Text 422, 80 rader
Skriven 2007-02-08 15:55:02 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
    Kommentar till text 409 av Thom LaCosta (1:261/1352.0)
Ärende: Morse code...
=====================
Hello Thom!

On Tuesday February 06 2007 12:17, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> Being able to run the 100 meter in 12 seconds no more makes
 MvdV>> anyone a better HAM operator than being able to pass a morse
 MvdV>> code test. Not any more and so it would be an arbitrary
 MvdV>> requirement and would be considered discrimination.

 TL> Excuse me, but exactly what does running the 100 meter have to do with
 TL> ham radio?

Nothing, which was my point.

 TL> But, if it's discriminatory to require that the applicant be
 TL> proficient in morse code, it may also come to pass that we eliminate
 TL> the requirement to understand radio theory, and regulations...after
 TL> all, by requiring that, we are already discriminating against a
 TL> protected class, those that have learning disabilities.

The difference is that knowing radio theory and regulations is relevant to the
safe opration of a radio without causing interference for others.

Why is it required to have a licence to drive a car? Of course to make sure the
drive knwos what he is doing and has the required skills to operate it safely.

 TL> If we can champion the cause of those that simply "can't learn morse
 TL> code", then perhaps it's time to eliminate the theory tests, because
 TL> there are simply some folks that can not grasp electronics.

Thepints is that proficiancy of morse code is no longer relevant to the safe
operation of a radio transmitter. Radio theory and regulations still are.

 TL> One of the things the FCC cited was that by eliminating the morse
 TL> requirement, their administrative burden would be reduced.

That has been heard as well here. When interested parties asked for the
continuation od the morese tests, depsite the dropping of the reuiredment, so
that they could have some "official" paper.

 TL> By eliminating theory tests, there would be a further reduction in
 TL> administrative work load.

Over here they want to saddly teh radio sociyeries with the tests...

 TL> To become really efficient, the FCC could also eliminate any test that
 TL> required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge about rules and
 TL> regulations.

 TL> Insane proposition, isn't it?

Yes. CW is different. One can safely operate a readio without knowing anything
about morse.

 TL> One potent force that might keep ham radio alive in the US is Winlink.
 TL> There is so much interest by those who have the money and time to own
 TL> sailboats to make a one time investment in hardware, and use the ham
 TL> radio spectrum at no charge, and therefore avoid paying a commercial
 TL> service to communicate their non-ham information, that they can lobby
 TL> the FCC to allow ham radio to exist.

Allowing ham radio to compete with commercial services will kill it. The
commercial operators won't accept it and demand that han radio ferquencies are
sold at a competitive price, just like their frequencies.

 MvdV>> Required skills to obtain a license must be relevant or else it
 MvdV>> is discrimination.

 TL> A requirement to demonstrate a communications skill is relevant.

Not if that method of communication is obsolete.

Face it Thom, morse is a museum piece. Nothing wrng with keeping it alive, but
there really is no justification for it being a requirement to get the license.
No more than SSTV, FAX or RTTY.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)