Morse Codes trumps SMS in head to head combat

My "defense" ? LMAO!!!! Again you act as if I had to defend the ruling of the FCC. I don't. You asked why the emphasis on telegraphy testing, and I answered it. You might be able to actually understand what you're reading if you were to understand the context of the FCC statements, but alas you really don't do you? Yet you say that I took what was quoted "out of context". What a hoot!

Let me make this crystal clear. Until you understand the context of 98-143, any interpretation you make that is not in line with my answer will only be seeing mirages. Do you want to know the TRUTH, or do you want to nurse your fantasy?

Don't believe me? Try this:

You can't understand the significance of the bold parts of the quotes unless you understand the context of the ruling and comments. But you asked for other quotes from 98-143 in "defense" (LOL). There you go!

Unless you make an attempt to find the true meaning of what was said in 98-143, this thread will end pretty quickly. If you can't back up your points with logical thought, then you're waisting my time. Do you want voodoo or do you want to learn?

Circular logic. You're using a theory to prove a theory. Why telegraphy testing should be kept or eliminated has NOTHING to do with "other modes exist that are just as useful blah blah blah". Come on, TRY to understand.....look at what the FCC said as the 3 reasons they were keeping the testing.

Questioning is good, but the answer is beating you about the head and you're ignoring it. Is the "international law" the ONLY reason? Uhhhhh noooo.

I am talking to you about a subject I am very familiar with. I am sure there are things in life you could teach me a thing or two about. That's life. If you're feeling like a little kid, then don't. I might poke a little fun at you, but I am aware that you're not a kid.

 

kc0lxk what in the world are you doing to poor old charlie , is he down here talking Bad about the tech,s again , 73 Bill

 

Just forget it.  You win by default.  You have not convinced me that IMC testing is relevant to Amateur radio licensing.  You have not convinced me that the FCC will continue IMC testing beyond 2006.  What you have convinced me of is that you lack comprehension of the english language.  I'm convinced of your lack of logic.  You quote portions of the FCC R&O and somehow turn the meaning around.  Usually by removing a sentence from its paragraph, and therefore its context.  For example your "germane" quote was taken from the following paragraph.

I won't try to explain the above paragraph as you will undoubtedly either not comprehend whatever I write, or simply ignore it.  Just as you have ignored my direct questions.

I wasn't asking you to defend the FCC, they did a good job of that in the R&O even though they weren't defending the same ideas you were.  I was asking you to defend your belief that IMC testing will continue in the face of facts to the contrary.  I was asking if you could show more proof in your own defense.  Instead you talk in circles and avoid direct questions.

You speak as if the conclusion is obvious.  I don't think it is as IMC testing is being dropped in countries all over the world.  Why would the FCC require IMC proficiency if other countries do not?  The answer is that they will not continue IMC testing, and if they do they will have to come up with a very good reason.  That reason will have to be much better, clearer, and much more lengthy than, "pertain to the privileges the operator license authorizes and that they constitute the minimum requirements necessary to demonstrate that the control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that station."

Claim victory in this debate if you wish.  I'm tired of trying to continue a debate with someone that doesn't seem to even read what I type.  I was hoping to teach but you ignore my words.  I was hoping to learn but you fail to present facts.  Doesn't matter as in about a year from now I will very likely no longer be a No Code Tech and move on to being a No Code Extra.

 

Nothing to add to that. It says it all.

Not suprising considering your fuddle-headed position and the normal no code logic that things aren't logical unless they support your position. You say I am ignoring your questions....but I answer them and if you don't understand the answer, you want me to spoon feed you. You're here on QRZ, posting your "opinion" on this chain about an "entertainment value" contest as if you have some prescient logic. All you have is wishful thinking to support your lack of motivation to learn telegraphy.

Your question was basically why the emphais on IMC testing. Your answer is that the FCC kept telegraphy testing for three reasons:

1. It was international requirement
2. Per the FCC, "... those requirements (telegraphy testing) pertain to the privileges the operator license authorizes"
3. Per the FCC, "... that they constitute the minimum requirements necessary to demonstrate that the control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that station."

#1 above has gone away, but #2 and #3 still exist. Telegraphy testing is still emphasized because the testing still pertains to the privleges the operating license authorizes, and because the 5WPM requirement was deemed as the minimum requirement the FCC wanted demonstrated to ensure proper operation of a station. Hello!!

Now the FCC has to satisfy YOU before they can rule? ROFL!!!!!

You've had your knickers in a knot so much you have not been listening. You use quotes from 98-143 and you have no idea of the document's context, but you find no problem acusing someone else of taking things out of context. How would you know? LOL.

You want to learn? Here is a hint: 98-143 is a Report and Order document. In the document the FCC shares its decision on various aspects of Amateur Radio and tells us WHY. If you go back and read the comments people made to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from which 98-143 resulted and look at the FCC's answers in 98-143, you understand context. The overall context for the telegraphy testing decision was that the FCC was ruling to drop the requirement to 5WPM for General and Extra and explaining to us WHY.

Your counting on the quotes from 98-143 to support the mirages you see would be as stupid as me saying that because of what was written in 98-143, I KNOW the FCC will keep telegrapgy testing. Every bit of reasoning in 98-143 is up for renegotiation. When you ask why the emphasis on telegraphy testing, I can only tell you why the FCC thought it was important and why it is the rule today.

You've been so wrapped up in your slippery position that you havn't even notice we AGREE on some things.

Let me respectfully suggest that if you don't pass the telegraphy test you will ALWAYS be a NCT. No matter what class license you hold. And if you feel secure in that, then go for it! But just remember that the leader of the NCT planet in space is Bill (mxe).

Don't go punching your teddy bear. You obviously take this way too seriously. No hard feelings on this end and would love to QSO with you some time.

 

Why mullet fish when I have you Wild Bill? You're like the pet guppy I never had!

 

Been a couple of years since I went fishing. Was on an offshore trip in the Gulf out of Tampa and had alot of fun. Mean to NCTs? LOL. Just the knotheads. My best friend in Amateur Radio is an old NCT. We were watching the NASCAR race earlier and commenting back and forth on a local repeater with another friend.

I thought I hated the code until I actually shut up and TRIED to really apply myself to learning it. It kept me out of Amateur Radio for 35 years. What a shame. I missed all those years. Morse Code is the one thing you can't B.S. your way through. You have to actually learn it and it isn't easy for alot of folks (like me). But I stuck with it and I use it every day. There are probably a few folks out there that can't learn it. The rest need to quit making excuses and get with the program. No matter how hard you try, you can't rationalize underachievement because the problem isn't the requirement, it's with the person who won't work hard enough to beat it.

Take care, Bill and thanks for the comments.

 

AG4YO,
I told my self that I would not return to this thread but I felt the need to make you aware of another FCC R&O relating to IMC testing.  That is Report and Order 90-55 which created the Codeless Technician.

http://www.nocode.org/articles/90-055RO.html

I suggest you read it and pay special attention to the portions highlighted by NCI.  It shows the FCC had little concern for the continuation of IMC testing 15 years ago.

In that document it talks about how a majority of people were not opposed to an entry level Amateur license that did not require IMC testing.  It wasn't a small majority either, it was 70 to 30.  That is why the FCC created the NCT, the people asked for it.  The reason I expect the FCC to end IMC testing for all license classes is because a majority of people ask for it.  That is how a democratic republic works.

That is why I said that the FCC has to come up with a good reason to keep IMC testing, they have to answer to the public.  If they cannot convince the public then they will have to get rid of the testing.  In the past the reasons were the international treaty, and in the 1990 document it commented on the large amount of CW traffic on HF.  The international treaty is gone and I highly doubt CW traffic has increased in the past 15 years.  Even if it has that still may not convince the FCC and the public of the need to keep IMC testing.  The FCC mentioned in both the 1990 and 1998 documents that it would continue to allow the use of CW on Amateur frequencies, but did not see the need to require all licensed Amateurs to show proficiency.

I still don't understand how you consider it relevant.

Is an Amateur required to transmit CW for any reason?

Are there portions of the Amateur radio spectrum that is limited to CW transmissions?

Is an Amateur required to have a radio transmitter or receiver capable of CW transmission?

Is an Amateur required to respond in any way to a CW transmission?

The answer to all the above is "NO" and that is why the FCC is very likely to end IMC testing, no technical or legal limitation exists that requires IMC knowledge excepting the testing itself.  So it would be logical to end the testing.

There is a small chance that the FCC will again reduce the IMC requirement and go with some compromise.  If that happens the FCC will have to defend its position just as it has in 1990 and 1998.  In past situations the defense rested primarily on the international agreement.  Now the international agreement no longer requires IMC testing.

What possible reason do you think the FCC would give to continue IMC testing?  Don't just say, "because it pertains" without backing it up.  If IMC knowledge was actually pertinent to operating an Amateur radio station then wouldn't you expect that the FCC would require an Amateur to actually USE that knowledge?  I would.

 

I thought I hated the code until I actually shut up and TRIED to really apply myself to learning it. It kept me out of Amateur Radio for 35 years. What a shame. I missed all those years. Morse Code is the one thing you can't B.S. your way through. You have to actually learn it and it isn't easy for alot of folks (like me). But I stuck with it and I use it every day. There are probably a few folks out there that can't learn it. The rest need to quit making excuses and get with the program. No matter how hard you try, you can't rationalize underachievement because the problem isn't the requirement, it's with the person who won't work hard enough to beat it ag4yo well charlie you are right you can,t Bs your way thru it , and that,s a fact it is tought for some people and some can get it in no time at all I have seen some post on qrz where some say they learned it in one week and past the test , But it,s a fact it dont come that easy for me , call me dum if you want But it,s a fact I have Been trying to get it for 6 month,s and I can copie some letter,s But some I dont know if I ever will , But I will keep on trying I would like to be able to recieve it But dont care to transmit it , it,s just not my cup of tea ,that,s why i do not say anything about mode any one use Because every one like,s different mode,s and that,s fine with me , But if the lord let,s me live long enought i will Be able to recieve it , I am 62 now and I Belong to the c r s club , and that,s a bad club to belong to But it is a fact of life like it or not for some it is , so 73 good luck Bill

 

You finally understand that the WRC decision wasn't the only reason. Very good.

More "doo-bee smoke" logic. The driving test has parallel parking test so you can't drive unless you parallel park. The FAA pilot's test has stall recovery in it so you can't fly unless you stall at least once. The Amateur test has RF safety querstions in it....WAIT!!! Don't hold that UHF KW Amp by your head just so you can show you need RF safety!!!

FCC requires IMC testing because it thinks you need to do it. Maybe soon it will think you won't. I had already read 90-055 and looks like your reading comprehension hasn't improved. Looking for the "context" of 90-055, again the FCC has decided to grant phone privleges above 30 mHz to Techs without the need for element 1. The document is their decision and defense of it. Look:

I hate to be the one to drop the bio-jetsam in your punch bowl but the Commission obviously views telegraphy testing as essential for below 30mHz operation and not as essential for above 30mHz. I bet you're doing your outboard motor in a tub of Jello imitation about now, "But...but...but...but..."

ROFL!!! Here is my response:

You know who Larry Klose was? He was NCI Director and running for re-election. In his statement he acknowledges that 70% of Amateurs want a 5WPM test for General. Then he pretty much says that regardless of what 70% of amateurs want, NCI will keep fighting for no code. Here's the link to the statement. You may want to contact Joe Speroni AH0A at www.ah0a.org and ask him to share his statistics on the comments filed with reference to the NCI and other petitions. Look at which petition garnered the most response. Look at what the "vote" was.

POP!!! That was your baloon popping...

 

Where is Jack Alabama, Bill? Anywhere near Birmingham?

 

AG4YO,

The parallel parking test is a poor example as I was not given a driving test to get my license, only a written test and a vision test.  In my driver instruction class in high school I did not do well in that portion and if tested today I'm not confident I could pass.  That is because parallel parking is not a "deal breaker" skill, unlike the ability to do such things as see, read, and obey road signs.  I may have been unable to parallel park but if I did well that would have been points in my favor in passing my driving course to counteract places where I was lacking.  Had I been unable to react to a stop sign properly, either by ignorance or physical limitation, then I would not have been able to get a driver license.

Concerning the tests on recovering from a stall to get a pilot's license or knowing RF safety to get a radio operator's license, those are "deal breaker" skills since those affect the safety of the licensed and others around them.  You can go operate CW and parallel park if you choose, just as I can choose to operate voice and park in a ramp.

Another analogy to the driver test would be the likes of automatic transmissions.  Let's say that in the days before automatic transmissions one wanted a driver's license.  That person would be expected, or even tested, on the ability to operate a manual transmission.  Since the idea of an automatic transmission has not even entered the minds of drivers no one even separates the idea of a manual transmission from a car.  Such as in the early days of radio one did not separate Morse code from radios, that is evident in that early radios were called wireless telegraphs.  Technology has advanced in cars to the point where people that use manual transmissions are either hobbyists, such as an owner of a classic car, or professionals that demand the most in performance from their vehicle, such as a race car driver.  Technology has advanced as well in radio where Morse code operators are the hobbyists and the professionals.  The hobbyists are licensed Amateur radio operators, and the professionals are licensed in other services.  The hobbyists can choose to operate CW, the professionals operate CW when they need to for their job.

How about another analogy.  A few years ago I got a new prescription on my eyeglasses and when the time came to renew my drivers license I had to take a simple vision exam.  In the past I would take the test without my glasses to avoid the restriction on my license.  Last time I was unable to pass without my glasses and I now am restricted from driving unless I am wearing proper vision correction.  Should not Amateur licensing be the same?  If I should fail the IMC proficiency test then I would expect my license to note either that I am restricted from operating CW or that I cannot operate CW unless aided by a device to decode IMC for me.  That would be similar to my restriction on my driving limits me not to where I drive but how I drive.

I wonder how that 70% broke down then as opposed to now.  What I mean is how many of the 70% wanted IMC testing eliminated?  You see he said a MAXIMUM of 5WPM.  Proficiency at 0WPM is less than 5WPM.  Perhaps 50% wanted no IMC test, and 20% wanted 5WPM.  If it was 70% that wanted a 5WPM he would not have put the word "maximum" in that sentence.  I imagine the split between the no-code and slow-code groups must have been fairly even or he would have come up with another statistic.

That statement must be a few years old now, most likely predating WRC-2003.  I wonder how a survey would work out now?

I realize that the reasons for keeping the Morse code exam in 1990 did not rest solely on the international agreement but much has changed since then.  In 1990 maritime radio stations were required by international treaty to have CW stations and IMC proficient operators.  In 1992 GMDSS systems were allowed to replace the two on ships.  In 1997 all ships were required to have GMDSS systems and maritime CW emergency response stations were closed. That was the last radio service to require CW operation.

I understand the context of the quotes you gave, they came from a different time.  A time when CW operation was more prevalent than it is now.  Is there a reason to continue IMC testing now?  No.

 

Nope. I just go to Birmingham every week and was going to offer to help you study the code.