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

Wed Oct 10 18:40:11 EDT 2007

Aw com'on Doc... that is a feeble attempt to justify EVERYTHING.  I know 
you as a very reasonable person and can not believe you said that. 

CW has a special section of the band and one has to LEARN it to use it.  
No one has to learn anything for FM but to push the mike and talk....  


kd4e wrote:
>> 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!

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

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.aspx?list=BOATANCHORS
Archives - http://listserv.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list