesses and do something else.

We are (1) not talking about commercial licenses, (2) the FAA
requirement is a direct function of public safety and (3) you could
still have gone for a private license.

CW proficiency should not
be a pass/fail testing element.  CW should be afforded the same
testing that any other mode is tested for today.  That can be done by
merging the CW test with the written test and arriving at a combined
test score which would require 75% correct answers...BUT I'll
bet the pro-Code folks wouldn't even consider that because it takes
away the CW filter.

>Computers can translate so why do we still see people learning foreign
>languages? You probably see that as a waste of time.

If I choose to live in a foreign country, I can learn the language,
BUT I don't have to learn the language to go there.  Likewise, IF
someday I choose to operate CW, I'll just go off and do it, starting
in the novice subbands.  Maybe no one will hold a QSO with me, but that'd
be my problem.

Again, as I've said in other posts, I have no opposition to a high speed
(i.e. 13 or 20wpm) requirement if, and only if, that test is to
only gain use of high speed CW subbands, BUT when I must learn
20wpm to use the Extra Class voice subbands, that's unjustifyable.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 19:37:48 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!brunix!pstc3![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>â
Subject : Re: CW speed? When will the wingers stop ??

In article <[e-mail]>,
    kevin jessup <[e-mail]> writes:

|> This hobby is no longer concerned with advancing the state of the
|> radio art.  I doubt if it ever was.

Where have you been. We're not interested in advancing the state of the
radio art, we're simply interested in increasing the number of amateurs
(to sell more upgrade materials, ARRL memberships, and oh, "protecting
spectrum (cough, gasp, wheeze).

I don't know if advancing is a valid concern of the amateur service
anymore anyway. Electronics technology today is filled with surface
mount tech and custom ICs. Not much amateurs can do in those areas.

MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- RI Center For Political Incorrectness & Environment Ignorance
-- 'Have you hugged your chainsaw today?'

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:12:13 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!mixcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: CW speed? When will the wingers stop ??

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>    kevin jessup <[e-mail]> writes:

>|> This hobby is no longer concerned with advancing the state of the
>|> radio art.  I doubt if it ever was.

>Where have you been. We're not interested in advancing the state of the
>radio art, we're simply interested in increasing the number of amateurs
>(to sell more upgrade materials, ARRL memberships, and oh, "protecting
>spectrum (cough, gasp, wheeze).

>I don't know if advancing is a valid concern of the amateur service
>anymore anyway. Electronics technology today is filled with surface
>mount tech and custom ICs. Not much amateurs can do in those areas.

Yes.  Let's all admit it.  We cannot keep up with advancing technology.
We ALL are just appliance operators.  Therefore, CW is the saving grace
and "FILTER" to keep the idiots out.  After all, why study theory?
We can't keep up anyway, right?  Therfore, CW to the rescue. Up that
code speed.  Pound the brass.  Unbelievable!  We ADMIT we are behind
the times so rather than trying to change our ways and adapt to and
embrace new technolgy, we become a historical society.


--
  /`-_           [e-mail]  |  Vote Libertarian!
 {     }/                                 |
  \    /      N9SQB, ARRL, Amateur Radio  |  Call 1-800-682-1776
   |__*|   N9SQB @ WA9POV.#MKE.WI.USA.NA  |  for more information.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 22:40:08 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2rstru$[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: Code test speeds

In article <2rstru$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (exe02594) writes:
>Neil D. Friedman ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Jerry Dallal <[e-mail]> writes:
>:
>: >(2)  [I need help on this one.]  I thought it was *required* by international
>: >treaty.  I say 'thought' because I don't know how the no-Code Tech class
>: >is able to coexist along with these requirements.
>:
>: There is no international requirement for a code test above 30 MHz.
>
>OK - then please explain how CB is legal?

CB isn't amateur radio, neither is AM broadcasting. You can get an
AM broadcast license without passing a Morse exam and that's below
30 MHz too.

>Also - what is the international code requirement - in wpm?

There isn't one. The treaty says that applicants shall demonstrate
that they can "send by hand and receive by ear texts in the International
Code". That's it, no speed requirements at all.

>Isn't a lot of the resistance to dropping the code requirement
>the "Tree House Syndrome" (Now that I climbed up here - I want
>to pull up the ladder - or at last remove every other rung.
>(quaver switch) You are going to put an elevator WHERE????
>(quaver switch)

Yep.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #224
******************************