Incentive Licensing Retrospective

Here is a proposal for everyone:
Those who consider Code to be the best thing since peanut-butter and that the NCT is equal to CB'er go on over to eHam.net where the rest of their buddies are and let the sensible people remain here.

 

NØKLU,
Mike I think you might be slightly mistaken,first of all I did not find anyone who said the NCT is equal to a CB'er.
Secondly that comment in MHO is an incorrect oversimplification,you see a CB'er at least gets on the air ,and they do operate on HF. So it would appear that the evaluation is not quite EQUAL.
Besides if all the qualified Amateurs  moved to the other forum who would be around to watch the neophytes wallow in their self determined ignorance and lack of experience ??
 Have a GOOD DAY, I know I will  !!  

 

The US-Canadian Equalization Force seems to have left the building, or....is looking up some more arguments! Quiet, but smelly in here. Still !!

You all have a little piece of chocolate on the pillow:

IMHO the IL system, which is not used in the US only, has done what it was created for.
If today the decision is made to do away with it, then that will be done without our input, but most certainly not in lieu of a need for equalization or accomodation for the handicapped. There are already lots of laws out there to regulate that.  

So why are they going to do it, if they do?

IMHO because they think it does not serve the purpose anymore!

So I wonder, what I am going to face, when I finally am ready to prove my memorizing capability to some VEs and get my Extra done with.....because obviously nobody else is going to go there for me, it seems.

And I am not going to get it for free, or am I? Then I might want to wait a little longer and get a little more equal.

Have a good night , Y'ALL, enjoy your chocolate!
73 de Hans, k6faf

 

Ah, yes, Mike,
I cannot leave without giving you your personal Hershey twirl:
I have NOCLUE how you arrive at thinking those Coders would leave! I am still here!

The good thing is, I came from CB, was a No-Coder first and got hooked on DX. Only way to go was to learn Code, errrr Morse-Code, as that gave me HF in good old DL. And I still believe, it hasn't hurt me like it seems to have done to some others in here. I even have a straight key to marter myself once in a while. You should try it, it is such a good feeling when the pain is gone..
Have a good one.....

 

For those who are still interested:

Here is what I found in the ITU docoments concerning amateur radio licensing.

==============================================

The ITU recommends

1.  that administrations take such measures as they judge necessary to verify the operational and technical qualifications of any persons wishing to operate an amateur station;

2. that any person seeking a licence to operate an amateur stations should demonstrate theoretical knowledge of:

- Radio Regulation
   . international
   . domestic

- Methods of radiocommunication
   . radiotelephony
   . radiotelegraphy
   . data and image

- Radio system theory
   . transmitters
   . receivers
   . antennas and propagation
   . measurements

- Radio emission safety

- Electromagnetic compatibility

- Avoidance and resolution of radio frequency interference

==========================================

Contrary to what Keith would have everyone believe, the ITU does not specify that hams only need to have safety and operational knowledge in order to be licensed.

Technical qualifications should be tested for and this would include theoretical knowledge of radio system theory.

Ironically, while they have removed the requirement to perform Morse Code testing for a license they still recommend testing for theoretical knowledge of radiotelegraphy under Methods of Radiocommunications.

How they figure that knowing how it works theoretically  is more important that knowing how it works operationally is beyond my ability to calculate.

tim ab0wr

 

I just got to laugh, I didn't mention any names or call-signs, just that those who have their shorts so tight they talk 3 octaves too high about how those no-good no-coders are... are going to be the only ones to feel slighted or make remark that I was shooting at them... Read what I said:

I didn't say every know-code should go to eHam.net only those who get their shorts on too tight. If you feel you fall into the first group then you should go to eHam you are not welcome anywhere else. If you know code and are sensible then you are welcome to stay. So as the old saying goes... "If the shoe fits... wear it."

 

For a guy who claims to be a minister, you sure have a mean spirited way about you.

 

That was "tounge-in-cheek", not mean spirited.

 

It appears you have a very narrow definition of "radiotelegraphy". The word means more than just Morse code by continuous wave.

I suggest you educate yourself, you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelegraphy

 

Really?

Here's what the site says:

**************************************************
Radiotelegraphy

Nikola Tesla and other scientists and inventors showed the usefulness of wireless telegraphy, radiotelegraphy, or radio, beginning in the 1890s. Alexander Stepanovich Popov demonstrated to wide public his receiver of wireless telegraphy signals, called lightning detector, on May, 7 of 1895. In 1898 Popov accomplished successful experiments of communication by wireless telegraphy between naval base and a battle ship. In 1900 crew of Russian battle ship General-Admiral Apraksin as well as stranded Finnish fishermen were saved in the Gulf of Finland because of exchange of distress telegrams between two radiostations, located at Gogland island and inside Russian naval base. Both stations of wireless telegraphy were built under Popov's instructions. Is is also considered that Guglielmo Marconi sent and received his first radio signal in Italy in 1895. By 1899 he did it across the English Channel and in 1902 he radiotelegraphed the letter "S" across the Atlantic Ocean from England to Newfoundland.

Radiotelegraph proved effective in communication for rescue work when a sea disaster occurred. Effective communication was able to exist between ships and from ship to shore.

************************************************************

I wonder what all of these communications used if not Morse Code on CW? I wonder how Marcony sent that letter "S"?

(take note of the words "wireless telegraphy")



Let's see. Your site also says:

*******************************************************
Wireless telegraphy is also known as CW, for continuous wave (a carrier modulated by on-off keying, as opposed to the earlier radio technique using a spark gap).
*******************************************************

Hmmmmm......


Technically speaking, psk31 is radiotelegraphy but it is known as "psk-31". Technically speaking, Telex is radiotelegraphy, but it is known as "Telex".

Say the word radiotelegraphy to almost anyone in the world and they will understand "Morse Code using CW".

*EXACTLY* what did you think the ITU had in mind when they included the word "Radiotelegraphy"?

Telex, perhaps?

If they meant radiotelegraphy to include data modes then why did they include a separate category for data and image?

Perhaps it would be of some benefit if you read the sites yourself.

tim ab0wr

 

I think they meant to include all forms of "words from a afar" which is the rough translation of the word "telegraphy". In 1900 that meant only Morse code by spark gap. Today that word includes not only Morse code but any of a number of means to convey text. I will admit that in common usage that "radiotelegraphy" tends to mean "Morse code by CW" but the word is used in a legal document so the legal definition would apply.

I guess you missed this sentence in the first paragraph of the article I linked to:

I suggest you ask the ITU, or the FCC, what is meant by the word "radiotelegraphy" in that document. I imagine they will agree with me.

Let's assume for the moment that your interpretation of the word is correct. Perhaps it was an oversight on the recent revision of the rules that the word "radiotelegraphy" remained in the text. If that is the case then I imagine that the word will be removed once the inconsistency is brought to their attention.

Perhaps you should contact the ITU. Either they will help you understand the meaning of the document, or they will remove the inconsistency in the next revision. I will be happy with either outcome.

 

AB0WR,
After my last post I just remembered that the FCC uses the ITU emission designators. I found a chart listing them in my handy-dandy Extra class study guide. The designators of interest are:
A - manually received telegraphy
B - automatically received telegraphy
C - facsimile
D - digital information
E - voice telephony

You should notice the ITU makes a distinction between data and telegraphy that is received manually and automatically. Text may be data but data is not necessarily text. Text can be received by ear (manually/Morse) or automatically (PSK, RTTY, etc.).

There is no contradiction in the ITU document as you claim.

If you still wish to "correct" the ITU on the definition of telegraphy and/or the contradiction you see in the Amater Radio Service rules then go right ahead, I'm not going to stop you.

 

I didn't miss anything. I *do* see you confusing the term "telegraphy" with "radiotelegraphy".

Perhaps you should read a little closer.

If you will do a little research on the issue you will find that this is NOT the case. Go find the RSGB documents that hollered about this being included when they thought it had been removed.

I guess we'll see.

I don't need to contact them. I already know what the intent was.

You want it changed, YOU contact them.

tim ab0wr

 

ROFLMAO!!!!

Thanks for agreeing with me.

When you show radiotelegraphy having a third character of either an A or B you have said that the ITU is saying knowledge of the theory of Morse Code is included in the ITU knowledge base for getting an amateur radio license.

BTW, automatic reception of telegraphy DOES NOT mean "data".

The ITU makes a separate category of "data and image". They aren't quite as stupid as you would make them out to be.

Can you guess what A1B is?

How about F1B?

How about F1D?

How about J2B?

Are these all Radiotelegraphy?

tim ab0wr

 

No, I'm quite fine with how it reads.

What's the difference between "radiotelegraphy" and "telegraphy" besides one having text sent over a wire and the other over the radio?

I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.