Michigan Net support telegraphy exam

[lu1dz]

The members of the Michigan Net strongly support the retention of the 5 word-per- minute telegraphy exam for High Frequency access. If it is necessary to endorse an existing Rule Making Petition, we recommend the FISTS petition, RM-10811. By doing so, the Commission will be making a strong case for a survivable, public service oriented Amateur Radio Service.

Michigan Net, QMN, Inc.
PO Box 457
Allegan, MI. 49010
269-673-8845
www.qsl.net/w8ihx/

http://gacw.no-ip.org #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif IF I am reading this correctly, these folks SUPPORT the 5 word per minute morse code requirement. If so, that is GREAT. Is there a problem ?

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (lu1dz @ Dec. 11 2003,12:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The members of the Michigan Net strongly support the retention of the 5 word-per- minute telegraphy exam for High Frequency access. If it is necessary to endorse an existing Rule Making Petition, we recommend the FISTS petition, RM-10811. By doing so, the Commission will be making a strong case for a survivable, public service oriented Amateur Radio Service.

Michigan Net, QMN, Inc.
PO Box 457
Allegan, MI. 49010
269-673-8845
www.qsl.net/w8ihx/

http://gacw.no-ip.org #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Help me out here. The overwhelming majority of all ARS public service is done on phone, in bands accessable to technician license holders.

How, precisely, is retaining a test which has zero relationship to public service going to make a &quot;strong case for survivable, public service oriented&quot; ARS?

What does &quot;survivable&quot; mean in this context, anyway?

[k9kjm]

Unfortunatly, It seems many cannot see the
forest for the trees.......... Unless ham radio
attracts new, YOUNG operators SOON, This
great hobby is going to DIE. Those who say
&quot;then let it die&quot; are really selfish in not wanting
to pass on a great hobby/service to the next generation.
While I am all for keeping at least some testing
requirments to include CW knowledge (Extra class)
Some type of exam that will allow the next
generation to enjoy at least some of the HF
spectrum needs to be done soon to keep this hobby
alive. #(Those who had to pass a 20 or 30 WPM test
in front of a steely eyed #FCC inspector, after walking 10 miles thru deep snow, Uphill both ways, Please allow the much #&quot;dumber&quot; generation as you call them to at least
sample some of the HF frequencies!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif (I have met many of the &quot;new&quot; generation of operators..... # #Many know much more already about new digital modes, computer interfacing, etc than most already licensed hams will ever know.) # It is a CHANGING world! get used to it!

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ...slick words and fancy one liners might slowly impress ME...but it is the FCC that changes the rules and regulations...so WE can argue till the cows come home but it will NOT change the rules and regulations one letter of one word. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[K3DAV]

OH MY GOD NO!!!!!!! Not another code vs no-code thread. This makes 5 threads now running with the same worn out reruns. And the Michigan Net post is in 4 of them.

QRZ. Please! I beg you to put an end to this madness. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ki4bgo]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3DAV @ Dec. 13 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OH MY GOD NO!!!!!!! # Not another code vs no-code thread. #This makes 5 threads now running with the same worn out reruns. #And the Michigan Net post is in 4 of them.

QRZ. Please! #I beg you to put an end to this madness. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I have to agree here! NOT AGAIN!!! If CW is still required when I upgrade (soon) I'll take it, if not I won't ...sounds simple enough doesn't it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[lu1dz]

The Michigan Net, founded in 1935, operates a statewide communications network serving a wide variety of state and local agencies, including, but not limited to, the American Red Cross, The Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division, National Weather Service, and a variety of local emergency management agencies. The Michigan Net employs a variety of telecommunications modes to accomplish this important mission. These modes include:

A VHF wireless data network (packet radio) constructed and maintained by QMN members with assistance from local Amateur Radio Emergency Service programs.
A High Frequency PACTOR data network operating on the 3.6 and 7.0 MHz high frequency bands for statewide and regional communications.
High Frequency SSB as a supplementary mode for the collection of National Weather Service rain gauge and storm damage data.
High Frequency radiotelegraph (.CW.) networks for routine (daily) and emergency operations.

Our experience is probably unique within the Amateur Radio Service, as our organization utilizes many of the common digital and analog modes currently in widespread use in this Radio Service. Furthermore, we utilize them on a daily basis to provide reliable, consistent public service communications utilizing the High Frequency spectrum. This experience has provide an excellent opportunity to see the value of the CW mode.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC5JSR]

I might get flamed here, but I think keeping the code for the general and extra class is in line.
However, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give the technician class say 25 KC's somewhere in the the 10/12 Mtr. band.
This might be a good tool to whet their appetite.
73'
John C.

P.S. You're not going to catch a fish, with an un-baited HOOK! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[wk4ds]

AE6IP Wrote: # Help me out here. #The overwhelming majority of all ARS public service is done on phone, in bands accessable to technician license holders.

How, precisely, is retaining a test which has zero relationship to public service going to make a &quot;strong case for survivable, public service oriented&quot; ARS?

Tune your rig to 7.060.5mHz on CW in the mornings at around 8:00 AM EST and then try asking them for the time and freqs. for the other CW traffic nets and see what they tell you. Oh yeah, you might want to do it using morse code...

The requirement is as one of the other guys said: not going to be affected one little bit by us on this web page. I have yet to see anywhere on the FCC website where it said &quot; Before we make our final decision on the matter, let us reference the QRZ Forum first to gather some input intel so we will be informed better&quot;......


Keep up the great CW debate for me while I am gone, I will be on 40 meters instead.

73
KG4WBH

[K3DAV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (lu1dz @ Dec. 23 2003,18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Michigan Net, founded in 1935, operates a statewide communications network serving a wide variety of state and local agencies, including, but not limited to, the American Red Cross, The Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division, National Weather Service, and a variety of local emergency management agencies. The Michigan Net employs a variety of telecommunications modes to accomplish this important mission.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sir. I applaud the Michigan Net for it's dedication and service to everyone you serve.

But dropping the CW requirement will have no effect on your service in any way. The Mich. Net will continue as it has without change. And that's a good thing.

You have failed to give a NECESSARY reason for the Michigan Net's support of keeping the CW requirement. Until you do, the only reason I can see for your post, is to keep this God foresaken, overblown, dead, redundant argument, alive.

[lu1dz]

The value of radiotelegraphy (.CW.):

Over the past seven years, the Michigan Net has operated a statewide rain gauge network in support of the National Weather Service. This network collects both routine and emergency weather data on behalf of this important served agency. All commonly deployed modes are utilized to accomplish this task.

Our experience has provided us with a unique opportunity to observe the relative performance of radiotelegraphy(CW), voice (SSB), and data modes (HF and VHF) under widely varying propagation conditions on a daily basis. The results may be summarized as follows:

Radiotelegraphy (CW)

Radiotelegraphy has proven to be the most reliable High Frequency mode. In network operation, it offers the ability to transmit weather data and operational message traffic at rates often exceeding those of radiotelephone networks. Our radiotelegraph net often exceeds the efficiency of voice circuits by a ratio of more than three to one during a given time period. When propagation conditions degrade, the relative merit of the CW circuit increases dramatically. Example of this efficiency advantage, are provided elsewhere in this document.

Digital Modes

Digital modes offer few advantages over radiotelegraphy, other than ease of access and occasional simplicity of use. Message throughput on high frequency data networks, while appearing quite good in theory, often falls to levels comparable with voice orradiotelegraph nets due to a variety of limiting factors. Some of these factors include the obvious need to transcribe, input, process, read, and deliver message traffic at the transmitting or receiving end of a circuit at Emergency Operations Centers and similar facilities. Digital modes often prove cumbersome in network configuration as stations enter and leave a network as emergency or operational conditions require. On High Frequency circuits, degraded propagation conditions and interference occasionally results in digital modes becoming significantly less reliable than CW. There are situations in which the speed of digital modes is a significant advantage. These situations, typically involve the transmission of files, or complex data needed during a disaster operation, a process that proves cumbersome on voice or CW networks. Data modes also offer significant promise for automation, but such techniques tend to make these networks more vulnerable to disruption in time of emergency.

Voice (SSB) Mode

Voice networks are the least reliable of systems. The use of voice modes for the transmission of message traffic proves quite cumbersome, often resulting in significant delays in time of emergency. As High Frequency propagation conditions degrade, the speed and utility of voice modes for public service communications degrades significantly. We have found that voice networks are rendered unusable several times per year on average due to propagation anomalies, interference, and other unforeseen circumstances. It is not uncommon during these situations to observe a CW net operating efficiently while high frequency voice communications is unusable.

While voice modes offer ease of access, and prove an excellent tool for general coordination and tactical communications, they cannot compare with CW when applied to the reliable transmission of third-party message traffic, particularly when propagation conditions are unfavorable.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif well to try to be nice about the situation; we can all make 10,000 posts on either side of the topic, but it will NOT change the FCC rules and regulations one letter of one word of one sentence. Period. All the fancy &quot; one - liners &quot; and long winded 16 line paragraphs saying this side or that side will NOT change the facts. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[K3DAV]

LU1DZ:

It sounds like you have a great system, and very well organized. I'm sure you are very proud, as well you should be.

But your post's all sound like a commercial advertisement for Michigan Net. And as dropping the CW requirement will still have no effect on your operations, you still have failed to provided a reason for your support of keeping the CW requirement.

[K6UEY]

DAV,
LU1DZ is promoting the Michigan Net because he should be proud of the accomplishment they have undertaken and have successfully contributed to Amateur Radio as prescribed under Part 97.1. In my opinion he described a very well thought out method his organization has undertaken to process emergency traffic in the most reliable manner, based on experience and knowledge.
It would appear to be quite obvious as he explained, any effort to reduce the efficient method of operation of the data transfer via the CW mode would impact the overall operation. Eliminating the testing of CW profeciency by new operators would limit the number of operators who would be allowed to participate in the volunteer effort of the Michigan group.Not to mention that action would be contrary to the intent of Part 97.1(d)
On more than one occasion you have appeared to take LU1DZ and the Michigan Net to task requiring they justify their actions to you, for their successful fulfillment of the Rules and Regulations as stated in Part 97.1.
In all honesty I think they have bent over backwards to detail their operation and explain the rationale behind the application of various modes and why that choice was made. My hat is off to them as I would have given you very explicit directions as to where the answers to your demands could be found,although I suspect the lighting would not be adequate for reading. In the parlance of the street, BACK-OFF. #Vent your misguided frustrations at one of the Unqualified radio Operators you seem to be so familiar with.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif # # # #73, # #ORV

[lu1dz]

Dear friends.

The Michigan Net surprise me. They have an elaborated system and they know what they are doing. It seems to me that they have a lot of experience and they are trying to spread it. They don´t need lawyers to speak for them, they use a very logical point of view.
What I posted here is the Michigan Net petition to the FCC a very well elaborated document that you can read in our web site http://gacw.no-ip.org
We think that many ars are running a wrong way using many words, less experimentation, more discrimination and no tolerance.
Enjoy the radio and happy new year.
Alberto

[K3DAV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By ORV.
LU1DZ is promoting the Michigan Net because he should be proud of the accomplishment they have undertaken and have successfully contributed to Amateur Radio as prescribed under Part 97.1.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
From the first post of this thread, it seemed that LU1DZ had a direct connection with the Michigan Net, and was stating their position in support of keeping the CW requirement. #I never REQUIRED or demanded anything. #I simply wanted to know their reason. #My appology to LU1DZ.

I agree that what has been described about the Michigan Net's services, sounds like a fantastic organization. #I wish them all the best.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Eliminating the testing of CW profeciency by new operators would limit the number of operators who would be allowed to participate in the volunteer effort of the Michigan group.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There will always be plenty of operators with CW proficiency. #Even new operators.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would have given you very explicit directions as to where the answers to your demands could be found,although I suspect the lighting would not be adequate for reading. In the parlance of the street, BACK-OFF. #Vent your misguided frustrations at one of the Unqualified radio Operators you seem to be so familiar with.
# # # #73, # #ORV[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That was just an uncalled for, personal attack. #Shame on you ORV.

Thank you LU1DZ for the link.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4wbh @ Dec. 23 2003,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AE6IP Wrote: # Help me out here. #The overwhelming majority of all ARS public service is done on phone, in bands accessable to technician license holders.

How, precisely, is retaining a test which has zero relationship to public service going to make a &quot;strong case for survivable, public service oriented&quot; ARS?

Tune your rig to 7.060.5mHz on CW in the mornings at around 8http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0 AM EST and then try asking them for the time and freqs. for the other CW traffic nets and see what they tell you. Oh yeah, you might want to do it using morse code...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's nice. And cute. But I don't do &quot;8AM&quot;. And you haven't answered my question.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The requirement is as one of the other guys said: not going to be affected one little bit by us on this web page. I have yet to see anywhere on the FCC website where it said &quot; Before we make our final decision on the matter, let us reference the QRZ Forum first to gather some input intel so we will be informed better&quot;......
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The ARRL is supposedly going to present their own petition to the FCC. If so, there will be a comment period. Arguments honed here and presented there may well impact the FCC decision.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Keep up the great CW debate for me while I am gone, I will be on 40 meters instead.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

instead? I'm on 40 meters as well as here. Multitasking is a habit I've never been able to break.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (lu1dz @ Dec. 24 2003,13:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The value of radiotelegraphy (.CW.):

Over the past seven years, the Michigan Net has operated a statewide rain gauge network in support of the National Weather Service. This network collects both routine and emergency weather data on behalf of this important served agency. All commonly deployed modes are utilized to accomplish this task.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What about record/repeat remote telemetry? Is it used? Spread spectrum? squirt? transcribe and telephone?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Digital modes offer few advantages over radiotelegraphy, other than ease of access and occasional simplicity of use. Message throughput on high frequency data networks, while appearing quite good in theory, often falls to levels comparable with voice orradiotelegraph nets due to a variety of limiting factors. Some of these factors include the obvious need to transcribe, input, process, read, and deliver message traffic at the transmitting or receiving end of a circuit at Emergency Operations Centers and similar facilities.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This makes no sense to me. Unless you are capturing telemetry directly, all transmission modes have the need to transcribe, input, process, read and deliver message traffic. A well designed packet net will easily outperform radiotelegraphy if there is a need to relay a message, since the transcription process only occurs once for packet nets, but is repeated at each relay for others. This becomes an even larger advantage if you can transmit telemetry directly from transponders to the net without human intervention.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Digital modes often prove cumbersome in network configuration as stations enter and leave a network as emergency or operational conditions require.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's a design flaw. There's no reason why this needs to be true. Techniques for establishing and transitioning network topology have been well understood for years and are well documented.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
On High Frequency circuits, degraded propagation conditions and interference occasionally results in digital modes becoming significantly less reliable than CW.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I take it, then, that you are not using spread spectrum digital modes?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
There are situations in which the speed of digital modes is a significant advantage. These situations, typically involve the transmission of files, or complex data needed during a disaster operation, a process that proves cumbersome on voice or CW networks.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

They also reduce the overhead and error associated with relaying traffic.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Data modes also offer significant promise for automation, but such techniques tend to make these networks more vulnerable to disruption in time of emergency.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's definitely a design flaw unless it's a resource tradeoff. One can make a digital mode arbitrarily robust.

[AE6IP]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Dec. 25 2003,16http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DAV,
It would appear to be quite obvious as he explained, any effort to reduce the efficient method of operation of the data transfer via the CW mode would impact the overall operation. Eliminating the testing of CW profeciency by new operators would limit the number of operators who would be allowed to participate in the volunteer effort of the Michigan group.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Oh boy. here we go again. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

There is zero evidence that taking the 5 wpm test increases the number of Morse proficient operators. On the other hand, there is copious annecedotal evidence that taking the time to show a potential Morse operator the pleasure in Morse does increase the number.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Not to mention that action would be contrary to the intent of Part 97.1(d)
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The FCC has already dismissed that argument: In that decision, the Commission stated that passing a telegraphy examination, for regulatory purposes, is no more and no less than proof of the examinee's ability to send and receive text in Morse code at some specified rate. and We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is one way to keep
amateur radio operators ready to be of service in an emergency. In this regard, we note that most
emergency communication today is performed using either voice, data, or video modes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I would have given you very explicit directions as to where the answers to your demands could be found,although I suspect the lighting would not be adequate for reading. In the parlance of the street, BACK-OFF. #Vent your misguided frustrations at one of the Unqualified radio Operators you seem to be so familiar with.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Now that's a sterling example of how not to behave in the spirit of amateur radio.

[lu1dz]

Hello friends:

I dont want to start another debate. We had show our position about it since many years ago and we are focusing in the ars quality instead of quantity.

I find that the Michigan Net have a very good system and they have a very good emergency background.

Proficiency in radiotelegraphy encourages the development of any of the following abilities :

* Higher reaction speed.

* Clever discrimination of the required frequency tone (pitch), the ear acting like a human band-pass filter.

* Clever co-ordination of simultaneous memory and mechanical action (reading the code and writing it down, or formulating mental images of ideas and keying the alphabetic symbols which represent them).

* Simultaneous use of reasoning and memory capabilities.

We asked to argentine CNC to introduce a #simple evaluation capabilities test like to build a simple transmiter and receiver for the prefered mode to be used before receive a novice class licence.

It´s very clear for us that we dont want more ars to use the bands. This is not the ARS ITU Service objetive.

We prefere as many as possible ars using home made equipments, and matching with the service objetive.

Thanks for your remarks and enjoy the radio.

Alberto http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[wk4ds]

AE6IP - Wow, I don't know what to say. You picked apart about every word that was said and disproved it piece by piece . . . completely. Are you a lawyer? If not, you should be. You are that good. This isn't sarcasm either, I mean it.

I was just trying to point out that there is a lot of CW ops &quot;working&quot; traffic nets and not trying to start an argument with it. I used your passage in my reply so everybody would understand why I wrote what I did, so it would make sense.

Sorry I offended you. It won't happen again. I agree with the others now anyway, it is a dead horse . . . .

KG4WBH
Hope to hear all of you on the radio
73

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4wbh @ Dec. 27 2003,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AE6IP - Wow, I don't know what to say. You picked apart about every word that was said and disproved it piece by piece . . . completely. Are you a lawyer? If not, you should be. You are that good. This isn't sarcasm either, I mean it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No. I'm a research scientist, with a background in particle physics and a degree in mathematics, but a career in designing and developing large distributed systems.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Sorry I offended you. It won't happen again. I agree with the others now anyway, it is a dead horse . . . .
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't offended. I was curious. I asked questions. I made comments. Sorry I came off as if I were offended.