[FLBOATANCHORS] Re: [Allied] One Man's Attempt To Save Morse Code

[kd4e]

> I feel that there is also nothing wrong with mandating that,  "if one 
> wants to operate in the code band, one must pass a code test for that 
> particular privilege." 

So, to be consistent, one must also demonstrate proficiency
in FM for the FM portion of the band - assuring that ones
deviation is correct and the finals are adjusted so as to not
distort ones signal?

And for each and every digital mode one must also demonstrate
proficiency.

Oh, also for ATV, SSTV, EME, NVIS, remote control ... where does
it stop?

Preferential treatment is always an imbalancing factor and
rarely necessary.

I was forced to learn the code and I never use it - thus it
was a government-mandated waste of my time.  It would have
been better if they had mandated proficiency with a scope
so I'd be better equipped to assure that their other mandate
(assuring spectral purity) is a reasonable probability in
our self-policing hobby.

> Many people just want to be able to say that they have "all ham 
> privileges" and would go for it.  Then they may find that they like it.  
> If the privilege of operating code is there without any code test, then 
> there is much less encouragement to learn the code. Bob  W5UQ

I have no problem with a small band segment for CW with the
pre-use restriction that sending and receiving had been somehow
tested.

> I may be wrong.  I may be a die hard.  However, I am not resisting 
> change.  I just believe that if one wants to do code, it is best to be 
> given an incentive to learn it and be tested on it.  The incentive is 
> the added privileges and passing the test. (even if it is just 5 wpm)

I passed the Extra with 20WPM to earn access to extra spectrum.
I would have preferred to demonstrate a skill (e.g. use of a scope
as described above) than CW since the scope is necessary to the
FCC mandate of spectral purity for 100% of Hams versus CW which is
one of many modes from which one may voluntarily choose.

Obeying the FCC regs is a legal necessity for 100% of Hams 100% of
the time yet proficiency in doing so is not tested - why test for
one among many modes instead?  It is just not a logical thing for
a government agency to mandate and is one of the reasons they
dropped the government mandate.

I know that change is hard but tradition is not automatically
truth nor is "the way it was always done" always the most wise.

Back to my AM boatanchor gear!

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html

-----------------------------------------------------------
This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.aspx?list=BOATANCHORS
To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
Archives - http://listserv.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html