CW should die, not the "hobby" was a "service"
Woody
After reading all this drivel by NK2U and countless others. Ham radio
operators show to the world, they wish NOT to allow an outdated mode
to die. They would rather be rigid to the point of breaking the hobby
off instead of being dynamic or say flexible. How stupid!
I don't care if you want to operate CW. It should not be required
any longer. International requirements are vanishing, so will this
'HOBBY' if this rigidness keeps up. This is my opinion.
I wish the ARRL had just left electronics theory in the test so most
of you appliance operators would be in this hobby! Electronic theory
was watered down when the ARRL started generating question pools.
I would love to see most, NOT all, you extras pass a technical test
worth something more than outdated 20 wpm CW.
NK2U would have to join the Army, to learn electronic theory not CW!
Amateur Radio: one auction or so away from its demise...
Kill the code or kill the hobby?
The time has come...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Woody - KA2RAF/4 - I'm the NRA, not the ARRL | Buggs Island Lake:
The BuckHorn WoodWorx of Buggs Island | Virginia's best fishing
"A mind's a terrible thing to waste, provided you had one to start with"
"There are 5 boxes to Freedom: Ballot, Witness, Jury, Soap & Cartridge"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Charlie Warfield, Jr.
I admit I have not followed this thread all the way through, but I have
to agree that the code has to go. I have quietly held this view for a
long time, so I figure this is as good a time as any to speak up.
Morse code is the 90's equivalent of smoke signals. It's a quaint and
interesting skill, but has no longer has any practical value. The fact
that it has been abandoned by every other communications entity should
tell you something.
We all lament that it's so hard to get young people interested in ham
radio, but come on you old buzzards!!! CW IS BORING! How are you going
to convince the average 10 year old, who will barely even wait for a
28,800 b.p.s. modem to do its thing, that tippy-tapping dots and dashes
at 13 or even 20 w.p.m. is exciting? You're offering them a horse &
buggy in a space shuttle world, so it should shock no one that they're
not listening.
If we were genuinely interested in perpetuating this hobby, we would
dump CW outright and shift focus towards computers, packet, ATV, and
satellite communications. See a theme here, ladies & gentlemen?
For the record, I am a ham & got my ticket long before no-code, so I'm
not playing sour grapes here.
No biggie. Just my opinion.
Charlie
Ed Hare
Woody <raf...@kerrlake.com> wrote:
>I wish the ARRL had just left electronics theory in the test so most
>of you appliance operators would be in this hobby! Electronic theory
>was watered down when the ARRL started generating question pools.
The question pools are generated by the VEC Question Pool Committee, not
the ARRL. ARRL is a participant on that committee and I can tell you
with certainty, ARRL does not always get its way. :-)
>I would love to see most, NOT all, you extras pass a technical test
>worth something more than outdated 20 wpm CW.
IMHO, things are not a lot differnt, defacto, than in the time when the
FCC conducted exams. Several study guides published the exact FCC
questions and correct answers (notably the infamous Dick Bash guides).
The technical questions of today are perhaps even a bit harder than those
in the "good old days," IMHPO.
>NK2U would have to join the Army, to learn electronic theory not CW!
>Amateur Radio: one auction or so away from its demise...
>Kill the code or kill the hobby?
There will be other opinions, I am sure.
--
73 from ARRL HQ,
Ed Hare, KA1CV
ARRL Laboratory Supervisor
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Charlie Warfield, Jr. <char...@ameritech.net> wrote in article
<332614...@ameritech.net>...
>
> I admit I have not followed this thread all the way through, but I have
> to agree that the code has to go. I have quietly held this view for a
> long time, so I figure this is as good a time as any to speak up.
>
> Morse code is the 90's equivalent of smoke signals. It's a quaint and
> interesting skill, but has no longer has any practical value. The fact
> that it has been abandoned by every other communications entity should
> tell you something.
>
> We all lament that it's so hard to get young people interested in ham
> radio, but come on you old buzzards!!! CW IS BORING! How are you going
> to convince the average 10 year old, who will barely even wait for a
> 28,800 b.p.s. modem to do its thing, that tippy-tapping dots and dashes
> at 13 or even 20 w.p.m. is exciting? You're offering them a horse &
> buggy in a space shuttle world, so it should shock no one that they're
> not listening.
>
> If we were genuinely interested in perpetuating this hobby, we would
> dump CW outright and shift focus towards computers, packet, ATV, and
> satellite communications. See a theme here, ladies & gentlemen?
>
> For the record, I am a ham & got my ticket long before no-code, so I'm
> not playing sour grapes here.
>
> No biggie. Just my opinion.
>
> Charlie
Well said, Charlie! Now get ready to duck when the pro-coders hurl
insults, flames, and all sorts of vilifications at you.
Please don't give up, though ... keep voicing your opinion and try to
corner your local CW olde fartz and convince them ... you'll fail to reach
most, because they're incapable of flexibility and rational thinking on
the subject, but occasionally you'll gain a convert and that's worth the
effort.
73,
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBMybKouIP1XFmaCFVAQGfKQP+IDioOMMTC7gVdgtyS1ShLl65t5RctCsF
TgVT2yhTmRrOlfvJ0mdrwhf8kOR4RwXhKN97eg6CBGvkFJPCCNTek/XEXCtalVr5
nT4k0qdrzdwtwODCPq2d7C6Le+ryAr6uRd3aac5m8J120C7KTgZgyBz9wVFFJZnc
jJ7toDuoCTw=
=TK0F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stacey Hanrahan
Woody <raf...@kerrlake.com> scribbled:
>After reading all this drivel by NK2U and countless others. Ham radio
>operators show to the world, they wish NOT to allow an outdated mode
>to die. They would rather be rigid to the point of breaking the hobby
>off instead of being dynamic or say flexible. How stupid!
If you learned the code, then quit bitchin'.
>I don't care if you want to operate CW. It should not be required
>any longer. International requirements are vanishing, so will this
>'HOBBY' if this rigidness keeps up. This is my opinion.
Where did you read this? I've heard there is *talk* of dropping the
code, not action currently underway.
>I wish the ARRL had just left electronics theory in the test so most
>of you appliance operators would be in this hobby! Electronic theory
>was watered down when the ARRL started generating question pools.
>I would love to see most, NOT all, you extras pass a technical test
>worth something more than outdated 20 wpm CW.
Umm, Woody, The National VEC, comprised in part by the ARRL writes up
the question pools, not the ARRL alone.
>NK2U would have to join the Army, to learn electronic theory not CW!
>Amateur Radio: one auction or so away from its demise...
>Kill the code or kill the hobby?
Should read: Kill the code, you've killed the hobby.
>The time has come...
For what?
>--
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Woody - KA2RAF/4 - I'm the NRA, not the ARRL | Buggs Island Lake:
> The BuckHorn WoodWorx of Buggs Island | Virginia's best fishing
>"A mind's a terrible thing to waste, provided you had one to start with"
>"There are 5 boxes to Freedom: Ballot, Witness, Jury, Soap & Cartridge"
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stacey, AA7YA
Demolition Man
Charlie Warfield, Jr. wrote:
>
> Woody wrote:
> > Kill the code or kill the hobby?
> >
> > The time has come...
keep the code, educate the applications. what is easier to build after
learning
the important theory behind it? a cw transceiver or a phone xcvr or atv
counterpart?
while the wpm req is probably high for today's standards, code is a
great thing
to have knowlege of and should be a required part of the licensing
system. perhaps
not such a block to the hf bands but should be in the mix. i personally
frequent other modes of operation with atv being my latest project for
my multi-cast repeater system. still yet, cw come into play whenever a
minimalist/survivalist notion comes about. i have built [as countless
others] a cw transceiver that is powered by alternate energy. it has 4
rechargeble AA batts that are charged either by sunlight or wind power.
this really sparks the interest during field day and open houses at the
club meetings.
>
>
> Morse code is the 90's equivalent of smoke signals. It's a quaint and
> interesting skill, but has no longer has any practical value. The fact
> that it has been abandoned by every other communications entity should
> tell you something.
not so, just about every security oriented solution has cw as backup. i
do advocate relegating cw to backup as it's major role but as important
a requirement as any other. what happens in the thousand what-if
scenarios when a homebrew min cw xcvr is the last means of
communications?
>
> We all lament that it's so hard to get young people interested in ham
> radio, but come on you old buzzards!!! CW IS BORING! How are you going
> to convince the average 10 year old, who will barely even wait for a
> 28,800 b.p.s. modem to do its thing, that tippy-tapping dots and dashes
> at 13 or even 20 w.p.m. is exciting? You're offering them a horse &
> buggy in a space shuttle world, so it should shock no one that they're
> not listening.
the code deciphering programs on my BBS are among the most popular.
kids still like that "secrect code" idea. i agree that it should not
keep them from certain bands and such but still should be a requirement
along with more intense theory.
>
> If we were genuinely interested in perpetuating this hobby, we would
> dump CW outright
i think this would be a giant step in the wrong direction. while i
advocate revamping the code requirements/restrictions, i still feel it
is important.
> and shift focus towards computers, packet, ATV, and
> satellite communications. See a theme here, ladies & gentlemen?
>
i have been a computer pioneer for over 20 years, i can't wait to get
all the new and improved stuff but would be "just another appliance
operator" without the experience and training on all the old antiquated
hardware, software, programming concepts.
> For the record, I am a ham & got my ticket long before no-code, so I'm
> not playing sour grapes here.
>
i'm new to the ham radio world but not to the fun stuff it encompasses.
years of 11 meter listening/disecting sparked while vhf lo/hi police
band fueled the fire. a ham came to the electronics repair store i
frelance for and suggested i take the exam that was being held in 10
days. they would love to have me he said. well a trip to the radio
shack 30 minutes away brought me a no-code manual, a general manual, and
a 4 tape code course.
with no previous code training [except for the morse code chart on my
walkie talkies as a kid!] i came away with a general class ticket in one
test session.
i guess my point is that if someone wants something and is on fire for
it, he/she will do what is required to get it.
if they drop the 20wpm before i upgrade adv/extra, that will be fine.
if not i will be ready for that too.
> No biggie. Just my opinion.
absolutely, no need for flames in this group. plenty of non-hams and
prospects reading here to see what it's all about.
--
A.C.Curtis Missouri's multi-cast repeater. 6m,
70cm
KB0WLF *10m,
*ATV
Bill Sohl
Demolition Man <nospam....@rollanet.org> wrote:
>Charlie Warfield, Jr. wrote:
>> Woody wrote:
>> > Kill the code or kill the hobby?
>> > The time has come...
>keep the code, educate the applications. what is easier to build after
>learning the important theory behind it? a cw transceiver or a
>phone xcvr or atv counterpart?
If code testing ended, what would prevent you frm building
a CW transmitter anyway? The issue isn't to end the USE
of CW by those that want to use it for DX, QRP or whatever.
>while the wpm req is probably high for today's standards, code is a
>great thing to have knowlege of and should be a required part
>of the licensing system.
But you offer NO reason why. You just say it's great to have the
knowledge.
>perhaps
>not such a block to the hf bands but should be in the mix. i personally
>frequent other modes of operation with atv being my latest project for
>my multi-cast repeater system. still yet, cw come into play whenever a
>minimalist/survivalist notion comes about.
Not any more in terms of those that are truly active in the
survivalist and safety aspects of CW. There hasn't even been
a viable use of CW in an emergency condition in years.
> i have built [as countless
>others] a cw transceiver that is powered by alternate energy. it has 4
>rechargeble AA batts that are charged either by sunlight or wind power.
>this really sparks the interest during field day and open houses at the
>club meetings.
And why should that end if CW testing as a requirement ends?
>> Morse code is the 90's equivalent of smoke signals. It's a quaint and
>> interesting skill, but has no longer has any practical value. The fact
>> that it has been abandoned by every other communications entity should
>> tell you something.
>not so, just about every security oriented solution has cw as backup.
Please enlighten us on where that backup is being relied on?
The original statement is correct, CW has been abandoned as a viable
mode for any and all types of emergency communications, both in and
outside of amateur radio.
> i
>do advocate relegating cw to backup as it's major role but as important
>a requirement as any other. what happens in the thousand what-if
>scenarios when a homebrew min cw xcvr is the last means of
>communications?
The lack of even one credible example of that happening is
where the argument fails totally. You want every ham with HF
access to learn CW just in case someone on HF runs into
that situation? The economics of requiring CW today in
case of the one-in-a-million case is not justifiable. We'd be
better off and save more lives mandating all hams know CPR.
>> We all lament that it's so hard to get young people interested in ham
>> radio, but come on you old buzzards!!! CW IS BORING! How are you going
>> to convince the average 10 year old, who will barely even wait for a
>> 28,800 b.p.s. modem to do its thing, that tippy-tapping dots and dashes
>> at 13 or even 20 w.p.m. is exciting? You're offering them a horse &
>> buggy in a space shuttle world, so it should shock no one that they're
>> not listening.
>the code deciphering programs on my BBS are among the most popular.
>kids still like that "secrect code" idea. i agree that it should not
>keep them from certain bands and such but still should be a requirement
>along with more intense theory.
You still offer only yur opinion that we should have CW. You offer
no reasons why.
>> If we were genuinely interested in perpetuating this hobby, we would
>> dump CW outright
>i think this would be a giant step in the wrong direction. while i
>advocate revamping the code requirements/restrictions, i still feel it
>is important.
Because??
>> and shift focus towards computers, packet, ATV, and
>> satellite communications. See a theme here, ladies & gentlemen?
>>
>i have been a computer pioneer for over 20 years, i can't wait to get
>all the new and improved stuff but would be "just another appliance
>operator" without the experience and training on all the old antiquated
>hardware, software, programming concepts.
Radio engineers and techs do not require CW knowledge to
be competent. Neither do hams. As a Navy technician, I never had to
know more code yet I had no problem at all maintaining and
repairing any of the shipboard electronics we had.
>> For the record, I am a ham & got my ticket long before no-code, so I'm
>> not playing sour grapes here.
>>
>i'm new to the ham radio world but not to the fun stuff it encompasses.
>years of 11 meter listening/disecting sparked while vhf lo/hi police
>band fueled the fire. a ham came to the electronics repair store i
>frelance for and suggested i take the exam that was being held in 10
>days. they would love to have me he said. well a trip to the radio
>shack 30 minutes away brought me a no-code manual, a general manual, and
>a 4 tape code course.
>with no previous code training [except for the morse code chart on my
>walkie talkies as a kid!] i came away with a general class ticket in one
>test session.
Wonderful, but that is not the norm, especially as it relates to the
code.
>i guess my point is that if someone wants something and is on fire for
>it, he/she will do what is required to get it.
That's true, but what is required should be justifiable in terms of
why it is a requirement in the first place.
>if they drop the 20wpm before i upgrade adv/extra, that will be fine.
>if not i will be ready for that too.
>> No biggie. Just my opinion.
>absolutely, no need for flames in this group. plenty of non-hams and
>prospects reading here to see what it's all about.
No flame intended at all. Just honest questions and counter
comments.
Bill Sohl K2UNK
ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Mark Schneider
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:17:29 -0600, Demolition Man
<nospam....@rollanet.org> wrote:
SNIP
>not such a block to the hf bands but should be in the mix. i personally
>frequent other modes of operation with atv being my latest project for
>my multi-cast repeater system. still yet, cw come into play whenever a
>minimalist/survivalist notion comes about. i have built [as countless
>others] a cw transceiver that is powered by alternate energy. it has 4
>rechargeble AA batts that are charged either by sunlight or wind power.
>this really sparks the interest during field day and open houses at the
>club meetings.
>>
>>
Hey, can you email me some more info on that CW transceiver?
>--
>A.C.Curtis Missouri's multi-cast repeater. 6m,
>70cm
>KB0WLF *10m,
>*ATV
>
>mailto:dem...@rollanet.org
>http://www.rollanet.org/~demoman/
***************************************************************
* onb...@ma.ultranet.com *
* *
* Mark Schneider, WI1W http://www.ultranet.com/~onbelay *
* Manchester, NH *
***************************************************************
.
Richard Van Fossan
I really have to agree here. I can transmit information at 56KBaud using an
ordinary telephone voice line. Why is it illegal to do exactly the same
using an HF channel? Or a 900 MHz rig?
Charlie Warfield, Jr. <char...@ameritech.net> wrote in article
<332614...@ameritech.net>...
> Woody wrote:
>
> I admit I have not followed this thread all the way through, but I have
> to agree that the code has to go. I have quietly held this view for a
> long time, so I figure this is as good a time as any to speak up.
>
> Morse code is the 90's equivalent of smoke signals. It's a quaint and
> interesting skill, but has no longer has any practical value. The fact
> that it has been abandoned by every other communications entity should
> tell you something.
>
> We all lament that it's so hard to get young people interested in ham
> radio, but come on you old buzzards!!! CW IS BORING! How are you going
> to convince the average 10 year old, who will barely even wait for a
> 28,800 b.p.s. modem to do its thing, that tippy-tapping dots and dashes
> at 13 or even 20 w.p.m. is exciting? You're offering them a horse &
> buggy in a space shuttle world, so it should shock no one that they're
> not listening.
>
> If we were genuinely interested in perpetuating this hobby, we would
> dump CW outright and shift focus towards computers, packet, ATV, and
> satellite communications. See a theme here, ladies & gentlemen?
>
> For the record, I am a ham & got my ticket long before no-code, so I'm
> not playing sour grapes here.
>
> No biggie. Just my opinion.
>
> Charlie
>
William Lee
Do away with code???
Let me check my slide rule for a moment.
OK...... it seems that some people enjoy that mode.
I am one who does not. I perfer the computer. Why not require all hams to
pass a computer test.... retroactive so that all the old CW operators (the
ones who support CW requirements) can get up to speed with modern
communication methods.
Does that follow current logic?
William Lee
Demolition Man
> > For the record, I am a ham & got my ticket long before no-code, so I'm
> > not playing sour grapes here.
> >
> > No biggie. Just my opinion.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> insults, flames, and all sorts of vilifications at you.
>
without any of the above stated negatives. read back a few, you make
yourself sound close-minded which is what you are trying to imply about
pro-coders below. \/
> Please don't give up, though ... keep voicing your opinion and try to
> corner your local CW olde fartz and convince them ... you'll fail to reach
> most, because they're incapable of flexibility and rational thinking on
> the subject, but occasionally you'll gain a convert and that's worth the
> effort.
>
do
what you have already done. cw is not my preferred mode of
communicating
but i do feel it is and will always be an integral part of
communications.
the no-code ticket did alot to open ham radio to those not interested in
cw.
many delve into the code and upgrade because their club displays a
positive
attitude toward the code and the incentive idea. rather than treating
it
as an impossible obstacle, it's shown to be a fun and still useful part
of
radio. there is a way thru the code! i'm 29 and went from no ticket to
general class at one test session with 10 days to learn the code. i did
it
because i really, really, wanted it! so i did what was required to
reach it.
if the code is gone when i go to get my adv/extra ticket that is
wonderful,
if not, then i will be ready for it.
--
A.C.Curtis
KB0WLF
Missouri's multicast repeater: 6m, 70cm, *10m, *ATV
mailto:dem...@rollanet.org
http://www.rollanet.org/~demoman/
Tom Fritz
William Lee (wil...@inwave.com) wrote:
: I am one who does not. I perfer the computer. Why not require all hams to
: pass a computer test.... retroactive so that all the old CW operators (the
: ones who support CW requirements) can get up to speed with modern
: communication methods.
: Does that follow current logic?
: William Lee
William,
Remember, it is not new technolog, but stuff left over from greek
ideas - concepts. Just like airplanes... they ain't new, heck the
first cave man had the basic idea... and kitty hawk does not mean
anything.
--tlf
Jeffrey Herman
William Lee (wil...@inwave.com) wrote:
: I am one who does not. I perfer the computer. Why not require all hams to
: pass a computer test.... retroactive so that all the old CW operators (the
: ones who support CW requirements) can get up to speed with modern
: communication methods.
: Does that follow current logic?
Nope. We're members of the Amateur Radio Service, not the Amateur
Computer Service.
KH2PZ
D.Arnold
WHY do we have CW...it is an operating MODE just like rtty/ssb/or atv
WHY should we learn it if WE dont want to...it does not help our
technical skills..i have operated in the hf band for years as a mars
operator to ships at sea an fixed land stations/ i have operated 10
meters all over the world as a NOVICE then a tech now a tech plus
I NEITHER WANT nor care to use the cw however atv/ssb/eme/meotor scatter
and 1.2ghz comm interest me..NOT CW which just another mode..and thats
all it should be..I am curretn building a MARS STATION with FULL ecomm
capability for the NAVY including downlinking real time satelite
info..every 10 mins. instead of the standard 20-60 mins you find on the
internet for my location (PASCAGOULA MS)...
AGAIN CW is just another mode..lets see that its stays there and doesnt
impeade further progress..I WILL NEVER UPGRADE BECAUSE OF THIS it is not
needed to operate on the higher band and i will not be there i get
around just fine without it thank YOU
DON ARNOLD KB5FHX/NNN0ESR
--
Michael P. Deignan
In article <332C82...@primocomputers.com>,
D.Arnold <D.Ar...@primocomputers.com> wrote:
>I NEITHER WANT nor care to use the cw however atv/ssb/eme/meotor scatter
>and 1.2ghz comm interest me..
In case you didn't know, you don't have to learn CW to use those modes.
You only need to learn CW if you intend to get on HF. Since 3 of the 4
modes you mention are restricted to VHF and above, that really shouldn't
be a matter of contention for you.
MD
--
-- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
-- with my guns.
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
William Lee
Jeffrey Herman <jeff...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote in article
<5ggamo$i...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
> William Lee (wil...@inwave.com) wrote:
>
> : I am one who does not. I perfer the computer. Why not require all hams
to
> : pass a computer test.... retroactive so that all the old CW operators
(the
> : ones who support CW requirements) can get up to speed with modern
> : communication methods.
> : Does that follow current logic?
>
> Nope. We're members of the Amateur Radio Service, not the Amateur
> Computer Service.
> KH2PZ
>
It would be interesting to know how many processor chips you radio has in
it.
Did you build it or purchase it as an appliance? Can you maintain and
repair it?
Do you understand all the logic operating within the case?
That is why we are AMATEUR OPERATORS... using modern comm. equipment.
Not to belittle anyone, just stating the facts. (as I see them)
William Lee N5WRX (general class and proud of it)
Michael P. Deignan
In article <01bc32ce$3dc7fe60$78f431cf@william-lee>,
William Lee <wil...@inwave.com> wrote:
>It would be interesting to know how many processor chips you radio has in it.
My car has a computer in it too. Should I understand embedded machine code
programming before I can drive?
>Did you build it or purchase it as an appliance? Can you maintain and
>repair it?
>Do you understand all the logic operating within the case?
You're asking the wrong guy. Jeff builds all his QRP transceivers.
Tom Fritz
In article <5gjpj3$t...@anomaly.ideamation.com> kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>In article <01bc32ce$3dc7fe60$78f431cf@william-lee>,
> William Lee <wil...@inwave.com> wrote:
>
>>It would be interesting to know how many processor chips you radio has in it.
>
>My car has a computer in it too. Should I understand embedded machine code
>programming before I can drive?
Using that argument...
Are you saying that someone should not learn code, to use a store bought
Ham radio?
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
"Richard Van Fossan" <ri...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>I really have to agree here. I can transmit information at 56KBaud using an
>ordinary telephone voice line. Why is it illegal to do exactly the same
>using an HF channel? Or a 900 MHz rig?
>
snip
last I looked, it's not practical "at this time" to run high speeds on
HF "because it takes too much bandwidth." Don't know my self, because
I'm only just getting into VHF/UHF packet, and sticking to 9600 baud.
I would suspect that if you could find someone to work with, that 56K
would not be unlawful on the UHF/SHF freqs, just difficult- afterall,
the Bit error rate would add up due to multipathing unless you were
working dish to dish LOS like the "big boys" do.
IIRC, even 45 "baud" Baudot communications is substantially faster
than the best Morse work- and there are folks working 1200 on HF freqs
at this time- what does this tell you about the Morse masters?
How about more on antennas and "engineering" as well as "good
practices" in the written testing- or a practical test- set up a Field
Day station and complete a voice contact...
I am a member of the ARRL, but seem to have missed getting one of the
surveys- I guess that I will just have to write in- code is OK if
there is nothing else, but pitifully slow for anything. I don't mind
having to learn some for "Treaty" requirements, but would like to see
it required for relicensure- eg fine, you want to save parts of the HF
bands for our code work, you have to re qualify at your stated speed
every time you renew your license.
In the mean time, change the FCC requirments to match those of the
WARC treaty currently in effect.
ck
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
Kri...@AOL.com KC5EVN
"Reckless, Hell! I hit jus' where I was aimin'"
"Bubba Shot the Jukebox!" Mark Chestnut, 1995
Jeff Stillinger
In article <t5150E7...@netcom.com>, Tom Fritz (t5...@netcom.com) writes:
>William Lee (wil...@inwave.com) wrote:
>
>: I am one who does not. I perfer the computer. Why not require all hams to
>: pass a computer test.... retroactive so that all the old CW operators (the
>: ones who support CW requirements) can get up to speed with modern
>: communication methods.
>
>: Does that follow current logic?
>
>
>William,
>Remember, it is not new technolog, but stuff left over from greek
>ideas - concepts. Just like airplanes... they ain't new, heck the
>first cave man had the basic idea... and kitty hawk does not mean
>anything.
>
>--tlf
>
As I was doing one of those hour and a half drives down the road again,
I got to thinking deeply about no code. At first I thought to myself,
I had to go though it. So shutup and pay ones dues. Then a wave of
thought hit me. This happens so little these days. Can amateur radio
learn from the military. After all the military learned from us a few
times in our history.
I came up with the thought what about "time in grade". Im due for
promotion soon, I think thats why I was thinking about it. Someone
would take a test. Not just any test but a REAL test. Leave the
answers locked up until gradeing time type of test. Cover many of the
same topics covered now, with some added topics such as packet radio.
The first test for a novice license would be 125 questions. 100 would
be multiple guess, 25 would be draw the schematic symbols type of
thing. Draw a simple RCL or full wave bridge. A score of 70% on the 25
question part would be required to pass. A score of 75% would be
required to pass the multiple choice part. The novice license would be
automaticlly upgraded to Tech after 24 months (2 years). The Tech
license will expire 5 years after issue should one not be able to
upgrade. If one can not upgrade, one will have to retest for a
novice class license again. Failure to upgrade to general would
"loop" a person in this process. The current band plan will remain in
effect for each license.
The second test would be for general class. It would be 200 questions
of a more complex nature. 150 questions will be multiple choice and 50
questions will be "fill in the blank". A score of 80% would be required
to pass the multiple choice, a score of 85% would be required to pass
the "fill in the blank". questions. The general class license would
be upgraded automaticlly after 24 months (2 years) to advanced. The
general/advanced license does not expire. Once advanced is awarded it
will be good for life. Again, the current band plan will remain in
effect.
The third test would be for extra class. Extra class will be the
people that issue the tests. This test would be geared towrds the
testing aspect and would be 50 multiple choice questions. A passing
score will be 95%. Again, the current band plan will remain in
effect.
- Study material for each test will be FCC issued. To obtain the
materials a letter of request will be required.
- Study material for each test will fall under the standard government
test compromise rules. In short, one is bound not to say what was in
or on the test or study material.
- A CDROM will be issued to each testing group. This CDROM will have
the question pool for each test. A program that will randomly select
each question for each test will be used.
Just tossing some ideas around. More like passing time as I drove
from eddies hole to L.A. for a taste of real life agian. I really like
the time in grade license upgrade idea. That way everyone gets a shot
at all of the bands in a very short time. Same as now, the faster one
passes the tests the faster the upgrade. But, if someone is challenged
in the brain department one can still have a shot at being a ham.
Jeffrey Herman
William Lee <wil...@inwave.com> wrote:
>Jeffrey Herman <jeff...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote in article
><5ggamo$i...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
>> : I am one who does not. I perfer the computer. Why not require all hams
>to
>> : pass a computer test.... retroactive so that all the old CW operators
>(the
>> : ones who support CW requirements) can get up to speed with modern
>> : communication methods.
>> : Does that follow current logic?
>> Computer Service.
>it.
None.
>Did you build it or purchase it as an appliance?
More than half my transmitters were built myself from scratch. A favorite
pastime of mine is stripping old TV sets and using the components for home-
built transmitters.*
>Can you maintain and repair it?
Since I built them from scratch I can certainly maintain and repair them.
>Do you understand all the logic operating within the case?
Most of them don't have a case - just an open chassis. Great conversation
pieces! Heck, some are mounted on pieces of wood with copper tacks as
solder joints. When I get on the air the other op can't tell if it's
one of your microprocessor-controlled rigs or a breadboard rig (except
the VFO does a little jump if you cough too hard on it).
>That is why we are AMATEUR OPERATORS... using modern comm. equipment.
Oh, I see (or as Jim would say, "O, I C"). I'll pit your modern comm
equipment against anything I've built. Bet they will sound the same
on the air.
>Not to belittle anyone, just stating the facts. (as I see them)
Okay.
>William Lee N5WRX (general class and proud of it)
73,
Jeff KH2PZ
*Those not built from scratch consist of an HW-16 which I'm rebuilding
due to bad assembly by it's original builder, and a Galaxy GT-550 which
is easy to maintain and repair.
Charlie Warfield, Jr.
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>
> So you only build completely stupid equipment that depends
> entirely on "operator skill" ... that's quaint, but it sure doesn't
> do much for advancing any skills ... once you've learned how
> to solder well and stuff parts on a board, there's not a hell of
> a lot of "advanced" things to be done with simple a simple CW
> transmitter.
Oh how I agree! The pro-code geezers are trying to defend a 100+ year
old communications medium under the guise of "skill". Big flipping deal!
Knowing how to build a CW transmitter is like knowing how to build a
steam engine: It does require skill and practice, and probably has some
practical value, but how often is it really needed or desired in the
real world?
I also deeply resent the sentiment that proponents of modern equipment
and modes don't know anything. I'll bet I know more about this computer
than the best CW operator knows about CW. And I can communicate millions
of times faster and more efficiently to boot.
Yeesh! I think the "coders" realize it is the 90's, we just have to
convince them it's the 1990's. I wonder how many of them ride a horse to
work everyday because it requires more "skill" than passively sitting
there with your hands on a wheel and pushing some pedals with your
feet.
No biggie. Just my opinion.
73
Charlie
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jeffrey Herman <jeff...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote in article
<5glbp7$m...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
> William Lee <wil...@inwave.com> wrote:
>
> >It would be interesting to know how many processor chips you radio has
in
> >it.
>
> None.
So you only build completely stupid equipment that depends
entirely on "operator skill" ... that's quaint, but it sure doesn't
do much for advancing any skills ... once you've learned how
to solder well and stuff parts on a board, there's not a hell of
a lot of "advanced" things to be done with simple a simple CW
transmitter.
> >Did you build it or purchase it as an appliance?
>
> More than half my transmitters were built myself from scratch. A favorite
> pastime of mine is stripping old TV sets and using the components for
home-
> built transmitters.*
Again, it appears that you only build simple transmitter strips ...
now that's fine, but without a receiver you're sort of wasting
your time, right?
As has been pointed out, receivers are generally more tricky
than simple CW transmitters ... however, just as it's no big leap
to go from an OOK Morse tx to an FSK tx and pick up at least
6 dB of improvement in the process, it's not a huge leap to go from
a receiver that's capable of receiving OOK Morse to one that's
capable of demodulating a bit stream from that FSK signal, either.
I find it very difficult to understand why you beepers maintain that
there's such a huge advantage in "maintaining the simplicity of CW"
when the simplicity is virtually nonexistant relative to much better
methods ... the only difference of any *real* significance is that
beepers insist on keeping a part of the signal processing in one's
head, instead of relegating such menial chores to a simple machine
that can do a much better job ...
> >Can you maintain and repair it?
>
> Since I built them from scratch I can certainly maintain and repair them.
In this respect, I have to "give the devil his due" and admit that you're
head
and shoulders above Mr. "Put it in a box and send it back to Yaesu" (Mike
D.)
> >Do you understand all the logic operating within the case?
>
> Most of them don't have a case - just an open chassis. Great conversation
> pieces! Heck, some are mounted on pieces of wood with copper tacks as
> solder joints. When I get on the air the other op can't tell if it's
> one of your microprocessor-controlled rigs or a breadboard rig (except
> the VFO does a little jump if you cough too hard on it).
So there's essentially no shielding and the oscillator is a tad
microphonic.
As the "Church Lady" (of Saturday Night Live fame) would have said, "Well
isn't *that* _special_."
I guess that's to be expected when one insists on such "low tech" methods
(hint ... the poor connections that likely result from "copper tacks as
solder
joints" can be a significant source of non-linear distortion, and may cause
interference problems ... beware)
It is a bit sad and discouraging, however, that you insist on proliferating
such marginal techniques to newcomers who don't know any better when
you tell them (and it appears that *you* sincerely believe your own
falsehoods)
that "this is great stuff!"
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBMzAE7eIP1XFmaCFVAQEdXgQArQou0q+5Cvfhf4iws4mDSZcIQi/1jZPr
Tc0cXEm/iD7qiKjT6m8gQD5nYYYqEb1wFKpjrG+nWLgnZDoR/3KcYIyI4+7pxQUZ
M92tfA5+0uFI+2MwQgRiVSM3/aAlP9WTH9sNDNpi4M4zyp1oAww8VW9zc/X40B+E
f2n/BXrhDBc=
=tRSc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Lee
Why not let those who like CW keep it.
A CW class ticket would permit the operator to work CW in the CW parts of
the bands.
A no code ticket would not permit use of the CW portion ot the bands.
This really seems fair to me, but then who am I?
Is it true that during disasters thr FCC is asked to permit voice operation
in the CW portions of the bands?
William Lee N5WRX
The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force
In article <01bc34c6$3b3db500$12f431cf@william-lee>,
Seems reasonable to me.
>A CW class ticket would permit the operator to work CW in the CW parts of
>the bands.
>
>A no code ticket would not permit use of the CW portion ot the bands.
>
>This really seems fair to me, but then who am I?
It would be an improvement on the current system, but the restriction itself
seems unnecessary. If only CW operation is permitted in a subband, then you
have to know Morse Code to operate there. The only purpose a test would
serve would be to keep slow-coders from operating CW.
Charlie Brown
CW is a part of ham radio and should always be. I know it kept me
from getting into the hobbie for most of my life because I didn't
think I could learn code, but if the truth be known, I was probably
like 99% of the people who are for no-code---lazy. Once I made up my
mind to work at learning code it was surprisingly easier than I
thought, but it did take determination to keep at it every night if
for only a few minutes. Well, I started this quest in March of 1991
and by November I had my Extra ticket. If I can do it anyone can. It
had an extra benifit, because when I decided to learn to fly I
discovered that each airport has a three letter identifying beacon and
it's in morse code; my instructor was impressed. KG7TV
Demolition Man <nospam....@rollanet.org> wrote:
>> > For the record, I am a ham & got my ticket long before no-code, so I'm
>> > not playing sour grapes here.
>> >
>> > No biggie. Just my opinion.
>> >
Evil Burrito
I just happened to be passing by, and noticed this thread... Permit me
(an old ex-ham) to share my one thought with you guys...
I happened upon a recent vintage ham a little while ago, who proudly
showed me his hand held two meter transciever; punching all the neat
little buttons... explaining about how he could punch up the repeater
and dial up a sattelite, and all sorts of wonderful stuff I didn't
really feel too interested in... He did this for me because I had told
him that I had been a ham...
So, whatta 'ya think? he asked.
I told him that it all resembled a cell phone, was my reply.
Where's the magic, anymore? Where's the thrill of hassling with a
drifting receiver and a cranky transmitter.... Where's the challenge of
trying to sort out a weak cw signal from Portugal, beneath all the
clutter of 50 other guys, all trying to butt in, or whatever else
they're doing? Where's the pride in having your own fist, or being able
to recognise a buddy's... without hearing his call sign???
No smell of hot phenolic and wax capacitors. or the trhill of late
nights, illuminated by the dim purple glow of my old final amps, pulsing
to the rythym of my unspoken words...
Nah, I couldn't get too interested in this new stuff... there's just not
enough romance in it for me...
Thanks for listening, anyway...
K9WVQ, ret.
larry
On 20 Mar 1997 00:38:09 GMT, "William Lee" <wil...@inwave.com> wrote:
>
>Why not let those who like CW keep it.
>
>A CW class ticket would permit the operator to work CW in the CW parts of
>the bands.
>
>A no code ticket would not permit use of the CW portion ot the bands.
>
>This really seems fair to me, but then who am I?
>
>Is it true that during disasters thr FCC is asked to permit voice operation
>in the CW portions of the bands?
>
>William Lee N5WRX
I hear where you are coming from, but, who is going to volunteer to
learn the mose code.
People don't, usually, appreciate the value behind learning the morse
code until they have used it for some time.
I haven't used the code since the mid 70's yet I praise the day I
started learning it. During the time I did use it, it served me very
well.
Larry ve3fxq
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
larry <la...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<3335a202...@news.sprynet.com>...
> I hear where you are coming from, but, who is going to volunteer to
> learn the mose code.
Very few, but that's not a reason to force everyone ...
> People don't, usually, appreciate the value behind learning the morse
> code until they have used it for some time.
Most of us who did invest large amounts of time and effort learning
the code, still do not see any value ... even many who actually
profess that they regularly use and enjoy Morse, feel that forcing
it on everyone is a bad idea, given the state of ham radio and
the technical situation relative to today's *real* world.
> I haven't used the code since the mid 70's yet I praise the day I
> started learning it.
So, by God, everybody has to learn it because *you* think it was
a good thing for you?
Sounds much more like "I had to do it, so so do you!"
During the time I did use it, it served me very well.
During the time I used it, code never served me very well.
It was slow, inefficient, frustrating, and very limiting ... not
something I wanted to continue to use.
Now I know that some pro-code zealot will come along
and try to throw out a bunch of insults, saying that "I was
too lazy to learn the code right" or something, but I don't
carl ... that's all just a pile of crap. There is NO valid reason
in today's world to force everyone to learn Morse in order
to gain access to totally unrelated HF priveleges ... therefore
it's nothing more than a hazing ritual and goverment licensing
schemes should not be centered around the maintenance
of the hazing rituals prescribed by the Archaic Retro Radio
Luddites.
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBMzV+r+IP1XFmaCFVAQE4KQP/fpWZAvM4qB/XBoBViF6KGx08CEA92Tqu
CesF+XiyVmztqbRlam+x2XSuaI2SSr7L6Pt9lB5ry5R+bQkXVaHKTG6a8VxgR8Xx
d9TtpoL/7Pl5lxAJiIgzyDV+gGGkAtRhFYSDK4IwkVwfMDFFyh0GkAA+TIHWl8kR
vSeVdz03/us=
=zsj5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael P. Deignan
In article <01bc37bd$06503e40$97c1...@carl.ais.net>,
Carl R. Stevenson <ca...@ais.net> wrote:
>> People don't, usually, appreciate the value behind learning the morse
>> code until they have used it for some time.
>
>Most of us who did invest large amounts of time and effort learning
>the code, still do not see any value
Ah, so now the truth starts to shine its ugly head.
Carl invested "large amounts of time and effort learning the code".
Yet, Carl is a 5WPM, coded tech.
Thus, we now know why Carl never upgraded. Code doesn't come
easily to him. It requires a great deal of effort for him to
learn.
So, rather than put the effort in, Carl has remained a coded
tech for 20+ years.
Now, he wants to eliminate the code so he can "upgrade". In
other words, its that typical welfare-state mentality. Carl
wants something for nothing.
Bill Newkirk
Charlie Brown wrote:
>
> CW is a part of ham radio and should always be. I know it
that's not a good reason for a test requirement. CW was always part
of the marine radio or military radio or commercial radio at one time
or another and yet it's been supplanted by other systems.
after all, you used to have to call an operator to place a call. today
you dial direct. why not go back to the days of cord boards and "number,
please?"...after all it's part of the history of the telephone system.
Kurt Bilinski
Children please,
One side whines that CW is slow and inefficient. Going along with that
mentality, people who use CW talk (slowly) about nothing except, what,
how big their antenna is, what their power amp rating is, and what far
off station they just talked to.
Now the other side...
With the latest digital techniques, what are we up to, about 20kbaud?
And what do you guys discuss that necessitates this high speed
throughput? Nothing. Sorry, not quite true, there's how big the antenna
is, what the power amp rating is, and what far off station was just
contacted. Only difference is you run out of things to talk about much
faster...
As soon as the satallite phone system is in place, you digital guys will
sell your ham equipment, right? I mean, you want the very latest in
maximum data throughput. No one wants to settle for that "old
technology", right?
Give it a rest, it's a hobby. Each of you imply you're somehow better
then the other. The joke is, people outside this hobby view each of you
as the _same_; geeks!
Feeling defensive? Thinking "I don't care what other people think?"
Really? Then let other people use CW or digital, or whatever they want.
Like a bunch of spoiled children,
WB6DSW
Michael P. Deignan
In article <333C51...@ameritech.net>,
Todd Little <lit...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>amateurs
>are led to believe that manual OOK Morse Code is the "be all, end all"
>with respect to reliability, weak signal performance, simplicity,
>etc.
Maybe not in terms of all modes available to amateurs, no, it isn't.
However, in terms of the most popular modes that amateurs use (FM,
SSB, CW) it certainly is.
>That's all many of us are trying to promote. If the Morse ops want
>to use and require Morse proficiency, then let them have it in their
>exclusive bands. On the other hand, let those that wish to use
>other modes also do likewise without bowing to the Morse God.
I like the idea of mode-based testing. You want CW, take a CW test.
You want SSB, take a SSB test. And so on. Unfortunately the no-code
contingent consistantly calls this "too complicated". Their ultimate
goal is no-code, no-theory. The ultimate in uncomplicated licensing.
Todd Little
Kurt Bilinski wrote:
>
> Children please,
>...
> Give it a rest, it's a hobby. Each of you imply you're somehow better
> then the other. The joke is, people outside this hobby view each of you
> as the _same_; geeks!
I don't know that it is a question of better or not. I'm usually
interested in busting "Morse Myth" (tm) that seem to be promoted here
on a regular basis. Unfortunately due to tradition, outdated
training material, and a bias in the licensing system, amateurs
are led to believe that manual OOK Morse Code is the "be all, end all"
with respect to reliability, weak signal performance, simplicity,
etc. That most of the that is either untrue or of little consequence,
matters not a whit to those trying to maintain the status quo.
> Feeling defensive? Thinking "I don't care what other people think?"
>
> Really? Then let other people use CW or digital, or whatever they want.
That's all many of us are trying to promote. If the Morse ops want
to use and require Morse proficiency, then let them have it in their
exclusive bands. On the other hand, let those that wish to use
other modes also do likewise without bowing to the Morse God.
> Like a bunch of spoiled children,
Who's "spoiled"? Those that are "with" or those that are "without"?
73,
Todd
N9MWB
--
Unsolicited business offers sent to my e-mail address will be
considered a request for me to proofread the offer and in
turn reimburse me $500 for my time and effort for each offer
received.
William Lee
As a general class amateur I have taken and passed the 13 wpm cw test.
However, if my radio quit working on the cw bands I would never know it.
Why was I required to pass a cw test knowing that I did not like it or
would ever use it?
I do not know the answer. I did it because I wanted the general class
ticket.
And if you think it was easy for me, think again.
I do not feel that I am any better than any other class operator because of
it.
Radio is radio and I say welcome to all who enjoy it as a hobby.
If that sounds like spoiled whining then all I can say is .... whaaaa
whaaaaa.
I got mine.....
William Lee N5WRX ..... was KB8DWQ and WD5CQS
Gerald Schmitt
In <5hhore$5...@anomaly.ideamation.com> kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com
(Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>In article <333C51...@ameritech.net>,
> Todd Little <lit...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>>are led to believe that manual OOK Morse Code is the "be all, end
all"
>>with respect to reliability, weak signal performance, simplicity,
>>etc.
>
>However, in terms of the most popular modes that amateurs use (FM,
>SSB, CW) it certainly is.
>
>
>>to use and require Morse proficiency, then let them have it in their
>>exclusive bands. On the other hand, let those that wish to use
>>other modes also do likewise without bowing to the Morse God.
>
>You want SSB, take a SSB test. And so on. Unfortunately the no-code
>contingent consistantly calls this "too complicated". Their ultimate
>goal is no-code, no-theory. The ultimate in uncomplicated licensing.
Michael,
Your comments here remind me of the accusation you leveled at me the
other day. You seem the be pulling "facts" out of thin air. You speak
to others' motivation and goals, sorry Michael, you can't know our
minds. You make these rash statements despite the fact that the anti
code test crowd has repeatedly and vigorisly denied what you claim is
true.
Are we to believe you, and assume that all the folks who post here who
do not believe that amateur radio is served by the code test, are
liars.
I believe that the folks who would end the code test are honorable and
you defame them with this broad brush accusation. An apology would be
nice; and quite a surprise.
Jerry
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Michael P. Deignan <kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com> wrote in article
<5hhore$5...@anomaly.ideamation.com>...
>
> I like the idea of mode-based testing. You want CW, take a CW test.
> You want SSB, take a SSB test. And so on. Unfortunately the no-code
> contingent consistantly calls this "too complicated". Their ultimate
> goal is no-code, no-theory. The ultimate in uncomplicated licensing.
Mike, that's an outright lie ... and you damned well know it!
We no-code-test advocates have VERY consistently voiced a belief
that the written tests should be made more meaningful and relevant
and the wrote memorization of answers to the theory parts should be
eliminated (band limits and other rules things are simple memorization
for everyone, but people shouldn't be able to get a license without truly
understanding the technical parts)
In fact, it's been the pro-coders (you included, I believe, though I
haven't
checked the archives) who keep saying "eliminate the code, eliminate
the theory, we're all appliance operators anyway ..."
I know you have some very slanted views on the code/no-code
issue, and believe it or not I believe that you're entitled to hold
those views even though think they're ridiculous and oppose them
... but please try to refrain from outright lies in your zeal to
forward the pro-code position ...
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBMz1VzuIP1XFmaCFVAQEQbQQAkZk9Els/su2HI+I1KW+U+KYEMhxeTJrB
i4TYfmcjktoTynyShrLXlpB1Sk847VGrUh6G8Dhs7sJgRkpouyvjlCg/f+xxcdpd
PYyc7wiAB9pjhDk4dJNS/DRQlpLSZgKRL6qjFvChu2wFt9+GN5mHHVftgSyCyDxs
vrRZdgeKyeo=
=glTJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Gerald Schmitt <kc5...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5hi305$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <5hhore$5...@anomaly.ideamation.com> kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com
> (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> >
> >I like the idea of mode-based testing. You want CW, take a CW test.
> >You want SSB, take a SSB test. And so on. Unfortunately the no-code
> >contingent consistantly calls this "too complicated". Their ultimate
> >goal is no-code, no-theory. The ultimate in uncomplicated licensing.
>
> Michael,
>
> Your comments here remind me of the accusation you leveled at me the
> other day. You seem the be pulling "facts" out of thin air. You speak
> to others' motivation and goals, sorry Michael, you can't know our
> minds. You make these rash statements despite the fact that the anti
> code test crowd has repeatedly and vigorisly denied what you claim is
> true.
I called him on this lie, too ... I don't believe that this was an
"innocent
mistake" on MD's part ... I don't think he cares how far the truth is
violated
in the course of furthering his pro-code rantings ...
> Are we to believe you, and assume that all the folks who post here who
> do not believe that amateur radio is served by the code test, are
> liars.
>
> I believe that the folks who would end the code test are honorable and
> you defame them with this broad brush accusation. An apology would be
> nice; and quite a surprise.
Please don't hold your breath, Jerry ...
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBMz1WzeIP1XFmaCFVAQFIHQP+Pd+DBPBJPM8GHOiVwTSgkkfSteOZUTpN
D2FkFXK1gerrEEFbCCEtdjG39Yz37Fd6ZACCJXYOjmhJOH0VEuM7qDqYfy/0rOa5
gk+Vj1XpZhSWgaa2CCJB8pGZcEAykyLeZ7CJy/u2ZDp2ExRg3LHGlqqwoSTeirZy
+vvyg5tz8yY=
=Tvb4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Todd Little
Michael P. Deignan wrote:
>
> In article <333C51...@ameritech.net>,
> Todd Little <lit...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
> >amateurs
> >are led to believe that manual OOK Morse Code is the "be all, end all"
> >with respect to reliability, weak signal performance, simplicity,
> >etc.
>
> Maybe not in terms of all modes available to amateurs, no, it isn't.
> However, in terms of the most popular modes that amateurs use (FM,
> SSB, CW) it certainly is.
Many (most) don't qualify their stances because they believe themselves
to be correct under all conditions. I'd wager that 50% of all amateurs
believe it to be impossible to copy a signal that they can't detect
much less copy by ear.
> I like the idea of mode-based testing. You want CW, take a CW test.
> You want SSB, take a SSB test. And so on. Unfortunately the no-code
> contingent consistantly calls this "too complicated". Their ultimate
> goal is no-code, no-theory. The ultimate in uncomplicated licensing.
I have heard few claim that it is "too complicated", although it would
make our licensing structure even more arcane than it already is. What
purpose would mode specific testing serve? Is an inept RTTY operator
going to cause any significant harm to anyone else? For that matter,
as I've asked before, what harm does someone with a lousy fist or
poor copying skills cause by utilizing OOK Morse Code?
73,
Todd
N9MWB
PS Please follow up to rec.radio.amateur.policy where this belongs.
Mark VandeWettering
>I like the idea of mode-based testing. You want CW, take a CW test.
>You want SSB, take a SSB test. And so on. Unfortunately the no-code
>contingent consistantly calls this "too complicated". Their ultimate
>goal is no-code, no-theory. The ultimate in uncomplicated licensing.
*sigh* I wish I knew why people believed this. I have yet to read
or hear a single argument which suggests a theory exam is not needed
for radio amateurs. Nobody believes that.
There is a very simple reason for eliminating the code requirement:
Testing is not required for any other operational mode.
Hams seem to fear that everyone in the universe will want to join their
ranks unless they introduce large barriers to entry into the hobby. Catch a
clue people, there are already no-license hi-tech digital hand-held radios,
they are called cell phones. They are convenient, available, and relatively
cheap for large numbers of people. There is already no-license hi-tech
packet at data rates substantially higher than the vast majority of packet
radio, its called "the Internet".
One can get side tracked into all the issues of why CW is a good mode:
1) equipment is relatively cheap and simple to design and build
2) there is a long standing tradition of CW
3) it gets through where SSB and AM can't.
4) it is fun!
which are certainly all true, but none of which are particularly compelling
to require MANDATORY operational testing. If I choose not to use Morse,
then so be it. I should not be forced to demonstrate a skill which I have
no interest in developing.
Mark
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://webspace.com/markv/
<ma...@webspace.com> Clear Skies!
Michael P. Deignan
>There is a very simple reason for eliminating the code requirement:
>
> Testing is not required for any other operational mode.
That is irrelevant. There should be operational testing of some sort for
full privileges in other modes.
>Hams seem to fear that everyone in the universe will want to join their
>ranks unless they introduce large barriers to entry into the hobby.
If you changed the word "everyone" to "technically unqualified", you'd
hit the nail on the head.
Jim Cummings
Michael P. Deignan wrote:
>
> In article <5hrmmf$e...@pixar.com>, Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
>
> >There is a very simple reason for eliminating the code requirement:
> >
> > Testing is not required for any other operational mode.
>
> That is irrelevant. There should be operational testing of some sort for
> full privileges in other modes.
>
It certainly is a relevant question when there is no compelling need for
such testing... or does Deignan believe in testing for testing's sake?
> >Hams seem to fear that everyone in the universe will want to join their
> >ranks unless they introduce large barriers to entry into the hobby.
>
> If you changed the word "everyone" to "technically unqualified", you'd
> hit the nail on the head.
>
So how does Morse code testing, or mode testing for that matter, make one
"technically qualified"? Since it doesn't, there is no need for mode
testing.
> MD
> --
> -- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
> -- with my guns.
> --
> -- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
73 and live better digitally
Jim, VE3XJ
The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force
>If you changed the word "everyone" to "technically unqualified", you'd
>hit the nail on the head.
If you are worried about the "technically unqualified", then test for
technical qualifications, not Morse Code.
Greg Emerson
> >Hams seem to fear that everyone in the universe will want to join their
> >ranks unless they introduce large barriers to entry into the hobby.
Learning CW is a "large barrier"? Please!
The truth is that people don't want to learn CW because it takes a
little time and effort and they don't want to have to do it. I know that
is why I didn't want to! But it was the requirement, so I did it. Can I
just pass on the college classes that I think are bullshit and that I'll
never use and get my degree anyway? Naw.
I don't think it's so much a barrier they are trying to put up, or a
"technically unqualified" element they are trying to keep out. CW takes
a *little* effort and time to learn and I think people in this "instant
gratification" period we live in want to talk on the radio NOW.
I think learning CW shows a minimum level of committment and
perseverance that are good qualities for people in the hobby to have.
This minimum level of commitment and perseverence I am referring to
transcends all levels of hierarchy. Poor people, rich people,
handicapped people, yes, ALL people can qualify.
I am not against "no-code"licensing nor do I look down at no-code hams,
I just think I understand why learning morse code has been a requirement
and I don't think it was a bad idea.
Take care everyone and 73.
Greg WG8N
Michael P. Deignan
In article <5hugg1$3...@masters0.InterNex.Net>,
I'd like to. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to see any
changes anytime soon. So, its better to stick with what we have
then make things more lax.
Jeffrey Herman
>There is a very simple reason for eliminating the code requirement:
>
> Testing is not required for any other operational mode.
Easy to fix. Require skill tests for all the popular modes.
Jeff KH2PZ
D.Arnold
Rocco wrote:
>
> Did anyone ever wonder why OUR hobby is in trouble????
> Arguments like this one take place on the air everyday. I enjoy all bands
> and modes.
> For what its worth, if you like CW (as I do) then operate cw, but don't
> cram it down
> everyones jaw. Stick to what you like and don't bitch about what you don't
> like.
>
> 73
> Rocco
> WU2M
VERY sensible approach..
DON kb5FHX
Rocco
Joe Subich
In message <5hrmmf$e...@pixar.com> - ma...@pixar.com (Mark
VandeWettering)1 Apr 1997 19:12:15 GMT writes:
:>
:>If I choose not to use Morse, then so be it.
Fine, use it on not as you see fit.
:>I should not be forced to demonstrate a skill which I have no
:>interest in developing.
If you have no interest in developing amateur radio's most basic skill,
you have no interest in becomming a radio amateur.
:>Catch a clue people, there are already no-license hi-tech digital
:>hand-held radios, they are called cell phones. They are convenient,
:>available, and relatively cheap for large numbers of people.
That's right, there is a REASON it's called cellular telephone and not
amateur radio ... any moron can buy/lease a cellphone there is no reason
for any license/competency testing.
:>There is already no-license hi-tech packet at data rates substantially
:>higher than the vast majority of packet radio, its called "the Internet".
Correct again, Sherlock. It's the internet, primarily wireline based
and
*NOT* amateur radio. One need only look at much of the activity on "the
net" and know that it takes no talent, knowlege, or ability ... just a
checkbook to get on the net. Anyone believe that The Amateur Radio
Service should become just another checkbook hobby?
========================================================================
Joe Subich, W8IK ex-AD8I
<W8...@IBM.NET>
<W8...@AMSAT.ORG>
<sub...@ibm.net>
<sub...@compuserve.com>
========================================================================
Bill Sohl
Greg Emerson <greg...@lni.net> wrote:
>> >Hams seem to fear that everyone in the universe will want to join their
>> >ranks unless they introduce large barriers to entry into the hobby.
>Learning CW is a "large barrier"? Please!
>The truth is that people don't want to learn CW because it takes a
>little time and effort and they don't want to have to do it. I know that
>is why I didn't want to! But it was the requirement, so I did it. Can I
>just pass on the college classes that I think are bullshit and that I'll
>never use and get my degree anyway? Naw.
College is a choice you can change. You can go to
different schools to avoid some types of required classes.
In any case, this is a government licensing requirement,
not a private entity. Simply put, the government has
an obligation to ONLY have relavent test requirements.
You don't find questions on the theory test on
vacuum tubes anymore because times have changed.
That is the position morse should be in....dropped as
a requirement because it is absolutely of no importance
to contemporary communications on HF. Use it all
you want, but the government has no role to play in
fostering continued use of a mode which has only
entertainment/enjoyment value.
>I don't think it's so much a barrier they are trying to put up, or a
>"technically unqualified" element they are trying to keep out. CW takes
>a *little* effort and time to learn and I think people in this "instant
>gratification" period we live in want to talk on the radio NOW.
The role of government testing is NOT to establish a work
ethic, sense of commitment or any other subjective quality
in an amateur. The role of government testing must be limited
t testing for a minimum set of qualifications to allow a person
to operate in the amateur bands.
>I think learning CW shows a minimum level of committment and
>perseverance that are good qualities for people in the hobby to have.
>This minimum level of commitment and perseverence I am referring to
>transcends all levels of hierarchy. Poor people, rich people,
>handicapped people, yes, ALL people can qualify.
See the above again.
>I am not against "no-code"licensing nor do I look down at no-code hams,
>I just think I understand why learning morse code has been a requirement
>and I don't think it was a bad idea.
You don't think it was a bad idea, yet you admit you don't
understand why it is a requirement. Does that make any sense at all?
Bill Sohl K2UNK
ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Bill Sohl
sub...@ibm.net (Joe Subich) wrote:
>In message <5hrmmf$e...@pixar.com> - ma...@pixar.com (Mark
>VandeWettering)1 Apr 1997 19:12:15 GMT writes:
>:>
>:>If I choose not to use Morse, then so be it.
>Fine, use it on not as you see fit.
>:>I should not be forced to demonstrate a skill which I have no
>:>interest in developing.
>If you have no interest in developing amateur radio's most basic skill,
>you have no interest in becomming a radio amateur.
Presumably this qualifies as a rephrasing of the claim that
only real hams use morse code.
Gerald Schmitt
In <5hsj4d$r...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman)
writes:
Even easier to fix. Loose the code test ASAP
Jerry KK5YY
Jim Cummings
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
> In article <5hrmmf$e...@pixar.com>, Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
>
> >There is a very simple reason for eliminating the code requirement:
> >
> > Testing is not required for any other operational mode.
>
> Easy to fix. Require skill tests for all the popular modes.
>
I think the Herman's notion that operations testing is an easy fix is much
easier said than done. I would hope that he can respond to some of my
concerns as follows:
It goes without saying that testing is undertaken to confirm that the
individual has the necessary skill or knowledge of that subject. However,
since the government's legitimate concern is the mititigation of interference
is among the users of the radio frequency spectrum, Herman has failed to show
that such testing would be of benefit to amateur operation in general. Since
Morse code testing has utterly failed to do so, what justifies Herman's
proposal to expand operational testing when Morse code has utterly failed
produce the desired results? (There is no doubt that skills testing is
important in the priviledges that are granted by the government, Herman has
failed to show that such testing will solve certain problems in the context
of amateur radio certification.) I can only conclude that Herman is unable
to justify Morse code testing; yet, attempts to legitimize its existance by
calling for the testing of the use of all modes. Since operational testing
is useless in one mode, there is little chance that operational testing in
all modes would be any less irrelevant.
Be that as it may, I would foresee a number of hurdles that the candidate
would have to overcome. For example, let us presume that the operational
testing for radiotelephone operation would be to communicate in that mode.
Certainly, it would be odd to test an individual capability in such a skill
having never been exposed to the operation of a radio. It only follows that
the individual will have to practise such skills; but, the is problematical
because the individual is prohibited from operating an amateur station
without a licence. Thus, each prospective amateur would have to have an
"elmer" to coach the individual along while practising these skills on air.
What sort of accomodations would Herman recommend for those individuals who
are unable to find and "elmer" for whatever reason? For that matter, I would
imagine the Herman would not qualify as an "elmer", considering his disdain
for digital communications (surely digital communications would be designated
as "popular" by Herman....)
Another notion that I find questionable in Herman's proposal is that
operational testing is limited to only the "popular" mode. Would Herman be
kind enough to inform us as to what criteria would determine which mode is
"popular" and which is "unpopular"? What justifies this distinction? Is
that not, like Morse code testing is now, arbitrary in nature? Would it not
make more sense to test one's capabilities on those modes which are most
likely to cause interference rather than on the shallow notion of its
popularity? From a technical point of view, such testing is more likely for
the "unpopular" modes because those are the ones that most likely are used by
the real experimenters. But this points out that the "popularity" of a mode,
with respect to others is irrelevant to the issue to the government's
legitimate interests in managing the radio frequency spectrum. For example,
as Herman has said many times, CW is the second most popular mode on the HF
spectrum. However, he has never explained how the knowledge of Morse code is
relative to mitigating interfering with other radio frequency spectrum users.
What is seemingly forgotten by Herman is that it is the spectral purity of
the emission that is of importance whereas the encoding scheme is
insignifcant in so far as the legitimate concerns of the government.
Another issue that Herman fails to address is the concern of ensuring that
the testing is objective, and removing, to the greatest extent possible, the
subjectivity of the tester. What has to be considered is that operational
testing doesn't devolve to a "pro forma" exercise and no one would fail; yet,
there should be a definite criteria to measure the candidates capabilities
while at the same time, extracting the tester's personal bias. The former is
more likely, whereas the latter is unattainable. But anyways, Herman avoids
the core question - What is to be gained by operational testing? Since there
is nothing gained with Morse code testing, in so far as the government is
concerned, why must it be compounded by the addition of operational testing
of other modes which also irrelevant to the government's concerns? The
corollary to this question is if the concern is the bad behaviour of certain
individuals on the bands, Morse code testing was ineffective, what make
Herman believe that expanding such operational testing would be any more
effective?
I would hope that Herman would be kind enough to address these concerns.
> Jeff KH2PZ
Angela Simons
: As a general class amateur I have taken and passed the 13 wpm cw test.
: However, if my radio quit working on the cw bands I would never know it.
: Why was I required to pass a cw test knowing that I did not like it or
: would ever use it?
: I do not know the answer. I did it because I wanted the general class
: ticket.
VERY GOOD! You did it because: You wanted the ticket! That IS the
reason that the code should NOT die. I have heard lots of people say that the
code is no longer a *critical* part of amateur radio OPERATION, and hence
it should no longer be required as a test element. The operation part may be
correct, but a critical part of LICENSING it must continue to be. In all of
the posts of people who seek to abolish CW testing, I have yet to hear a
proposal for replacing it. WHAT?! REPLACE IT?! WE JUST WANT IT GONE!! Well,
the trouble is that, without the code, there is simply no challenge to
obtaining a ham ticket. None whatsoever. I'm sure that even the most hard-
core CW-test-haters would agree: If everybody could get an Extra ticket on
their first test date, the airwaves would be teaming with newbies, many of
whom would lack the learned respect for their hobby. THIS IS NOT TO SAY that
those who opt NOT to upgrade lack this respect, or are in some way "newbies"
even after years of VHF-only operation. They simply DON'T WANT HF enough to
have it. BAR NONE.
The "incentive licensing" scheme is ENTIRELY HELD UP by CW testing.
Do we really want to hastily destroy this necessary foundation of Ham radio
without considering some way to keep it going? I received my Technician
No-Code license in March of '93, when I was 17 years old, and was "Temporary
AE" by December of the same year. If CW testing had not existed, the only
thing that would have prevented me from going from Tech to Extra in one month
would have been the fact that there was only one ARRL testing session per
month. I'm 21 years old now (as of January), and head up Washington State
University's "Rho Epsilon Amateur Radio Fraternity." In the past year, I have
helped ten members get their 5 WPM, and 2 get their 13. Nobody took more that
one week to learn 5, and the two who got their 13 did so because they took my
advice and tried 5 WPM on-the-air.
My point after all this: I think CW is great, and I enjoy using it
on-the-air, too. There are many who don't enjoy CW, however, and this is OK.
I don't believe, however, that the so-called No-Code movement had considered
the impact that removing the code testing would have on incentive licensing.
It would be devastating. In my own humble opinion, many of those who call
themselves "No-Code" activists are simply along for the ride -- selfishly
awaiting the day when they can rush to the local W5YI session, take 3 theory
elements, and walk out an Extra. You can all claim otherwise, but that's
what I'll believe until I see a valid attempt to replace the brace that CW
has built for incentinve licensing -- or does anybody care what happens to
our fine hobby?
I do. --... ...--
Ki7QM, Aaron
PS: email responses to: j...@wsu.edu, or hamr...@eecs.wsu.edu
Ed Legenza AA6NI
So what is wrong with CW? Gosh I hate when people start carping about
the code. It is a legitimate mode of communication even in the 21st
century. If you don't like CW, don't use that mode.
Having been a VE for some time. I believe that people motivated to
become hams can learn to copy 13 wpm enough to become a general class
ham. IT really is NOT all that hard!
ED 73
James W. KELLEY
In article <E82oy...@serval.net.wsu.edu>,
Angela Simons' email address wrote <ang...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>:
>I have yet to hear a
>proposal for replacing it. WHAT?! REPLACE IT?! WE JUST WANT IT GONE!! Well,
>the trouble is that, without the code, there is simply no challenge to
>obtaining a ham ticket. None whatsoever.
This is perhaps an overstatement. A challenge is not the essential
element as a qualifier for an amateur radio license. The requisite
knowlege is all that is tested for in any of the examinations. They
don't ask how hard it was for you. Furthermore, as has been pointed out
on numerous ocassions by Todd Little, if there was no challenge to
passing any of the written exams, you wouldn't have any Generals - they
would all have an Advanced.
>I'm sure that even the most hard-
>core CW-test-haters would agree: If everybody could get an Extra ticket on
>their first test date, the airwaves would be teaming with newbies, many of
>whom would lack the learned respect for their hobby.
If the problem your trying to solve (via Morse) is caused by "newbies" and
their lack of experience, there is quite a simple and much more
straightforward solution: require that they not be newbies! Put a "time
in grade" requirement into effect. The code did not prevent this newbie
from upgrading to Extra.
>In my own humble opinion, many of those who call
>themselves "No-Code" activists are simply along for the ride -- selfishly
>awaiting the day when they can rush to the local W5YI session, take 3 theory
>elements, and walk out an Extra.
And this despite any and all evidence to the contrary - like the license
class of the "No-Code activists" you refer to. There are 5 written
elements; 170 questions out of 1700 in the question pool. Privileges
principally include operating a radio. I find courteous and lawful
operating to be of the greatest importance. And I like the fact that we
have a hobby where studying applied electronics allows you to acquire a
license to build and operate transmitters. But the rigors of properly
operating an amateur radio are no where near as demanding as one might
gather from all the rhetoric presented here on the newgroup. However, it
does take practice to do it well.
Still practicing,
ac6xg
Michael P. Deignan
In article <334408...@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>However,
>since the government's legitimate concern is the mititigation of interference
>is among the users of the radio frequency spectrum,
Cummings keeps quoting this "mitigation" claim, but the real question is
"Who says this is true"? I keep seeing people post this fallacy, but I've
never seen any evidence to support it.
>Since Morse code testing has utterly failed to do so, what justifies Herman's
>proposal to expand operational testing when Morse code has utterly failed
>produce the desired results?
Cummings assertion that morse code testing has "failed" is an irrelevant
opinion with no basis in fact. Under what criteria does Cummings judge
the morse test to be a "failure"? Cummings uses abject criteria to
claim something that he disagrees with as a "failure" because he himself
doesn't like it.
In typical "lowest common denominator" fashion of the welfare-state
mentality, Cummings then attempts to erect a strawman claiming that
since morse code testing has "failed" (something never established)
then by 'definition' "all" operational tests are invalid. The true
reason for Cummings' claim is that any operational testing implementation
would go against his "give away the licenses" beliefs. Cummings
attempts to further justify this with a "chicken before the egg"
argument, claiming nobody would be able to pass a test because they
couldn't get experience to pass the test. Of course, Cummings naturally
fails to acknowledge that popular proposals in mode-based testing calls
for an "entry level" license with a wide-range of operating privleges
with limited bandwidth and limited power, to allow people to get
familiar with the modes they intend to operate.
Ed Legenza AA6NI
Michael P. Deignan wrote:
>
> In article <334408...@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
> Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>
> >since the government's legitimate concern is the mititigation of interference
> >is among the users of the radio frequency spectrum,
>
> "Who says this is true"? I keep seeing people post this fallacy, but I've
> never seen any evidence to support it.
>
> >proposal to expand operational testing when Morse code has utterly failed
> >produce the desired results?
>
> opinion with no basis in fact. Under what criteria does Cummings judge
> the morse test to be a "failure"? Cummings uses abject criteria to
> claim something that he disagrees with as a "failure" because he himself
> doesn't like it.
>
> In typical "lowest common denominator" fashion of the welfare-state
> mentality, Cummings then attempts to erect a strawman claiming that
> since morse code testing has "failed" (something never established)
> then by 'definition' "all" operational tests are invalid. The true
> reason for Cummings' claim is that any operational testing implementation
> would go against his "give away the licenses" beliefs. Cummings
> attempts to further justify this with a "chicken before the egg"
> argument, claiming nobody would be able to pass a test because they
> couldn't get experience to pass the test. Of course, Cummings naturally
> fails to acknowledge that popular proposals in mode-based testing calls
> for an "entry level" license with a wide-range of operating privleges
> with limited bandwidth and limited power, to allow people to get
> familiar with the modes they intend to operate.
>
> MD
> --
> -- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
> -- with my guns.
> --
> -- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Just thought I would say that I agree with you on much of your
arguments. But don't be too hard on someone who has a mental block
about the code. One of the most frustrating things I have done as a VE
is try to give the test to the fiancee of a ham friend. She is disabled
to the extent that she had, at that time, epilepsy. I knew she knew the
answers but she just couldn't calm down enough to TEST.
So, some are luckier than others, and with the current system, no body
should be left out completely!
ED AA6NI
T.L.Bryant
>Correct again, Sherlock. It's the internet, primarily wireline based
>and
>*NOT* amateur radio. One need only look at much of the activity on "the
>net" and know that it takes no talent, knowlege, or ability ... just a
>checkbook to get on the net. Anyone believe that The Amateur Radio
>Service should become just another checkbook hobby?
Actually, most people want to be able to charge it to MC or Visa.
Tom - N8ECW
T.L.Bryant
>College is a choice you can change. You can go to
>different schools to avoid some types of required classes.
>In any case, this is a government licensing requirement,
>not a private entity. Simply put, the government has
>an obligation to ONLY have relavent test requirements.
>You don't find questions on the theory test on
>vacuum tubes anymore because times have changed.
>That is the position morse should be in....dropped as
>a requirement because it is absolutely of no importance
>to contemporary communications on HF. Use it all
>you want, but the government has no role to play in
>fostering continued use of a mode which has only
>entertainment/enjoyment value.
So what you're advocating is a double standard. You're saying it's OK for a
college to decide on it's own ciriculum, but not the government when it comes
to granting a license.
>The role of government testing is NOT to establish a work
>ethic, sense of commitment or any other subjective quality
>in an amateur. The role of government testing must be limited
>t testing for a minimum set of qualifications to allow a person
>to operate in the amateur bands.
I think we're pretty much at that point right now with memorizing question
pools and multiple choice code tests.
Tom - N8ECW
The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force
In article <E82oy...@serval.net.wsu.edu>,
Aaron KI7QM, using Angela Simons's account wrote:
> VERY GOOD! You did it because: You wanted the ticket! That IS the
>reason that the code should NOT die.
That doesn't make any sense. What connection is there?
> I have heard lots of people say that the
>code is no longer a *critical* part of amateur radio OPERATION, and hence
>it should no longer be required as a test element. The operation part may be
>correct, but a critical part of LICENSING it must continue to be.
Why?
>In all of the posts of people who seek to abolish CW testing, I have yet to
>hear a proposal for replacing it.
Many of us have proposed that the written test be generated by computer to
eliminate the option of learning just the answers to the questions in the
question pool.
> The "incentive licensing" scheme is ENTIRELY HELD UP by CW testing.
>Do we really want to hastily destroy this necessary foundation of Ham radio
>without considering some way to keep it going?
"Incentive licensing" is certainly NOT a "necessary foundation" of Ham Radio,
which survived very well without it for many years. In fact, it appears that
"Incentive licensing" mostly drove the slow-coders out of the hobby,
as our numbers started to decline when it was put into effect -- a decline
that only stopped with the advent of the code-free Technician license.
Bill Sohl
tbr...@cannet.com (T.L.Bryant) wrote:
>>College is a choice you can change. You can go to
>>different schools to avoid some types of required classes.
>>In any case, this is a government licensing requirement,
>>not a private entity. Simply put, the government has
>>an obligation to ONLY have relavent test requirements.
>>You don't find questions on the theory test on
>>vacuum tubes anymore because times have changed.
>>That is the position morse should be in....dropped as
>>a requirement because it is absolutely of no importance
>>to contemporary communications on HF. Use it all
>>you want, but the government has no role to play in
>>fostering continued use of a mode which has only
>>entertainment/enjoyment value.
>So what you're advocating is a double standard. You're saying it's OK for a
>college to decide on it's own ciriculum, but not the government when it comes
>to granting a license.
Correct. Private actions are on no way the equivalent
of government rules. You don't like the requirements
at College A, then you have hundreds of other
choices. You don't agree with license requirements,
you have no alternatives.
That's why license requiremnts MUST always be
relavent and serve a compelling need.
>>The role of government testing is NOT to establish a work
>>ethic, sense of commitment or any other subjective quality
>>in an amateur. The role of government testing must be limited
>>t testing for a minimum set of qualifications to allow a person
>>to operate in the amateur bands.
>I think we're pretty much at that point right now with memorizing question
>pools and multiple choice code tests.
I think there much oom for improvement
there. Formula questions should have an infinete set
of vales that can be used on any test. That'd be a
simple start to avoid memorization on abou 10-20%
of any set of test questions.
(note rec.radio.amateur.misc deleted from distribution)
Jim Cummings
Michael P. Deignan wrote:
>
> In article <334408...@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
> Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>
> >since the government's legitimate concern is the mititigation of interference
> >is among the users of the radio frequency spectrum,
>
> "Who says this is true"? I keep seeing people post this fallacy, but I've
> never seen any evidence to support it.
>
Perhaps Deignan should go and read the enabling legislation of his country.
As I recall, it empowers the FCC to allocate spectrum and make determinations
as to harmful interference and assess penalties as required. Does Deignan
have any proof that the enabling legislation states otherwise? For that
matter, what is the role of amateur certification? Correct me if I am wrong,
but the bottom line is to ensure that amateurs don't cause interference.
> >Since Morse code testing has utterly failed to do so, what justifies Herman's
> >proposal to expand operational testing when Morse code has utterly failed
> >produce the desired results?
>
> Cummings assertion that morse code testing has "failed" is an irrelevant
> opinion with no basis in fact. Under what criteria does Cummings judge
> the morse test to be a "failure"? Cummings uses abject criteria to
> claim something that he disagrees with as a "failure" because he himself
> doesn't like it.
>
Whether I like Morse code has nothing to do with the efficacy of Morse code
testing in order to permit individuals to operate below 30 MHz. In that
Morse code is useless to mitigate interference is not opinion, but fact. Is
Deignan able to show that the health of the radio frequency spectrum is worse
in those bands where there are no-coded amateurs? I think not; indeed, most
of the miscreants that are assessed penalties are to amateurs that have
passed the Morse code for their misbehaviour on the HF frequencies.
I would be more than pleased if Deignan would be good enough to refrain from
telling me what I like and dislike, I believe that I more capable of
rendering such decisions.
> In typical "lowest common denominator" fashion of the welfare-state
> mentality, Cummings then attempts to erect a strawman claiming that
> since morse code testing has "failed" (something never established)
> then by 'definition' "all" operational tests are invalid.
The only straw man that is in evidence now is Deignan's attempt to link my
objections to operational testing with the welfare-state mentality, whatever
that means. Do I believe in a welfare-state, I most certainly do, so that my
fellow human beings can be helped along with the eventual goal of being able
to become productive members of society. Does that thinking extend to
amateur radio? Hardly, because we are discussing a priviledge which is
irrelevant to an individual's existence.
Deignan seems to be unable to read the subtle message that I posted. Let me
be blunt, operational testing is of no value in amateur radio for the
following reasons:
1. Impossible to achieve a level test criteria. This means that the
variability of achieving a consistent, evenly applied test across the nation
would be impossible. The ease or difficultly would likely be proportional to
the whim of the examiner, and unevenly applied across the nation.
2. Operational testing is "pro forma". Such testing will result in very few
failures. Although this would seem to be counter-intuitive to the first
point, candidates would quickly learn which examiner is most likely to pass
them, and go to them for that phase of the examination. Since every
examination would result in success, it hardly seems worth the effort to have
such an examination. (The problem is that it is easier to pass an individual
on just such an examination rather than to justify the failure because there
is little documentation to support the failure.)
3. Operational testing has no value in the context of amateur radio.
Amateur radio is not a safety service - we do not, as a rule, communicate
with other entities within internationally rules, i.e. as for what is
stipulated in the martime mobile service. We have developed conventions
among ourselves, but the fact of the matter is, that is only to satisfy our
own needs. If someone is ignorant of our procedures, we should have the
generosity of spirit to guide them, otherwise they will become frustrated and
abandon amateur radio. But to up the ante by adding an operational test? In
as much as Deignan is quite capable of being disparaging, let him answer the
following - what is the need for operational testing? What problem would it
solve? For that matter, he has never stated why Morse code testing should be
continued (other than to state it must stay, by fiat)?
4. Operational testing would require a substantial effort of already
licensing amateurs to assist in the education of those who wish to be
amateurs. I believe that such assistance would be a noble endeavour, but
practically, there are very few that would do so. Besides, as I have stated
before, there are those who call for such testing that by their own admission
would not qualify to assist in providing the opportunities to get practical
experience operating a station because of their own narrow interests. As I
stated before, even Herman would not qualify because I understand that he has
no radiotelephone or digital equipment at all; indeed, he has disdained the
use of these modes. He is entitle to pursue these interests as his wishes,
but it is quite disengenuous to make a proposal in which he is unable to walk
the talk.
5. Operational testing is oxymoronic. For example, Morse code is still used
for EME, satellite and weak signal operations in the VHF bands. Yet it is
not required to know Morse code in those bands. It defeats the purpose to
bring back a mode test for which there ample evidence that it is no value
(in refute to Deignan's above mentioned contradictory notion); otherwise,
that requirement would have remained. For the other modes, what sort of
examination would Deignan design for the operational test?
I think that is enough for today. If Deignan thinks that operational testing
is of value, then I whole heartedly invite him to make the proposal to the
FCC, otherwise he is only arguing for arguements sake.
The true
> reason for Cummings' claim is that any operational testing implementation
> would go against his "give away the licenses" beliefs.
I don't have those beliefs, so how could they run counter to them? But then
again, Deignan also believes that Gary Coffman has said the same ilk. I
shall let others decide on their own as to whether Deignan is capable of
determining of what I do or do not believe.
> Cummings
> attempts to further justify this with a "chicken before the egg"
> argument, claiming nobody would be able to pass a test because they
> couldn't get experience to pass the test.
No, Deignan is incorrect, I make the case that it is egg, then the chicken,
not the other way around. The only way that the individual can get the
experience and practise the requisite skills is under supervision of a
licensed amateur, unless we agree that the individual should be allowed on
the air without any licence at all, an oxymoronic situation to say the least;
allowing someone to get practical experience on the air without a licence.
In any case, that can be problematic for those who are unable to find an
elmer due to whatever reason, i.e. the local amateurs are a bunch of lazy
louts, there are none locally. As a result, this individual who had not the
opportunity to have the operational experience beforehand is at a severe
handicap in passing an operational examination through no fault of his/her
own. In as much I think it is a good idea to coach an individual along, but
to test for it when it is of little value? What problem is Deignan hoping to
solve with the introduction of operational testing?
> Of course, Cummings naturally
> fails to acknowledge that popular proposals in mode-based testing calls
> for an "entry level" license with a wide-range of operating privleges
> with limited bandwidth and limited power, to allow people to get
> familiar with the modes they intend to operate.
>
Popular? That's a stretch. The only reason why they are popular is that the
pro-code testing crowd has realized the inutility of Morse code testing for
amateur certification. As a result, in the hopes of retaining Morse code
testing, they believe that all-mode testing is now required. What Deignan
fails to discuss is the efficacy of any-mode testing in amateur radio.
Again, if he thinks it is so valuable, then let him work on it and propose it
to the FCC; otherwise, he is full of his own rhetoric.
> MD
> --
> -- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
> -- with my guns.
> --
> -- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
73 and live better digitally
Jim, VE3XJ
Roger J. Buffington, W6VZV
Angela Simons wrote:
>
> That IS the
> code is no longer a *critical* part of amateur radio OPERATION, >and hence
> it should no longer be required as a test element. The operation >part may be
> correct, but a critical part of LICENSING it must continue to be.
Your comments on the subject of retaining the Morse Code requirement
remind me of ancient Witch Doctors, who believed that chanting the same
thing over and over again, without reason or logic, made the saying
true. Why does it need to be a critical part of licensing? What good
does that do?
>without the code, there is simply no challenge to
> obtaining a ham ticket. None whatsoever.
Golly, I guess you are such a brainiac that you could pass a theory and
regulations test with zero effort. None whatsoever. Pretty cool. I
couldn't do that. I had to study.
>I'm sure that even the most hard-
> core CW-test-haters would agree: If everybody could get an Extra >ticket on
> their first test date, the airwaves would be teaming with newbies
Well, thank God. At least we don't have to worry about that. The HF
bands very definitely are not full of newbies. There are very few new
hams. Somehow you seem to think that this is a good thing.
Incredible.
>I'm 21 years old now (as of January), and head up Washington State
> University's "Rho Epsilon Amateur Radio Fraternity."
I wondered how it was you knew everything. Now I know. :)
>My point after all this: I think CW is great, and I enjoy using it
> on-the-air, too. There are many who don't enjoy CW, however, and >this is OK.
> I don't believe, however, that the so-called No-Code movement had >considered
> the impact that removing the code testing would have on incentive >licensing.
> It would be devastating.
How do you know? For that matter, what is wrong with killing much of
incentive licensing? I was a ham before incentive licensing existed,
and the hobby was more active and vital by a factor of ten than it is
now. It was teaming with new hams, of all ages, and was truly a
pleasure. Nowadays our hobby is largely an old man's hobby.
How many times do you hear "age hr is 79, been retired for 22 yrs."
> In my own humble opinion, many of those who call
> themselves "No-Code" activists are simply along for the ride -- >selfishly
> awaiting the day when they can rush to the local W5YI session, >take 3 theory
> elements, and walk out an Extra. You can all claim otherwise
Well thank you, I think I will claim otherwise, seeing as how I am
already an Extra, as are many or most of those of us who are agitating
in favor of eliminating Morse Code testing.
>but that's
> what I'll believe until I see a valid attempt to replace the brace that CW
> has built for incentinve licensing -- or does anybody care what happens to
> our fine hobby?
>
> I do.
I do too. And I've been a member of our hobby for 30 years, and watched
it go downhill, largely due to incentive licensing. Most of us who
remember the way the hobby was before incentive licensing recognize that
incentive licensing was a disaster to our hobby.
It has never been the same since.
--
Roger J. Buffington
W6VZV
USC Law, Class of '97
------------------------------------------------------------
"I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather.
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers..."
------------------------------------------------------------
Warping with OS/2 Warp 4.0 and Netscape for OS/2
Angela Simons
: Learning CW is a "large barrier"? Please!
: The truth is that people don't want to learn CW because it takes a
: little time and effort and they don't want to have to do it. I know that
: "technically unqualified" element they are trying to keep out. CW takes
: a *little* effort and time to learn and I think people in this "instant
: gratification" period we live in want to talk on the radio NOW.
: perseverance that are good qualities for people in the hobby to have.
: I just think I understand why learning morse code has been a requirement
: and I don't think it was a bad idea.
: Greg WG8N
Bravo!!!!! At least there's somebody else in here who looks at the big
picture. The reason for CW testing IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FCC OR
ANYBODY ELSE THINKS CW IS COOL. IT IS BECAUSE CW DEMONSTRATES A LEVEL
OF COMMITMENT TO ONE'S HOBBY THAT THE WRITTEN ELEMENTS CAN NOT! Why it
this so difficult to understand?!?!?!? CW IS NOT A BIG DEAL!!!! If all
you do is sit around all day whining about hating CW, you are, in my mind,
not worthy of a callsign. If somebody can find a way to similarly test
one's effort and commitment to their licensing goals, JUST SAY IT! It
doesn't take two brain cells to figure out that you can't just throw CW
testing away without REPLACING IT WITH SOMETHING ELSE. When I joined the
hobby in '93, I didn't like the idea of CW, but I soon learned to respect
it. When I committed to upgrading my Tech No-Code license, I committed
myself to learning CW. It is a well-establish tradition (and no, tradition
does not have anything to do with the future), and has great roots in our
hobby. If all you do is worry about, then sure... it'll be hell. But
once you pass it by, you'll see that the effort was worth it. This series
of stages in developing your license is healthy.
BTW: I've never met anybody who couldn't learn 5 WPM in a week!
73's,
Aaron -Ki7QM (email reply to: j...@wsu.edu)
Thomas Foster
My sentiments exactly, Aaron, although I do question the "5 WPM in a
week" part. I'm not sure how long it took me to learn 5 WPM, but I
believe it was more like two-three weeks.
Best regards,
Lindsay
WA4ISZ
Keith Henderson
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
> In article <5hrmmf$e...@pixar.com>, Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
>
> >There is a very simple reason for eliminating the code requirement:
> >
> > Testing is not required for any other operational mode.
>
> Easy to fix. Require skill tests for all the popular modes.
>
I took my code and passed. Ham radio is a hobby. You show your
commitment to the hobby by passing the code. Besides, I set hour after
hour studying to pass my code and I think everyone else should as
well. If you do away with code then bands will be filled with trash
like CB.
I said that!
Ed Legenza AA6NI
And yaou said it 100 per cent right too!!!
ED AA6NI
T.L.Bryant
>Correct. Private actions are on no way the equivalent
>of government rules. You don't like the requirements
>at College A, then you have hundreds of other
>choices. You don't agree with license requirements,
>you have no alternatives.
>
>That's why license requiremnts MUST always be
>relavent and serve a compelling need.
If one doesn't agree with the license requirements, then one *does* have an
alternative. It's called CB radio.
Tom - N8ECW
D.Arnold
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
> In article <5hrmmf$e...@pixar.com>, Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
>
> >There is a very simple reason for eliminating the code requirement:
> >
> > Testing is not required for any other operational mode.
>
> Easy to fix. Require skill tests for all the popular modes.
>
> Jeff KH2PZ
I could LIVE with this
DON KB5FHX
Casey Bahr
In article <3344E4...@ibm.net> rog...@ibm.net writes:
>Angela Simons wrote:
>>
[snip for brevity]
>>without the code, there is simply no challenge to
>> obtaining a ham ticket. None whatsoever.
>
>Golly, I guess you are such a brainiac that you could pass a theory and
>regulations test with zero effort. None whatsoever. Pretty cool. I
>couldn't do that. I had to study.
Study what? The question pool? Anyone with a C average in school can pass
any of the written elements with less than a day's study if they have
the pool questions/answers, which are widely distributed on the net and
in books. I'm not advocating that people do it, just that the poster is
correct in saying there is no challenge in that.
Casey KK7FX
[snip for brevity]
Gerald Schmitt
In <E84rt...@serval.net.wsu.edu> ang...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu (Angela
Simons) writes:
>
>
>BTW: I've never met anybody who couldn't learn 5 WPM in a week!
>
>73's,
>Aaron -Ki7QM (email reply to: j...@wsu.edu)
Hello Aaron or Angela whoever is actually posting this.
My name is Jerry KK5YY pleased to meet you. BTW now you can no longer
make the statement above truthfully. There are some people for whom
code only comes with great effort and struggle. Some of us in this
group get really tired of hearing how easy it is to learn code.
Jerry
Gary Coffman
In article <5i19ef$8...@anomaly.ideamation.com> kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>In article <334408...@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
> Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>since the government's legitimate concern is the mititigation of interference
>>is among the users of the radio frequency spectrum,
>
>"Who says this is true"? I keep seeing people post this fallacy, but I've
>never seen any evidence to support it.
Deigman might try reading the Communications Act of 1934, which sets forth
the purposes and objectives of govrnment regulation of spectrum access.
>In typical "lowest common denominator" fashion of the welfare-state
>mentality, Cummings then attempts to erect a strawman claiming that
It is interesting to note that it is only those appealing to the government
to maintain a life support subsidy for Morse (welfare statism at its lowest)
who raise the spectre of "welfare state mentality". Perhaps that comes from
looking in the mirror. A truly viable operating method needs no such subsidy.
But the welfare statists are obviously fearful that Morse cannot withstand
free market competition from other methodologies without coercive government
measures.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | with previous uucp addresses
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | Email to ke...@radio.org
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
Thomas Foster
Bill Sohl wrote in response to Greg Emerson:
>
> >I am not against "no-code"licensing nor do I look down at no-code hams,
> >I just think I understand why learning morse code has been a requirement
> >and I don't think it was a bad idea.
>
> understand why it is a requirement. Does that make any sense at all?
>
> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Bill, I think you misread Greg's statement. He states above that he DOES
understand why learning morse code has been a requirement.
I, too, understand: It's relevent, it's effective, and it's a way to
keep the HF frequencies from becoming severely congested.
For any given license, the requirements for HF access are the same for
everyone. Admittedly, some individuals will expend more time and energy
than others to master the code, just as some folks will spend more time
on the theory than others. However, nobody is being denied access
because of some egregious bias.
Best regards,
Lindsay
WA4ISZ
Bill Sohl
Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I took my code and passed. Ham radio is a hobby. You show your
>commitment to the hobby by passing the code. Besides, I set hour after
>hour studying to pass my code and I think everyone else should as
>well. If you do away with code then bands will be filled with trash
>like CB.
Keith:
You echo the same empty logic that has gone on before.
Read Part 97 and come back and tell us where Ham Radio
is defined by the FCC as a hobby.
You then end with the same tripe that others
before you have said (although at least you said it in a
clear statement).. i.e. I did it, now so should everyone
else. Sorry to inform you, but that is not how national or
international license requirments should be established
or maintained. If a requirement has no compelling and
rational reson to exist, then it should go...irrespetive
of how many had to pass that requirement before.
Lastly, you claim that without code the bands will
be like CB, yet with over 100,000 co-code hams
we have nothing CB like on the VHF bands at all.
Neither you nor anyone else can predict what the
impact might be if code is dropped. Fear of the unknown
is understandable but the comparison to CB is so
far off the mark it bears comarison.
CB - No license, buy a $40 radio and go on the air.
HF Hams (assuming there was no code test)
License still required. Theory and regs testing at
the general level would still be retained (indeed,
I and others have offered several ways the test
pool can and shoould be improved).
HF radios are not cheap...even older used ones.
rec.radio.amateur.misc deleted from distribution
as it is an inappropriate newgroup for this topic.
Thomas Foster
Bill Sohl wrote:
>
> Keith:
> You echo the same empty logic that has gone on before.
> Read Part 97 and come back and tell us where Ham Radio
> is defined by the FCC as a hobby.
Bill,
I don't know about you, but I got into Ham radio as a hobby. I was
interested in electronics, but I was especially fascinated by the
ability to communicate world-wide. Ham radio is, and always will be, a
form of entertainment for me -- a hobby. Even though the FCC
characterizes it as a service, I suspect that for most hams, it's a
hobby, and that's the main reason they got a license.
>
> Bill Sohl K2UNK
> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Best regards,
Lindsay
WA4ISZ
Gary Coffman
In article <5hsj4d$r...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>In article <5hrmmf$e...@pixar.com>, Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
>
>>There is a very simple reason for eliminating the code requirement:
>>
>> Testing is not required for any other operational mode.
>
>Easy to fix. Require skill tests for all the popular modes.
>
>Jeff KH2PZ
Fine, what's your definition of a "popular" mode? Used by more than
50% of all amateurs? Used by 22% of all amateurs? Used by 2% of all
amateurs? And what about the *unpopular* modes? Are you going to let
people use modes for which they haven't been tested? And what about
the modes currently being invented? Who writes those tests?
And how about the distortions in usage statistics which are purely
an artifact of current regulations? Perhaps T1 rate digital would
be the most popular mode on the lower end of 40m if it weren't
prohibited by regulation, or more realistically, SSB might be the
most popular mode on the lower end of 40m if it weren't prohibited
there.
Where do you draw the line? And how do you even determine usage
statistics uncorrupted by regulatory artifact?
Demolition Man
Thomas Foster wrote:
>
> Angela Simons wrote:
> >
> > : Learning CW is a "large barrier"? Please!
> > : The truth is that people don't want to learn CW because it takes a
> > : little time and effort and they don't want to have to do it. I know that
> > <snip>
> > : "technically unqualified" element they are trying to keep out. CW takes
> > : a *little* effort and time to learn and I think people in this "instant
> > : gratification" period we live in want to talk on the radio NOW.
> > : I think learning CW shows a minimum level of committment and
> > : perseverance that are good qualities for people in the hobby to have.
> > : I just think I understand why learning morse code has been a requirement
> > : and I don't think it was a bad idea.
> >
> >
> > Bravo!!!!! At least there's somebody else in here who looks at the big
> > picture. The reason for CW testing IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FCC OR
> > ANYBODY ELSE THINKS CW IS COOL. IT IS BECAUSE CW DEMONSTRATES A LEVEL
> > OF COMMITMENT TO ONE'S HOBBY THAT THE WRITTEN ELEMENTS CAN NOT! Why it
> > this so difficult to understand?!?!?!? CW IS NOT A BIG DEAL!!!! If all
> > you do is sit around all day whining about hating CW, you are, in my mind,
> > not worthy of a callsign. If somebody can find a way to similarly test
> > one's effort and commitment to their licensing goals, JUST SAY IT! It
> > doesn't take two brain cells to figure out that you can't just throw CW
> > testing away without REPLACING IT WITH SOMETHING ELSE. When I joined the
> > hobby in '93, I didn't like the idea of CW, but I soon learned to respect
> > it. When I committed to upgrading my Tech No-Code license, I committed
> > myself to learning CW. It is a well-establish tradition (and no, tradition
> > does not have anything to do with the future), and has great roots in our
> > hobby. If all you do is worry about, then sure... it'll be hell. But
> > once you pass it by, you'll see that the effort was worth it. This series
> > of stages in developing your license is healthy.
> >
> >
> > 73's,
> > Aaron -Ki7QM (email reply to: j...@wsu.edu)
>
> week" part. I'm not sure how long it took me to learn 5 WPM, but I
> believe it was more like two-three weeks.
>
> Best regards,
> Lindsay
> WA4ISZ
Goes for me too! 13wpm in 10 days!! only used radio shack code tapes
1hr per day
--
A.C.Curtis
KB0WLF
Gary Coffman
In article <5hc4ig$l...@rosebud.sdsc.edu> Kurt Bilinski <Kurt.B...@gat.com> writes:
>Children please,
>
>One side whines that CW is slow and inefficient. Going along with that
>mentality, people who use CW talk (slowly) about nothing except, what,
>how big their antenna is, what their power amp rating is, and what far
>off station they just talked to.
True. :-)
>Now the other side...
>
>With the latest digital techniques, what are we up to, about 20kbaud?
The current amateur SOTA is 100 Mb. The amateur SOTA 5 years ago was
1.2 Mb. The amateur SOTA of 10 years ago was 56 kb. The amateur SOTA
of 20 years ago was 1200 baud. Unfortunately too many amateurs remain
stuck at the SOTA of 20 years ago in packet. But at least that's better
than being stuck at less than 20 baud like the Morse users have been
for nearly a century. Morse users have made no progress since the
adoption of continous waves.
Note that we're stuck at 300 baud on HF, but that's because of
regulations, not because of engineering feasibility.
>And what do you guys discuss that necessitates this high speed
>throughput? Nothing. Sorry, not quite true, there's how big the antenna
>is, what the power amp rating is, and what far off station was just
>contacted. Only difference is you run out of things to talk about much
>faster...
Actually, we exchange video (still and motion), text and binary files,
do digital voice, send schematics and board layouts, browse the web, etc.
It is amazing how much more genuinely useful radio becomes with a little
bit more throughput.
>As soon as the satallite phone system is in place, you digital guys will
>sell your ham equipment, right? I mean, you want the very latest in
>maximum data throughput. No one wants to settle for that "old
>technology", right?
No, we won't sell our ham equipment. We have no control over commerical
provider networks. We can't experiment with hardware or protocols on
commercial provider networks. We certainly want fast, but we want it
on *our* terms, not on those of some remote commercial provider.
>Give it a rest, it's a hobby. Each of you imply you're somehow better
>then the other. The joke is, people outside this hobby view each of you
>as the _same_; geeks!
It's more than a hobby. It is a chartered radio service with definite
specified purposes and goals. By experimenting with modern digital
systems we support those charter goals. We're self-training in contemporary
communications technology, developing a pool of trained technicians and
electronic communications experts to serve an augmentation role for the
military and civil government in times of national emergency. We are
advancing, to some extent, the SOTA in ad hoc networks and low cost
digital hardware (amateur developed digital systems were used in Desert
Storm). We support the logistical needs of emergency service agencies.
And we even contribute a tiny bit, due to regulatory limits, to
international goodwill by handling message traffic for foreign
operators.
And of course we have fun doing much of this, and have a sense
of satisfaction for doing other parts of this. We receive no
other pay. We could do much more, of course, but we face the same
"I've got mine" mentality by entrenched interests that others
attempting to use modern techniques face (and have faced down
through the years). But just as SSB supplanted AM, we expect
to eventually dominate text transmission in amateur radio (we
already move more text in an hour than the world's Morse operators
do in a week), and ultimately video and voice transmission as well,
if amateur radio isn't killed first by the Luddites.
Bill Sohl
tbr...@cannet.com (T.L.Bryant) wrote:
Fine for you if you want. I prefer to take a proactive role
in attempting to change things.
Bill Sohl K2UNK
ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Visit the No-Code WEB site: http://www.nocode.org
Bill Sohl
Thomas Foster <tlfo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Bill Sohl wrote in response to Greg Emerson:
>>
>> >I am not against "no-code"licensing nor do I look down at no-code hams,
>> >I just think I understand why learning morse code has been a requirement
>> >and I don't think it was a bad idea.
>>
>> You don't think it was a bad idea, yet you admit you don't
>> understand why it is a requirement. Does that make any sense at all?
>>
>> Bill Sohl K2UNK
>> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
>Bill, I think you misread Greg's statement. He states above that he DOES
>understand why learning morse code has been a requirement.
Oops, read that too quickly.
>I, too, understand: It's relevent,
Why is it any more relavent than any other mode?
Test for it on the same basis as any other mode (i.e. merge
the scoring with an overall test score rather than as a
separate pass/fail element and you can make a reasonable
comparison then).
> it's effective,
No more so than many other modes. Ditto the comments
above again.
>and it's a way to
>keep the HF frequencies from becoming severely congested.
In other words it is purly an excersize to minimize numbers.
If that is a needed aspect of ham radio then someone should
determine the maximum that should be allowed and stop
issuing new licenses at that point until others expire.
>For any given license, the requirements for HF access are the same for
>everyone. Admittedly, some individuals will expend more time and energy
>than others to master the code, just as some folks will spend more time
>on the theory than others. However, nobody is being denied access
>because of some egregious bias.
The bias is simply because the code has no reason to be
required anymore. No different than eliminating test questions
that pertained to vacuum tubes in the past.
Once again, the only thing a government test should
include is the things that are reuired on a sound and
rational basis.
rec.radio.amateur.misc deleted as inappropriate
Glen Quarnstrom
Thomas Foster <tlfo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I, too, understand: It's relevent, it's effective, and it's a way to
>keep the HF frequencies from becoming severely congested.
Well, no, it's not. Constant repetition of these canards don't make
them any more true, either.
Even if they were true, they'd be pretty weak arguments for much of
anything.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
WB7DOW @ KB7CFD.ID.USA.NOAM
Demolition Man
>
> Keith:
> You echo the same empty logic that has gone on before.
> Read Part 97 and come back and tell us where Ham Radio
> is defined by the FCC as a hobby.
as a supposedly self governing body, WE define ham radio.
>
> You then end with the same tripe that others
> before you have said (although at least you said it in a
> clear statement).. i.e. I did it, now so should everyone
> else. Sorry to inform you, but that is not how national or
> international license requirments should be established
> or maintained. If a requirement has no compelling and
> rational reson to exist, then it should go...irrespetive
> of how many had to pass that requirement before.
>
like registering for the draft eh?
> Lastly, you claim that without code the bands will
> be like CB, yet with over 100,000 co-code hams
> we have nothing CB like on the VHF bands at all.
> Neither you nor anyone else can predict what the
> impact might be if code is dropped. Fear of the unknown
> is understandable but the comparison to CB is so
> far off the mark it bears comarison.
come visit my neck of the woods. the 2m no-coders are exactly like
they are on their CBs minus the language. 10-4 and destinated and
what's your 20 and so on. when asked to adjust their on air dialog
1 in 10 of the CBers will comply. the others will tell you that
propagation on 11m is better than this repeater s**t and never use
their priveleges again. Membership drives for the club always pick
up some CBers as well as new to radio types. the new to radio types
are always more open to the expected ham behavior.
>
> CB - No license, buy a $40 radio and go on the air.
>
never been around a CBer eh? again visit my area or a truck stop with
cb repair done on premises. $250-$350 radios and $300-$600 linears.
50ft towers and $250 beam antennae. half of the CBers shacks rival my
own and i have been pretty fortunate.
> HF Hams (assuming there was no code test)
> License still required. Theory and regs testing at
> the general level would still be retained (indeed,
> I and others have offered several ways the test
> pool can and shoould be improved).
> HF radios are not cheap...even older used ones.
>
in regards to what? 80m AM in my opinion is THE biggest draw for
the CB crowd. these tube type radios are available and cheaper than
what they use now. i do computer repair/building work for the local
electronic and CB repair shop. 3 guys that work there would be hams
right now if not for the code test. they are nice guys to be sure
but have admitted that they would not change their practice on the ham
bands. they have home built amplifiers using 4-1000, 3-3000 and even
3-10000 being driven by Johnsons, Apaches and other old rigs and
transmit
several kilowatts. they curse, play music whatever on 11m. these guys
could TEACH the theory but want to talk like CBers on the longer
traveling
ham bands. many, many CBers that come to get their rigs fixed or
tweaked
express the exact same sentiment. i'd get my ham license except for the
code. they have no interest in short range fm priveleges so why should
they start with a tech license they say. sounds like the no-code tech
is
not doing such a bad job of getting more hams really interested in HAM
radio
in without breaking open a flood gate for those not really interested in
HAM.
> Bill Sohl K2UNK
> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
i can't speak for yours our any other area, but i DO know the people
that
live here. it's very likely that you live in a metro type city that
does
not have this type of community. in central missouri, this IS what you
will
find in every town up and down I-44. so without drastic changes in on
air responsibility, the hf bands would become a worse place than they
are now.
--
A.C.Curtis
KB0WLF
President DCARC
mailto:dem...@rollanet.org
http://www.rollanet.org/~demoman/
Bill Newkirk
Casey Bahr wrote:
> Study what? The question pool? Anyone with a C average in school can pass
> any of the written elements with less than a day's study if they have
> the pool questions/answers, which are widely distributed on the net and
> in books. I'm not advocating that people do it, just that the poster is
> correct in saying there is no challenge in that.
>
> Casey KK7FX
well, in most cases, the work you did in school consisted of studying a
large amount of material only to cough up a few answers such as "who's
buried in grant's tomb?". or what happened in 1066 or compute the
circumference of a flower garden 3 feet from center to edge.
if the tests were so terribly easy, i should never see any failures at
the radio exams. last time around i think we had 6 of 18 that qualified
for a license. and we only had about 7 or 8 unlicensed people at the
exam...
actually, i'd bet if i picked ten questions at random from the novice
pool and took them to a large radio club made up of long licensed hams,
i'd bet at best i'd only see an average of 5-7 questions right across
the entire group. since the tests are entry exams, you'd think that
those in the service the longest would have the easiest time..right?
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Bill Newkirk <wnew...@iu.net> wrote in article <334B10...@iu.net>...
>
> actually, i'd bet if i picked ten questions at random from the novice
> pool and took them to a large radio club made up of long licensed hams,
> i'd bet at best i'd only see an average of 5-7 questions right across
> the entire group. since the tests are entry exams, you'd think that
> those in the service the longest would have the easiest time..right?
That's a big part of the problem, Bill and I'm glad that you bring it up.
In point of fact, a huge portion of presently licensed hams only barely
squeaked past the test on luck, short-term memorization, and a few
good guesses and then told themselves "I've passed the test, I know
all that's necessary to know" and then promptly fell asleep only to be
wakened by the need to say "UR 599, PSE QSL" at some opportune
time so they could get another postcard to plaster on their wall so they
can lie to themselves about what great, SOTA communicators they are ...
They've been in that state for years and have fallen so far behind in
terms of the changes in technology that they don't even realize how
far behind they are ... it's like they've fallen into a well that's so deep
they can't see all the way to the surface ...
The point that you make is a serious problem for our service and I
feel very strongly that it points to a rather critical need for retesting
at
renewal time. This is a change in the rules that I would strongly
support because I think it is perhaps the ONLY way to overcome
the laziness and stagnation that have become so prominent in our
ranks. I know the slackards, yackers, gamers, cheapskates, and
others will bitch, whine, moan, and generally pitch a fit over the idea
of having to prove themselves qualified at each renewal, but too bad.
(many other things that require licenses require periodic recertification)
The technology of communications (which we're supposed to be
keeping up with ... even advancing) is moving so fast that it's absurd
to claim one is qualified today because one passed a test on tube
theory 30 years ago, then sat down to chase DX and never learned
another thing ... I am absolutely certain that there are still many OTs
who used to build their own rigs (when tubes were the thing) but stopped
years ago because "those damned transistor thingies are too small
and confusing ..." These folks USED to be qualified, but they didn't
keep up with the progress of technology and now they're so far behind
that they don't have a clue ...
Bear in mind that I'm NOT saying that EVERYONE who's been licensed
for more than a few years is like this, but the reality is that there is a
huge portion of the ham population that *IS* ...
That this can happen says that there's something fundamentally wrong
with our licensing and testing system ... there are other things wrong,
too, but retesting at renewal time would at least assure that people
remained reasonably competent by keeping up with the inevitable
changes in technology ...
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBM0usWuIP1XFmaCFVAQH4KQP+KufH4fpW4Olw/sxq61GKJQLDyvL4/deK
ozwlAHqsOf9S0sHS2yPtB8Zx/XiSWHQXh6Cg06yBD0ibYj3C3lwJH1DR/stWen/C
h8wNGAKRu6NUq3Nluj2PqIo/lwJGEsxs7DxqyczPSIOqsC4+tTpcmHWmO1lcYf7W
h6/3qnmj700=
=NAuF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Lee
Great sig file Carl, Did it take long to write it?
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
William Lee <wil...@inwave.com> wrote in article
<01bc459e$574c51a0$a8ee65ce@william-lee>...
>
> Great sig file Carl, Did it take long to write it?
>
No, it was created automatically ... technology is wonderful, 'aint it?
It's a cryptographically-secure message digest that proves that
*I* really wrote the message and allows the detection of any
alteration to the message ...
If you watch a few, you'll see that they're never the same ...
because they are dependent on both every bit of the message
content and on a time-varying cryptographic function ...
Pretty neat, huh? (Discourages the twits from altering my posts
with their "cute" little "quotes," etc. to make it look like I
said things I didn't say ...)
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBM00XF+IP1XFmaCFVAQHXvAP8CONp1qEE8L617I3nzd0oeBTANVwcNG+Y
9Es1xGTLe6YMaF5XdOMH9RFJJo1WGv4yUD/EVb6pvKse31RiLcXKJxgoYsgQ5jnw
l9FlsdsK6kwnEOMjNSfXggI4WdGv8gHb32yTL0Hk5H+uPFMCionTcFtDFIuNshxp
Cw74w7CDKqg=
=GwaJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bill Sohl
Demolition Man <nospam....@rollanet.org> wrote:
>>
>> Keith:
>> You echo the same empty logic that has gone on before.
>> Read Part 97 and come back and tell us where Ham Radio
>> is defined by the FCC as a hobby.
>as a supposedly self governing body, WE define ham radio.
Absolute rubbish. We are self policing...that does not include
the power to set the regulations, only to enforce by self
monitoring and reporting to the FCC observed violations.
>> You then end with the same tripe that others
>> before you have said (although at least you said it in a
>> clear statement).. i.e. I did it, now so should everyone
>> else. Sorry to inform you, but that is not how national or
>> international license requirments should be established
>> or maintained. If a requirement has no compelling and
>> rational reson to exist, then it should go...irrespetive
>> of how many had to pass that requirement before.
>>
>like registering for the draft eh?
The last draft was in the 60s/early 70s. You can argue
if there was a need. As I recall, those that were
drafted or already in the military weren't the ones that
set the rules either.
>> Lastly, you claim that without code the bands will
>> be like CB, yet with over 100,000 co-code hams
>> we have nothing CB like on the VHF bands at all.
>> Neither you nor anyone else can predict what the
>> impact might be if code is dropped. Fear of the unknown
>> is understandable but the comparison to CB is so
>> far off the mark it bears comarison.
>come visit my neck of the woods. the 2m no-coders are exactly like
>they are on their CBs minus the language. 10-4 and destinated and
>what's your 20 and so on.
So what. I must have skipped the chapter in the FCC
rules that said only approved Q codes were allowed.
> when asked to adjust their on air dialog
>1 in 10 of the CBers will comply. the others will tell you that
>propagation on 11m is better than this repeater s**t and never use
>their priveleges again. Membership drives for the club always pick
>up some CBers as well as new to radio types. the new to radio types
>are always more open to the expected ham behavior.
I guess in the confusing comments above there is
a message. Not at all sure what the heck it is though.
>> CB - No license, buy a $40 radio and go on the air.
>>
>never been around a CBer eh? again visit my area or a truck stop with
>cb repair done on premises. $250-$350 radios and $300-$600 linears.
>50ft towers and $250 beam antennae. half of the CBers shacks rival my
>own and i have been pretty fortunate.
All illegal too from your description. Additionally, how many
of those types are there and it seems interesting that you
tolerate such illegals as friends and acquantences.
>> HF Hams (assuming there was no code test)
>> License still required. Theory and regs testing at
>> the general level would still be retained (indeed,
>> I and others have offered several ways the test
>> pool can and shoould be improved).
>> HF radios are not cheap...even older used ones.
>>
>in regards to what? 80m AM in my opinion is THE biggest draw for
>the CB crowd. these tube type radios are available and cheaper than
>what they use now. i do computer repair/building work for the local
>electronic and CB repair shop. 3 guys that work there would be hams
>right now if not for the code test. they are nice guys to be sure
>but have admitted that they would not change their practice on the ham
>bands. they have home built amplifiers using 4-1000, 3-3000 and even
>3-10000 being driven by Johnsons, Apaches and other old rigs and
>transmit
Your point? As long as they weren't perating illegally once
they became hams, just what is your beef?
>several kilowatts. they curse, play music whatever on 11m. these guys
>could TEACH the theory but want to talk like CBers on the longer
>traveling
>ham bands. many, many CBers that come to get their rigs fixed or
>tweaked
>express the exact same sentiment. i'd get my ham license except for the
>code. they have no interest in short range fm priveleges so why should
>they start with a tech license they say. sounds like the no-code tech
>is
>not doing such a bad job of getting more hams really interested in HAM
>radio
>in without breaking open a flood gate for those not really interested in
>HAM.
Yet even if code went away, those CB good buddies of
yours would need to pass a GENERAL test. Are you afraid
of that?
>i can't speak for yours our any other area, but i DO know the people
>that
>live here. it's very likely that you live in a metro type city that
>does
>not have this type of community. in central missouri, this IS what you
>will
>find in every town up and down I-44. so without drastic changes in on
>air responsibility, the hf bands would become a worse place than they
>are now.
Gee, now we have someone saying the rural country folks
are the CB problem, not the urban areas.
Bill Sohl K2UNK
ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Greg Emerson
Bill Sohl wrote:
>Once again, the only thing a government test should
>include is the things that are reuired on a sound and
>rational basis.
As a former Marine Sergeant and a current police officer, I feel I have
had my fair share of dealings with the "government" and I can tell you
THEY DO NOTHING ON A SOUND AND RATIONAL BASIS!!!!
I had government tests in the military that I neither liked nor felt
were relevant to my job. Typing was one of them. I never had to type
once in my four year tour. You see, the government don't give a rat's
patootie what you or I think. They don't *have* to do squat if they
don't want to. That's the bottom line. You either do it or you don't
pass. Relevant test or not. They won't go changing everything around to
accomodate a few over-zealous rebels. Don't tell me it ain't the same,
either. ALL government is the same.
Like Nike says...just do it.
With all the energy and time people expend complaining about the code,
they could instead be a general or above if they applied that energy in
another direction.
Well, now I'm gonna wait for Bill Sohl to disect my post and tell me how
wrong I am...
Take care everyone!
73,
Greg Emerson WG8N
Bill Sohl
Greg Emerson <greg...@lni.net> wrote:
>Bill Sohl wrote:
>>Once again, the only thing a government test should
>>include is the things that are reuired on a sound and
>>rational basis.
>As a former Marine Sergeant and a current police officer, I feel I have
>had my fair share of dealings with the "government" and I can tell you
>THEY DO NOTHING ON A SOUND AND RATIONAL BASIS!!!!
Even assuming your statement was 100% true, that doesn't
support the continued testing of morse.
>I had government tests in the military that I neither liked nor felt
>were relevant to my job. Typing was one of them. I never had to type
>once in my four year tour. You see, the government don't give a rat's
>patootie what you or I think. They don't *have* to do squat if they
>don't want to. That's the bottom line. You either do it or you don't
>pass.
Great attitutde. You offer no rational reason at all
to keep CW testing. You view the requirment as
self justifying.
>Relevant test or not. They won't go changing everything around to
>accomodate a few over-zealous rebels. Don't tell me it ain't the same,
>either. ALL government is the same.
I guess as a member of government you know best. I also know
that it can be changed, and eventually will be changed.
I've already done it so your statement is directed at the wrong
person. You assume that bbecause I'm working for change
that it is to benefit mysel...sorry to inform you, but I don't need
the code dropped myself.
>Like Nike says...just do it.
Ditto my prior comments above.
>With all the energy and time people expend complaining about the code,
>they could instead be a general or above if they applied that energy in
>another direction.
Check my license class.
>Well, now I'm gonna wait for Bill Sohl to disect my post and tell me how
>wrong I am...
Done!
oly...@iglou.com
kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>In article <01bc37bd$06503e40$97c1...@carl.ais.net>,
> Carl R. Stevenson <ca...@ais.net> wrote:
>>> People don't, usually, appreciate the value behind learning the morse
>>> code until they have used it for some time.
>>
>>Most of us who did invest large amounts of time and effort learning
>>the code, still do not see any value
>Ah, so now the truth starts to shine its ugly head.
>Carl invested "large amounts of time and effort learning the code".
>Yet, Carl is a 5WPM, coded tech.
>Thus, we now know why Carl never upgraded. Code doesn't come
>easily to him. It requires a great deal of effort for him to
>learn.
>So, rather than put the effort in, Carl has remained a coded
>tech for 20+ years.
>Now, he wants to eliminate the code so he can "upgrade". In
>other words, its that typical welfare-state mentality. Carl
>wants something for nothing.
>MD
>--
>-- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
>-- with my guns.
>--
>-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Yes....poor Carl.....and after spending all that time and
effort......still misses the point.
If a person doesn't want to learn code, fine. Don't learn
it. But don't whine about it and use excuses like "the
state of radio today" or some such nonsense.
With all the tools available today to learn the code with,
it isn't that hard anyway.
Mike L. ke4hlu (another 5wp tech....looking forward to passing the
13 next month)
Bill Sohl
oly...@iglou.com wrote:
>Yes....poor Carl.....and after spending all that time and
>effort......still misses the point.
>If a person doesn't want to learn code, fine. Don't learn
>it. But don't whine about it and use excuses like "the
>state of radio today" or some such nonsense.
>With all the tools available today to learn the code with,
> it isn't that hard anyway.
Mike, you DON'T get it. We are not whining, we are making
the effort to eliminate code testing. The question is WHY
should anyone now be orced to learn morse code? That is
the issue. Morse code only has value an an entertainment
mode for personal use...and as such has no reason to be
a requirment.
There's no safety reason for morse, no technical reasons
at all. Morse is not used in any manner that suggests any
need for all HF licnesees o know morse.
Morse should be strictly an optional choice to learn and
use.
Cecil A. Moore
Hi Mike, what about my friend with a commercial radio license,
years of experience as a broadcast engineer, who spent hundreds
of hours over 20 years and never got to 13wpm? Some otherwise
normal people cannot learn 13wpm no matter how hard they try.
73, Cecil, W6RCA, OOTC
michael silva
hossie
Bill Sohl wrote:
>
> oly...@iglou.com wrote:
> >Yes....poor Carl.....and after spending all that time and
> >effort......still misses the point.
>
> >If a person doesn't want to learn code, fine. Don't learn
> >it. But don't whine about it and use excuses like "the
> >state of radio today" or some such nonsense.
>
> > it isn't that hard anyway.
>
> the effort to eliminate code testing. The question is WHY
> should anyone now be orced to learn morse code? That is
> the issue. Morse code only has value an an entertainment
> mode for personal use...and as such has no reason to be
> a requirment.
>
> There's no safety reason for morse, no technical reasons
> at all. Morse is not used in any manner that suggests any
> need for all HF licnesees o know morse.
>
> Morse should be strictly an optional choice to learn and
> use.
>
> Bill Sohl K2UNK
> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
> Visit the No-Code WEB site: http://www.nocode.org
Oh, come on, Bill! I think prospective hams should demonstrate an
ability to make a coherer/decoherer, a sal ammonical wet rectifier, and
a rotary spark-ga transmitter. Do away with those silly solid-state
theory questions on the exams and test for important knowledge, like
Type 57 plate characteristics and self-rectification. Don't forget a
section on the pghlogiston theory of heat transfer.
We must keep the hobby pure!
KC0ES (with tongue firmly in cheeck)
Howard Coleman W6HQA
Cecil A. Moore wrote:
>
> oly...@iglou.com wrote:
> > With all the tools available today to learn the code with,
> > it isn't that hard anyway. Mike L. ke4hlu
>
> Hi Mike, what about my friend with a commercial radio license,
> years of experience as a broadcast engineer, who spent hundreds
> of hours over 20 years and never got to 13wpm? Some otherwise
> normal people cannot learn 13wpm no matter how hard they try.
>
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA, OOTC
If your friend was able to pass the 5 wpm, then a waver may be possible
based upon a learning disability. I do not mean that as a derogatory
statement against your friend or any others that have tried and tried to
obtain the 13 wpm. It is a foreign language and to some, learning a
foreign language is an impossibility.
73 Howard W6HQA
Jeffrey Herman
Cecil A. Moore <cecil...@delphi.com> wrote:
>oly...@iglou.com wrote:
>> With all the tools available today to learn the code with,
>> it isn't that hard anyway. Mike L. ke4hlu
>Hi Mike, what about my friend with a commercial radio license,
>years of experience as a broadcast engineer, who spent hundreds
>of hours over 20 years and never got to 13wpm? Some otherwise
>normal people cannot learn 13wpm no matter how hard they try.
How about a medical waiver? Did you tell him that over 95% of the US
amateur spectrum is available via a code-free license?
I wanted to become a commercial airline pilot but couldn't pass the
FAA eye exam, so I chose another career. Maybe your friend should also
realize his limitations (especially after 20 years) and try persuing
another field of interest.
Followup directed to .policy,
Jeff KH2PZ
Tom Bean
Joe Mama wrote:
>
> > Mike, you DON'T get it. We are not whining, we are making
> > the effort to eliminate code testing. The question is WHY
> > should anyone now be orced to learn morse code?
>
> you don't want to learn code then take your sorry ass back to channel 19.
> But just SHUT UP about it! You want to up-grade? Learn the code. Its that
> simple. You won't EVER get it changed. There are allot more of us than
> there are of you. Get it? Now, GO STUDY YOUR CODE!
>
> --... ...-- --..-- -.- ....- -..- .-
>
> For you no code losers thats: 73, K4XA
I've been lurking here as I have only just started studying for a
license, and the code is obviously controversial, however I haven't
found a post yet explaining w-h-y it is a requirement. It seems
there must be more of a reason than just "because". The analogies
offered seem a bit odd also ie., bad eyesight kept me from flying
so if you can't learn the code find a different hobby. (huh?)
If it is only an arbritrary requirement then why not require
fluency in French and the ability to do 200 push-ups?
Signed, a no code sorry ass loser for now <vbg>
--
Tom Bean
muy...@worldnet.att.net
"I fly because it releases my mind from the
tyranny of petty things."
Antoine de St-Exupery
Cecil A. Moore
michael silva wrote:
> W-A-V-I-E-R Mike, KK6GM
Why should he get a waiver? There is absolutely nothing wrong
with him! The wrongness is in the Morse code testing requirement.
73, Cecil, W6RCA, OOTC
Cecil A. Moore
Tom Bean wrote:
> The analogies
> offered seem a bit odd also ie., bad eyesight kept me from flying
> so if you can't learn the code find a different hobby. (huh?)
Hi Tom, welcome to r.r.a.policy. If Morse code testing were eliminated,
the hobby would be populated by RF electronic engineers and that would
make all the electronically ignorant hams miserable. Morse code is their
only claim to fame. If Morse code testing were eliminated, they would be
the ones labeled "not real hams" and that feeling is eating them alive.
73, Cecil, W6RCA, OOTC