Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

CODE: What's the Problem?

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Ed Loranger

unread,

Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97

Christopher Cox wrote:
>
> I must admit, its people like you who make me look at code and want to
> learn it. Even though I think code has little value as a testing
> requirement, I have seen people have great fun with the mode.
>
> I am still trying to learn it <NO FLAMES> and really find it getting
> easier. Although the "Skill" is great fun, I am just trying to convey to
> others that this "Skill" buys you nothing but entertainment value. Even at
> 13 WPM it is equivenlent to 1 Baud. Thats Slow! Not effecient
> Communications even at its bandwidth. But FUN!.
>
> Regards
>
> Christopher Cox
> KC8FRJ
> TRA#4901
>
> Ed Loranger <lora...@sr.hp.com> wrote in article
> <333178...@sr.hp.com>...
> > OK. I'm a coder. I don't care if its QRQ or QRS, just
> > working the code is fun.
> >
> > The problem I have is that as an extra, I can do the
> > fast code on receive, but I only have a straight key and
> > don't want to send garbage when trying to send QRQ.
> >
> > It seems a lot of high speed coders are out there. But they're
> > shutting many straight keyers out. Then they've got some
> > of theses character completion devices, decoders etc.
> >
> > What ever happened to really working the hobby to all levels?
> > I like to go QRS -- especially in QRN/QRM periods. This is
> > a real challenge at QRP. But everyone can work it!
> >
> > One can operate CW like a surgeon with a knife -- skillfully
> > inserting a signal between two "fists" and shutting down the
> > XTAL filter. Now this is fun, and can't be done with SSB voice
> > etc.
> >
> > I think that this is what its all about. HAM operators actually
> > demonstrating their skills in the communications arena.
> >
> > I hope some of you can slow down so that others might
> > answer. Let's open the door to all HAMS!
> >
> > (All opinions are mine and do not intend to offend others
> > or their Amateur Operating Modes.)
> >
> > -Ed.
> >
> > --
> > 72/73 de WE6W QRP .3W QSX 7040 KHz SK ee
> > mailto:we...@qsl.net
> > http://www.qsl.net/we6w
> >

Thanks for you input Christopher.

You know, I was wondering, if the code wasn't so hard
to learn, (As people say), if this would even be an
issue. It seems that if anyone could learn the code
overnight or in a week, I don't think this code issue
would even be on anyone's mind.

Would it be Power limitations, Bandwidth, New frequencies?

I haven't entered the code debate or sided either way. Hence
my post "What's the Problem". I learned the code in 31 working
days in the Marine Corps in 1976. In fact I received the
Samuel F.B. Morse Award (the only recepient of 75 class members.)
Actually, during those 31 working days, we didn't even touch
the code until after 10 days. They had to teach us to type
first! I graduated at the top of my class and was rewarded with
HFDF secondary schooling and Choice of Duty stations anywhere
in the world. From my perspective, even though I know it was
difficult, the code 'appears' to come easy to me. That's
why I haven't really argued the "Code/No-Code" issue.

But what if they required a typing test before you could buy
a computer? Perhaps 30 WPM etc. No, actually anyone knows that
they can hunt and peck out characters on the kbd and they get
better over time.

I think code gives our amateurs a common base. One where all
can comfortably rest assured that someone "out there" can
be worked. All they ask is we barely learn the code for our
novice at 5 WPM -- and with a little effort you're up to
13, 18, 22 wpm -- Really!

I also think the debate really is -- 'Why can't we just do
voice on all frequencies with Extra class priveledges?".

Maybe they should remove the code requirement, but ADD another
requirement such as proficiency in Two or Three other communic-
ations protocol. How about RTTY operation and a Teletype
typing test, reading the BAUDOT code on a tape etc... Something
that shows some dedication to the Amateur Radio Hobby, some
insurance that our hobby is still comprised of dedicated
individuals, not just 2KW Appliance operators and thier
mail-order Beam antennas.

See? I'm a coder, and I agree, "Yeah, pull the code requirement."
The real question is -- "Ask not what the hobby can do for
you, but what you can do for the hobby."

I think this is the real issue.

73 tu fer qso de we6w sk cl ee
--
72/73 de WE6W QRP .3W QSX 7040 KHz SK ee
mailto:we...@qsl.net
http://www.qsl.net/we6w

Gary Coffman

unread,

Mar 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/30/97

In article <3336C4...@sr.hp.com> Ed Loranger <lora...@sr.hp.com> writes:
>
>You know, I was wondering, if the code wasn't so hard
>to learn, (As people say), if this would even be an
>issue. It seems that if anyone could learn the code
>overnight or in a week, I don't think this code issue
>would even be on anyone's mind.

True. But the variability in the time and effort it takes
for people to master Morse is *very* large. For example,
it took me 6 weeks to get to 5 WPM, and I worked very
hard at it. It then took another 13 months, with more
than 2 hours a day of on and off air practice, for me
to reach 13 WPM. And it was easier for me than for some
others. Some folks who have worked very very hard have
never broken through the barrier that falls in the 8
to 10 WPM range for most people. Meanwhile, others pick
it up with very little effort in a short time.

(Most amateurs are self-selected for Morse aptitude
because those who lack it didn't become amateurs, at
least not in the days before the code test free Tech.
So many amateurs tend to think anyone can do Morse
at 13 or 20 WPM without undue effort. That does not
appear to be the case. Less than 1% of the population
has ever been able to achieve Morse proficiency, yet
many of those people would be an asset to amateur
radio.)

Now none of that would matter if Morse were a vital skill
that an amateur simply must have to operate. But of course
it isn't. More than half of the amateurs who have passed
a code test never use Morse again (according to an ARRL
member survey). And our Incentive (to pass faster Morse
tests) Licensing system is incentivizing the wrong thing.
It makes the highest aspiration of being an amateur the
receiving of Morse at faster and faster speeds. That
is a very bad image to be presenting to the public whose
spectrum we use, and to the regulators who control it.
It says we are a Society for Creative Anachronism, flint
knife chippers in an age of stainless steel cutlery.
That doesn't bode well for our chances of hanging on
to the valuable spectrum that we occupy.

Now most of that valuable spectrum is at VHF/UHF, not HF,
but that's immaterial. The perception Morse testing casts
on the entire service also taints our occupancy of this more
valuable spectrum, which our licensing system treats as
a throwaway we can entrust to our 6th class amateurs. That's
a very dangerous idea.

If we must have an Incentive Licensing system (and I can make
a good case that we shouldn't, all amateurs need the same
knowledge and skill set to perform legally and safely in any
of our spectrum), we should be incentivizing amateurs to
improve their skills with more modern and more powerful
techniques than Morse. Our charter charges us to develop
a pool of skilled operators, technicians, and electronics
experts who can advance the communications SOTA. We are to
provide a ready pool of trained people to step in and augment
the communications of military and civil government in times
of national emergency. But the military and civil government
have no need for Morse operators any longer. They do have a
need for people who understand and can operate and repair
modern communications systems. Our self-training should be
directed toward providing such people, not toward providing
people with increasingly obsolete skills.

Eliminating the Morse testing system, and the incentivizing
of backwater techniques and skills it produces, would go far
toward rehabilitating the image of amateur radio as a progressive
communications service. And that can pay big dividends in the
fight to retain our spectrum.

James W. KELLEY

unread,

Mar 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/31/97

In article <1997Mar30.0...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>,
Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:

>.... we should be incentivizing amateurs to

>improve their skills with more modern and more powerful
>techniques than Morse.

>.....the military and civil government

>have no need for Morse operators any longer. They do have a
>need for people who understand and can operate and repair
>modern communications systems. Our self-training should be
>directed toward providing such people, not toward providing
>people with increasingly obsolete skills.

>Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems

Exactly the point, and very well stated. This is indeed the bottom line
in our discussion here on policy. I very much enjoy using CW. I can get
out fairly well with a minimum of power and a meager antenna (I could
no doubt do as well or better if I connected my computer to the rig). But
I do not feel my efforts in learning to use the CW mode have done anything
to advance the goals of the service, nor do they do anything which would
constitute an advancement of the state of the art.

Those who authorize us to utilize the amateur spectrum would indeed be
better served by operators who are knowlegable in state of the art
communications - those methods used by fire, Red Cross, and the
communications service providers. Instead we offer them our best
telegraphers. Turns out it doesn't matter though, because many of our
operators learn these more relevant skills on their own anyway - without
the support of the incentive licensing system.

The future for young people now is in computers. The future in
communications is satellites and wireless digital. The amateur service
must recognize this, and should encourage it's operators to work in these
areas. *The Amateur Service should encourage the use and development in
these modes, and seriously begin preparations to change it's upgrade
incentives and testing requirements to reflect the major developments in
communications over the last 25 (or more) years.*

Our highest esteem should be held for amateurs who have mastered
communications techniques utilizing modern technologies. Break my rank
back down to Tech+ until I can master the digital modes and track a
satellite, or at least require those things of the hams wishing to upgrade
from here on out. But promote, defend, and demand code proficiency? Get
outa town. It's fun, it can be useful, perhaps even good to know - but
the penultimate measure of radio communications skill? I don't think so.

Communications have undergone nothing less than a revolution. Amateur
radio should at least be willing to evolve - if for no other reason than the
sake of it's own survival. It's obvious where things are going nowadays,
and that's where amateur radio should also be going.

It's true that all of the more advanced communications techniques can be
enjoyed with the Technician class privileges. Those of us down on HF just
hang out a wire and blast a signal off to the ionosphere and let it do all
the work for us. But the accomplishments of some of the more sophisticated
operators among us - those working satellites, developing 10 GHz
transeivers and antennas, establishing digital switching and data
forwarding nodes, should be recognized and rewarded with full amateur
radio privileges by allowing them to demonstrate their more relavent,
modern skills and knowlege.

There is something positive to be said for the amount of _time_ it takes
to develope adequate skills to pass the code exams. While we work toward
our upgrade, we pick up some fundamental operating skills. I would claim
that it is not the Morse code that makes a better operator, but rather
the time spent operating - any mode - which developes the skills we seek
in an operator. Perhaps it's time to take this back into consideration.

This idea of "earning" an upgrade by "working" for it - HA! It was never
work - I had a blast the whole damn time! Worked better than half the
states on Novice 40 CW on a wire at 5 WPM with no sunspots. Now: reading
those boring books on microwave devices, or building an alt/az computer
interface - THAT would have been work! And more worthy of an upgrade.

I don't expect Gary to see this reply, as he has evidently blocked my email
address from his mail server. I guess I scared him or something. ;-)

73,

Jim AC6XG

0 new messages