QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940436.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 17KB

Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 04:30:13 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 #436
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sat, 10 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  436

Today's Topics:
                        Dan's new catch phrase
                   Equipment modification & the FCC
   Morse code as a common language? (was Re: Sum'tin for nut'in an
           Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free (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: 9 Sep 1994 13:19:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Dan's new catch phrase
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>(gregory brown) writes:
>
>>While it does seem somewhat unfair that code tests are required for
>>"non-code" HF frequencies (the only valid argument), the fact that HF
>
>But Greg, CW is actually allowed everywhere on each band, so there
>really is no non-code HF freqs (maybe you meant that by your " ").

C'mon, Jeff.  You should know that CW is legal on all amateur frequencies.
There are no non-code HF, VHF, UHF, SHF or other, amateur frequencies.

I personally do not believe the "require code test for access to code frequencies"
argument.  The ultimate test is operating.  Don't forget that the precedent is
already set:  the FCC allows Technicians full access to the 50.0 to 50.1 MHz
and 144.0 to 144.1Mhz CW-only sub-bands.  No code test is required for access to
these code-only bands.  End of argument.

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * "Sir, over there.... is that a man?"                         *

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

Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 11:28:29 GMT
From: world![e-mail]
Subject: Equipment modification & the FCC
To: [e-mail]

Karl Beckman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: By the way, does anybody understand the difference between "marine" and
: "maritime" operation as defined by the FCC??  Marine is when you are inside
: the coastal limits of the USA and therefore subject to FCC jurisdiction.
: Maritime operation is ONLY in international waters and you are then subject
: only to the International Maritime requirements.

I can't find these FCC defintions.  Part 80 only says that the
Maritime Mobile service is for use by ship stations and those
communicating with them.  Not only does Part 97 say nothing that I can
see, they don't require "/MM1" if you're in Maritime Mobile Region 1,
either.

Any help?

-drt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker     KG2S         8P9CL            [e-mail]|
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 9 Sep 1994 15:27:31 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Morse code as a common language? (was Re: Sum'tin for nut'in an
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (William J Turner) writes:
>In article <34nsi2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gregory brown) writes:
>>Actually, Cecil, you can actually do that.  Many of us have.
>>Besides using international Q signals, the very fact that morse is
>>slower gives people with limited language skills a little more time to
>>think of how to say something.  I can carry on a very reasonable
>>contact in Spanish in CW, but doing so by voice is quite a different
>>story.  Many foreign amateurs I have talked with actually use CW
>>(code) simply _because_ their english is so poor.  So, the answer is
>>yes, CW _is_ that powerful.  Thanks for helping to emphasize that
>>fact.
>
>They *still* have to know a common language, at least a little.  If you
>have no clue about a language, copying morse code in that language is
>not going to magically let you understand it.  (That seems to be what
>some people are saying, and it is just plain wrong.)

Morse code is not a language, anymore than ASCII is a language.  Anyone
who says otherwise is ignoring reality.  Just like ASCII, Morse code is
a set of digital encodings to communicate some particular character
set.  Just like ASCII, there are alternatives, such as EBCDIC.  Most of
the time when people discuss Morse code, we're discussing the
International Morse code.  There are several other Morse code sets,
such as the Japanese Morse code.  Just like trying to display EBCDIC on
an ASCII tube, someone trained in copying International Morse code
won't make sense of a domestic variant of code.  Heck, just a few
Esperanto characters is enough to mess most folks up.

The International Morse code does do a lot to make it possible to
comunicate across national boundaries; it forces everyone using it to
communicate in a certain character set, much the same way ASCII does.
So, Morse code isn't a common language, despite claims to the contrary
by the Morse romantics, but International Morse code forces the use of
a common character set.  Maybe the argument is really "International
Morse code is a common character set".

In fact, this advantage of International Morse code is also found in
ASCII communications.  So, the "it is a common character set" argument
could easily be made for ASCII (as well as Baudot, and the TOR
character set(s)).  Digital operators enjoy the exact same advantage
of Morse code; the use of a common character set.

Indeed, this leaves us with one real advantage of Morse code over other
digital encodings:  Morse code is the only encoding method which is
practical to be encoded and decoded by a human operator without the use
of machinery (at fairly low speeds).  I guess this makes Morse code
very attractive to many people, but how does it make it compelling as a
requirement?

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * "Sir, over there.... is that a man?"                         *

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

Date: 9 Sep 1994 13:14:45 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (Michael Silva) writes:
>What purpose is served by allowing these engineering wizards access to
>HF phone?  Is HF phone really the cutting edge?  How are they going to
>apply their engineering talents there?  Seems to me that they'd just be
>wasting time jawboning when they should be applying their technical
>prowess, which gained them their special entry status, by expanding the
>frontiers of the hobby, which are VHF/UHF/SHF.  But wait, don't we
>already *have* a license for that?

Wait a minute, Mike.  You're saying that the frontiers of communication are
VHF/UHF/SHF, with the exclusion of HF.  That is not correct.  Even in the
amateur community, there's some really new work being done with digital
transmission, with Clover, Clover II, G-TOR and other modes being developed
which provide relaible communications under the adverse conditions found
on HF.  Narrower bandwidth, better error correction, etc.  Standards are
being developed for automatic link establishment (ALE) intended for improving
the reliability of HF data communications.  Bottom line, HF is not dead as
far as new, avant garde development goes.

Furthermore, when engineers communicate, ideas are often formed and developed.
I'm not trying to paint some utopian picture, that the elimination or replacement
of the Morse requirements will suddenly cause cerebral discussion to become the
norm on 20m, but it is not a fair argument to say "So what if engineers get
access to HF?  They'd just waste time jawboning".  This isn't fair at all.

>Furthermore, it really makes no sense to pass a CW test to get access
>to band segments where nobody is working CW.

It makes no sense, I think, to require a Morse test to gain access to a band where
everybody is working Morse.  It isn't like a driving test.  The point of a driving
test is to try to make sure an applicant isn't a danger to others on the road.  In
the case of Morse code, there is no benefit to using Morse code if you haven't
learned it.  People that drive poorly will continue to drive because they still
usually get where they're going.  People that do Morse code poorly won't stick
around the CW sub-bands very long.  I'm really saying it: the ultimate test of
Morse ability is operating with it on the air.

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * "Sir, over there.... is that a man?"                         *

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

Date: 9 Sep 1994 16:28:43 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!fallout![e-mail]
Subject: Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free
To: [e-mail]

Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: >(I replied:)
:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

: Where did this come from? Was it in the original?

I appologize for assuming it was implied in the original (but maybe
you didn't infer properly).  :-)

: I believe the original was a conversation between two hypothetical
: people - a ham and a non-ham. So my remark was *supposed* to be
: directed towards the hypothetical ham who called  learning the
: code `nonsense'. It wasn't supposed to be directed at you, Cec
: (unless you really believe that learning the code is nonsense!)

Hi Jeff, the hypothetical ham _was_ me and I _do_ believe that learning
the code when one never intends to use it is nonsense (except, of
course, it is nonsense presently required by the federal government).
I also believe that going past 5wpm for the _sole_ purpose of
passing the general-class test is nonsense and that the rules should
be changed. I believe that one should improve one's code past 5wpm
only if one intends to use code. Otherwise, I believe it is a waste
of time. It is akin to requiring all drivers to pass a motorcycle
driver's test before they are allowed to attempt the automobile
driver's test even if one never intends to ride a motorcycle. As a
Harley owner, don't anybody try to convince me that CW is more
important than motorcycles!

I believe that CW should be de-emphasized and technical competence
should be emphasized in the higher license classes. I do not believe
we need more EE's, just more technical competence in the higher license
classes (advanced and extra).

No hard feelings. I realize now that your attack was upon a hypothetical
ham, which I am not. :-)

73, KG7BK, OOTC, [e-mail]  (Not speaking for Intel)

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

Date: 9 Sep 1994 14:32:30 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <34ndlg$[e-mail]>, <34nsi2$[e-mail]>ixe
Subject : Re: Sum'tin for nut'in an

In article <34nsi2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gregory brown) writes:
>Actually, Cecil, you can actually do that.  Many of us have.
>Besides using international Q signals, the very fact that morse is
>slower gives people with limited language skills a little more time to
>think of how to say something.  I can carry on a very reasonable
>contact in Spanish in CW, but doing so by voice is quite a different
>story.  Many foreign amateurs I have talked with actually use CW
>(code) simply _because_ their english is so poor.  So, the answer is
>yes, CW _is_ that powerful.  Thanks for helping to emphasize that
>fact.

They *still* have to know a common language, at least a little.  If you
have no clue about a language, copying morse code in that language is
not going to magically let you understand it.  (That seems to be what
some people are saying, and it is just plain wrong.)

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

Date: 9 Sep 1994 15:40:26 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!iamu.chi.dec.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>com
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Todd Little)
Subject : Re: Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark G. Salyzyn) writes:
|>[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
|>
|>>And manual morse is a very inefficent mode. Why spend time on inefficency?
|>
|>Yup, I can fit 30 CW conversations at 25WPM (each sending effectively faster
|>than a voice conversation) within the same bandwidth of a SSB contact. Lets
|>just say we eliminate SSB, FM and AM first before you go onto CW ...

I've heard of a drawl before, but talking at 25 WPM is like watching a movie
in slow motion.  Unless you're suggesting that the phone users spell out each
word instead of saying them. ;-)

And unless the average CW op spaces their contacts every 75 Hz as you're
suggesting, then the above is like saying you can enscribe the entire
King James bible on the head of a pin, i.e. so what?

I think the following sums it up pretty well:

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Silva) writes:
|>
|>Furthermore, it really makes no sense to pass a CW test to get access
|>to band segments where nobody is working CW.

73,
Todd
N9MWB

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

Date: Fri, 09 Sep 1994 04:41:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <34kpbs$[e-mail]>, <34ls31$[e-mail]>gtefsd.
Subject : Re: Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free

[e-mail] (gregory brown) writes:

>With code tests today (I whistle the same tune again!), however, it is
>not difficult to understand why there may be more "machine code" out
>there,

{Flame-Resistant mode active}     ;-)

> but I seriously doubt your estimates.  Matter of fact, I'll set
>aside a day or two, make hundred contacts or so, and ask every one if
>s/he is sending with a keyboard and receiving with a computer and
>report the results if anyone is interested.  My prediction???  I'll
>say....7 out of a hundred.  Anyone want to get in on the pool?

Pool? No. Interested? Yes. We must of course allow an error factor as some
may not wish to 'admit' they are using machines.

I am very curious so even if you do not post it. Please email me with the
results. Also, can you make this an ongoing thing. Just a sampling mind
you, since you enjoy the contacts that much. May I assume these are more
QSO's than contest type contacts? Just every so often ask and let me (us?)
know. If you don't mind.

{Flame-Resistant mode de-active}   :-)

>Standard final comment: "None of this, of course, has anything to do
>with anything".

This is true. But is is an interesting, though not exactly "on topic"
discussion. It may not be "policy" and if any object maybe we could start
a mailing list to discuss it (Manual vs Machine CW useage).

Dan
--
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of
 ordinary Americans.." -- President William Jefferson Clinton

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #436
******************************