K.I.S.S.
Dave Cox (KG4MCC)
on
July 9, 2003
View comments about this article!
K.I.S.S.
We have all heard the phrase "Keep It Simple Stupid".
Someone has probably described me as stupid during my life; therefore I like to keep things simple. I would like to apply that phrase to the ongoing discussion about the decreasing number of Hams and what to do about it.
If someone passes the written test for technician, then they can operate phone in the band plan where technicians are presently allowed.
If they pass the general test, then they can operate phone in the band plan where generals are presently allowed.
If they pass the extra test, then they can operate phone in the band plan where extras are presently allowed.
If they pass the code test, then they can operate CW within the band plan that matches their written test abilities.
Simple.
We should not require code testing for someone who tests and otherwise shows proficiency to operate at a general or extra level, but does not have the desire to operate CW.
This way, we keep it simple, and expand the ranks of amateur radio.
How many Hams do you know that only learned code to get HF privileges, then rarely if ever use CW?
How many more Hams (or non-Hams) do you know who possess technical knowledge that could pass the general or extra written tests, but do not take the tests because they do not know code and figure what's the use?
How many Hams do you think might find an interest in code if they were allowed to operate on the HF phone bands and had more exposure to code? (How would exposure to the HF phone bands cause any interest in learning code? - ed.)
Perhaps an acceptable compromise is to require the code test for extra class licenses, because extra class is the highest amateur license and should be held to the highest standard. That way, thousands who are capable of passing the general written test can get into HF (or band of interest), and still have incentive to learn CW if they strive to attain extra class.
The code requirement is keeping many good, technically capable people, out of the HF bands. The ability to work bands of interest will keep and attract more folks to Amateur Radio. More Hams represent power to lobby for frequencies, more sales for businesses dealing in Ham related industries, and more elmers to help those interested in becoming Hams. More Hams keep this hobby and service alive in this modern world of computers and instant communications.
Simple.
73's
Dave - KG4MCC
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Re: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by AB7RG on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"How many Hams do you think might find
an interest in code if they were allowed
to operate on the HF phone bands and had
more exposure to code?"
How would exposure to the HF Phone bands
cause any interest in learning Code???
Then again, with all of the crud that
frequently goes on in the phone portions
of the bands, perhaps they would take an
interest in learning CW -- fast! :-)
73 Clinton AB7RG
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What are "73's"? Maybe learning to operate a little cw would help. The slow CW test has never kept anyone but the CBers, off of the hf bands. The written tests have nothing to do with "keeping good, technically qualified people off of hf". One doesn't need any aptitude or knowledge to pass the tests since ALL questions and answers in the question pool are readily available (word for word). Cw testing is also a great way to ween those from the FM walkie-talkies and/or repeaters.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by VE6XX on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greetings All: The code debate will go on untill no-one is left to discuss it! The argument that the code requirement has denied amateur radio the membership of many otherwise excellently qualified individuals has been put forward for as long as I can remember. My personal opinion is that the contention is correct. I personally knew a number of folk who would have passed any amateur exam with flying colors, but were deterred by having to learn an archaic skill in order to become licensed so that they would never have to use it again. The recent Radio Conference has demonstrated that the majority of administrations feel that code is no longer signifigant by virtue of the fact that they voted to drop the code as a requirement for HF access. The position of the governing body in Canada is that they will poll interested parties & agencies in Canada to see if the sentiment of polled members supports dropping the code requirement.
Sadly, the polarisation of amateurs with respect to the code-no code issue is an emotional rather than a logical issue, & with the median age of amateurs steadily increasing, the likelihood of us recognising
that the code has been relegated to an "art form" as opposed to a viable communication mode is all the more remote.The "If it was good enough 30 years ago, it's good enough now! " mentality is pervasive, & we, the older generation are reluctant to embrace change.
There is, I expect, little help for it. I wonder if the code requirement were to be dropped today, worldwide, what we would gain in numbers percentage wise. I am of the opinion that Amateur Radio is so poorly "marketed" that the teeming hordes of codeless hams the naysayers claim would inundate our ranks simply would not materialize. The general public has
virtually no understanding of us, & indeed, our very existance as a radio service is unknown to the majority
of citizens. If all signatories to the ITU agree to drop the code requirement for HF access, I predict that there will be an initial "bump" in the curve representing newcomers to the hobby, & then the curve will resume it's slope. I believe we will realise only a few percentage points of growth directly ascribable to doing away with the code. There is little doubt that we must grow as a service, or ultimately lose our frequency bands to other interests, but some form of
intensive "marketing" scheme will have to be implemented in order to achieve this end. I have no idea what form that scheme should take. Doubtless we have many hams who can rightfully claim "expert" status with marketing, or possibly education, or both, who would be the logical choice of "prime movers" to undertake suchg a program.
I hope that a cadre of such folk rise shortly as a Phoenix for amateur radio
CHEERS! Brian, VE6XX
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by G0MGX on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Things are a bit different in the UK. Here it used to be quite simple. You passed the exam and got a VHF license and passed the morse to get a HF/VHF license - simple.
I worked extremely hard to learn CW back in 1988, now, in a few weeks/months time anyone who passed the exam and not the morse will have the same license as me - I resent that.
The CW test is simply that - a test. It shows dedication to the hobby and a willingness to learn something hard – the exam (like in the US) is easy in comparison.
I have to this day NEVER used CW on the air - I passed the test, got my license and then headed to University with no money, house or ability to use the radio (not that I had one).
Only several years later when life settled down a little did I get active. CW - can't even read it - just bought Code Quick to try and re-teach myself.
Summary - in the UK the morse test separated the men from the boys. We now have the Novice class, Foundation and something else.
Whilst there are a few very genuine people who have got onto the ham bands via this route, the majority are treating it like CB. My ears hear things like "burner" on 2m - can this be true?
I worked an M3 call in the UK the other day who asked for a report - I gave him one - he then came back and asked again - he was stronger. He said he was now running 100W. His license only allows 10. What can you do? He clearly had no respect for his license or the hobby. Needless to say I didn’t reply. This is just one example of many I could offer.
I simply don't know where the hobby is heading.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by ROOT_ADMIN on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
in the spirit of keeping it SIMPLE...
You want to get a ham license, you take a test. If the current test requires morse code, you pass morse code, if the old test required you draw a transmiter, you drew a transmitter.
Amateur Radio is not a RIGHT.
simple eh?
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KG4VPV on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the only way to encourage good operation and proper usage of the bands, is to mentor to those who dont know. Often in these times, I hear of people getting into it because of something one person does that they arent supposed to. The offended one just goes right into verbally bashing the other. I think if we are to grow as a hobby, we need to bring this type of behavior to an end. If an operator is running 100 watts, despite this being 10 times what he is allowed, ask him about it, (Why are you running 100 watts? Arent you such and such license class?) then, give positive feedback by saying, oh, see if you can do it with what such and such power (No repeater I have intended to hit uses 100 watts with the right equipment), don't just not reply. (I think in some ways of looking at it, that may have offended some operators out there, no offense intended to you, please dont take it that way) With the exams the way they are set up, and people memorizing the question pools, I think some people can honestly plead ignorance, despite having a license saying they know better. Take the time to explain things. Work with them, not against them. If we continue to verbally bash people without warning, our hobby WILL grow into a bunch of glorified CB'ers. Good operators are taught by other good operators. It doesnt just happen. I think everyone out there can vouch for the fact that they became a good operator by learning from a better one, myself included. PASS DOWN(err, ON) WHAT YOU KNOW! Why make enemies when you can make friends? One of the first 'embarrasing' things I did on the radio was ask someone what there "20" was. I did not get verbally bashed for it, and we all ended up having a good laugh in the long run. As it turns out, I made about 15 different contacts that night. Would I have done so if I had been ignored for my ignorance? Of course not. Why am I a better operator today? Because of some of the same people I met that night, the same ones I still go to for help when I need it, because I know I can, because they won't ignore me.
And another thing: If someone doesnt want to learn CW, that's there right. If they feel the need to, or if they wish to upgrade, then they will. It's a choice they have to make. The way it is currently set up is ideal. Learn CW, or not? Lord knows, there are tons of tougher things to answer in this world, making a decision to learn CW one hour out of your day should not be a tough one, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO. I see a lot of operators posting comments on how easy they are making the exams, how it was harder in their day. I have to admit, I see a lot of younger operators that want everything in this world handed to them on a plate, including a ham license, and I have to tell you, I dont agree with that mentality. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. I'm only 22 years old, but the general concensous of my peers is that the code test is out of date, and dumb. Well, I can honestly say that things that I don't want to do seem dumb to me also, I see where your coming from, but I tend to think that its there for a reason, and wiser groups of people have put it there for a reason, maybe because they know something we dont.
Take pride in your license, and the fact that you had to actually study and work towards a goal. You will not only be a better operator, but a better person in the long run. Please don't get mad, or fed up at the world because they don't want to drop the code test for our generation. Remember, we should set an example for the aspiring hams out there, just as hams before our generation set the standard for us. How is it going to look if we give the impression that we honestly don't care about anything but we want to do in this hobby? Oh, look mom, I got this license because I hardly did any work at all to get it, arent yo proud of me?, is just one of the thoughts that come in to my head. Sometimes you have to look at the greater good, the big picture if you will.
We all need to take the time to look beyond our own interests, and why we would/would not like for something to be done, and start stepping up to the plate to decide what is good for us as a whole. Remember, someone out there is always listening. Let them know you care, give them the impression that your there to do good, and in the process, you will affect others to do good things by doing so.
Keep it simple? Sure. But don't hand it to me either.
|
| |
|
CODE/NO CODE Argument -> CLASS SYSTEM
|
|
|
by K4III on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Code has surpassed its usefulness and international mandates according to the ITU at the latest Convention. Isn't packet radio speed technology a dinosaur compared to broadband and DSL speeds of 1.7 Mb Megabits/sec? However, it is a valuable and important tool and foundation for those interested in digital computer communications? I even had to learn about it in my Information Systems College Course! I don't believe it is on the tests much, though...
This is the same as code. OK I didn't have to learn Morse Code for class, but it is a valuable tool and language for those learning the basics and theory involved in earlier wireless communications. The reason it has been removed is that it is no longer the latest technology and has been replaced with other forms of digital communications. Unfortunately this is how "systems" work.
You can call me personally anything or anyone you want, but this agenda must be the General global consensus. I wasn't a voting consortium or party during the conference, either.
It is only a matter of time. What to replace it with is what seems to be the question... However, what new technology has become popular in ham radio the last 20 years? Phone patches have been around for some time, we can't "scramble" our frequencies, IRLP is pretty basic, Repeater setup/operation hasn't changed... Maybe it's time for a technological revolution or to jump into some of the new data/APRS/WX station modes?
Simply because the language "Latin" isn't offered in a high school language cirriculum doesn't necessarily mean that the students taking German, French, Italian, etc... aren't as smart, humane, international or intelligent... Think about this. Lets argue the next technology that will become widespread for hams instead!
What I don't like are hams who suggest or use the Amateur "class-levels" as a "better-than" chart. If CW wasn't almost the sole difference in license class system, these posts wouldn't be so widespread! I don't see class as a contest, but as an Activity level. I'm interested in VHF and higher right now. I still may take the Gen or Higher test to see what I know and to study/learn more technical knowledge, but I have a bandplan so I don't need to memorize band frequencies, and I don't plan to use CW anytime in the near future although I can spoof it out at about 6-7WPM.
The next time you're in a traffic accident and are in court, try placing blame based upon the driver with the most traffic citations, least years of license, out of state driver's licence, job position and salary. HiHi
The whole class system was set up because there exist certain "rules" that must be followed for each class level because of the international communications treaties with countries where communications and politics play differing roles, and bands which have different propagation characteristics. Also, more in depth equipment knowledge is required to repair and maintain HF equipment.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by DOODAH on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I worked extremely hard to learn CW back in 1988,
>now, in a few weeks/months time anyone who passed the
>exam and not the morse will have the same license as
>me - I resent that.
...
> I have to this day NEVER used CW on the air
That attitude disgusts me. Just because YOU had to
suffer, everyone else has to? If, at the time you
were learning, the regulations had changed, would
you have accepted the change? You betcha you would
have. So, your bitterness is clouding your thinking,
you should watch out for that - it makes you illogical.
>It shows dedication to the hobby and a willingness
>to learn something hard
That should be irrelevant in a hobby that is all about
being enabled to start learning. Your licence isn't
the reward, the degree you get at university, no, it's
the acceptance for entry to the uni - that ALLOWS you
to START learning via doing.
>in the UK the morse test separated
>the men from the boys.
Oh dear oh dear, elitest rubbish! Why not just
welcome anyone who shows a genuine interest?
Are you the sort of person who simply won't talk
to teenagers just because they haven't had the life
experiences that you've had?
> the majority are treating it like CB. My ears hear
>things like "burner" on 2m - can this be true?
it's only slang. It's not against the rules, it's
just your prejudices showing up. A rose by any other
name would smell as sweet. Burner, schmurner, linear,
does it REALLY matter?
> I worked an M3 call ...
> .. He said he was now running 100W.
> His license only allows 10. What can you do?
That is a failing of our current system, but if
you're not part of the solution you're part of the
problem. You didn't fancy advising him of his error?
Or, if he showed blatent disregard, report him?
It's up to us to police our service, no-one else is
going to.
>I simply don't know where the hobby is heading.
It's heading wherever we let it. It's in our
hands. Don't give up on it!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8UNF on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes , keep it simple. It's just a hobby and it should be open for everyone to enjoy !
I'm glad that the code requirement is going away ! bye!
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC9ECL on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That sounds like a great plan to me. Hopefully digital modes like PSK31 would be included in the non-CW portion of the General and Extra bands. That is what i mainly want HF for, though im holding out since i have no interest in CW, and don't want to waste my time with something that i will never use.
I'm younger (17 years old) and new to ham radio, so please give me the wrong impression of ham radio operators by turning my optinion that CW is a waste of time in today's high tech world by flaming and arguing. This is simply my opinion, and everyone has a right to their own opinion. Don't flame and bash me for it.
73s
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9CRY on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I too agree with keeping things simple but when one operates HF, on any mode, you have the ability to operate beyond our nation's borders. For this reason, IMHO, only properly trained operators should have access. Yes CW is an older mode of communication but there are other modes that presently we are not tested, or at least show profiency, on. Some countries require (or used to require) operators to be SWLs for a period prior to being able to transmit. The idea was to have them listen and learn and hopefully pick up good habits. Some countries require a transmitting test where one sits next to the instructor and demonstrates good operating skills prior to being issued a license. And, I believe, the instructor then listens to one's initial transmissions for a time period prior to licensing.
When we operate on HF, even if it's only for across town, the signals most likely will be heard by others in other countries, therefore, like it or not, we are ambassadors for our country and should put our best foot forward. A single written test does not allow enough time to determine if a candidate possess the proper skills required to be an ambassador; maybe having to study and pass the old CW tests really just allowed the candidate (and any instructors) a time period to gain (give) the required knowledge.
Personally I'd propose a short SWL requirement and then a transmitting requirement, maybe for all modes (I'd have to think more about that.). One may say that all this delay in being able to operate on HF will just turn off potential candidates. To that I say too bad; once again, we should only allow properly trained ambassadors to operate HF. With all the communication methods available to folks these days, operating HF will never have the popularity and population like we used to have and that should be OK. There will always be a small core group that will be there; people still ride horses and they were "replaced" years ago.
Tnx for the opportunity; gotta satellite sked to meet!
Phil KB9CRY
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by MY_OPINION on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To answer Ed's question of why access to HF phone might promote interest in CW, consider this. Downslide of sunspot cycle and poor conditions present fewer phone contact opportunities. A ham listening to static on the phone bands might seek another mode to communicate.
"Hmmm, what might be at the low ends of the bands? CW? Oh yes, I remember that I was forced to learn code to be able to use HF phone. Left me with a foul taste for CW. With conditions making phone contacts less plentiful, perhaps I will give CW another listen, now that I am not forced to do it. Or I might try a digital mode." It might even be fun!
If they are not on HF at all, the opportunity will not exist. A true ham will make the communication happen, regardless of mode.
It is generally not the new hams that exhibit poor, even illegal, operating practices. Listen on 75 any night of the week and hear all of the long licensed hams prove the point. And amazingly, most of them don't even realize the irony of using phone portions of the bands to complain about the codeless ones.
Bitterness and resentment exist among hams, voiced by another posting in this thread. Build a bridge and get over it.
73,
M_O
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by AD5X on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We should not require code testing for someone who tests and otherwise shows proficiency to operate at a general or extra level, but does not have the desire to operate CW."
I had to take history classes and other non-engineering courses when I was in college (studying to be an engineer). I didn't have the desire to take those classes. At work, I'm often asked to do things I don't have the desire to do. So if I'm only interested in QRP SSB, then I guess I shouldn't have to learn anything about packet, RF hazard levels, etc, right? All our lives we have to do things we don't want to do, and learn things we don't want to learn. In most cases, we're better off for it.
In any case, this is a moot point. WARC 2003 eliminated the Morse requirement. It'll be gone from testing in the near future.
Phil - AD5X
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB1FLR on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You have made the same mistake as many before you when you state that passing the Tech test gives you phone privileges on the Tech bands. You have ALL privileges including CW. You are not limited in what mode you can use as long as you stick to the bandplan.
CW IS a simple mode. The equipment required is minimal. It consists of long tones, short tones and spaces. Very simple. Very fun.
Best Regards,
Rick, KB1FLR
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a 20 WPM Extra. I earned my Extra in '94, and in that time have made about 10 contacts via CW.
And I think it should be retained. Why?
There is an old saying "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." We hear the old timers talk about driving for hours and sitting having to draw diagrams in front of an FCC tester. We listen as they talk of tubes, tanks, and coils. Of plywood chassis and kits.
We wanted more available tests. Now every weekend it seems someone within an hour's drive is having a testing session. Complete with friendly VE's, donuts, and coffee. We don't have to build anything...we buy it off the shelf. The "junk box" is becoming a thing of the past.
It's not about CW...it's about the continued lowering of the bar, and at what point is it going to stop?Someone has even gone so far as to say "I don't need any knowledge of electrical theory to operate a ham radio. Just give me a test on radio operating."
Is it time to rewrite Part 97 and leave out the part about "trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts"?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought ham radio was about learning.
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W0VP on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you want to eliminate the code requirement, that's just fine as long as 'verbatim' questions for the written exams are no longer available from the FCC.
Let's keep it REAL simple. Have only one class of amateur license with a 100 question test. A score of 70% or better would be required to pass. The test should be comprised of amateur rules & regulations, basic operating practice, and some very basic electronic theory (no transmitter drawing, but at least know how to use ohm's law).
However...
If you want that amateur license, you are going to have to study for it. No more giving out the test questions in advance. The FCC will tell you in advance the subject areas you should be familiar with, but most applicants will have to spend some time in the books prior to taking the test.
At the very least, amateur operators should have some basic knowledge about the hobby they are entering into. And having to pass a REAL exam should instill some 'pride of ownership' into the new ham. It's simply human nature to prize something you've had to work for higher than something that was simply handed to you with zero effort on your part.
73,
KC W0VP
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N2XE on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With all due respect Dave,
It's a requirement, just learn code and get on with it. All it takes is 20 minutes a day for three weeks and anyone, and I mean anyone can pass it. On the plus side, several psycological studies from the 1940's show that lower IQ actually helps. For those who say they "just can't learn code", you didn't try. It's that simple.
The Gorden West tapes are excellent and with one of the PC Morse programs, it's painless.
Nobody looks forward to Morse but after they learn it, about half work nothing but. I don't want to beat a dead horse but in the event of some kind of 9/11 emergency, Morse could make the difference between life and death. It's advantages:
a 13dB advantage over SSB... so when energy may be at a premium, 5 watts will do the job nicely and you don't need to waste 30 to 300 watts running a computer like you do with PSK31.
You can squeeze 10 Morse signals in the bandwidth required for SSB.
Morse communication is faster than voice. If you doubt that, just examine NTS net times and QTC figures.
Morse QSOs are polite, fun and highly refined. I have never, ever, not once ever heard profanity, insults, sexual or racist crap on CW... ever!
In short, CW is Ham Radio.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N9BOR on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What happens when the band drops out during a telephony QSO? The other station's signal is not strong enough to copy, but a skilled operator can switch to CW to get the message through — simple! Does this not represent maintaining a pool of skilled operators (basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service)? CW is simple, effective and doesn't take up much bandwidth (like wideband telephony modes).
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Lets keep it even simplier and eliminate the written test also! Think how many qualified people are being kept out of radio because they have to learn ancient things like electronic theory, or about modes and bands they don't want to operate on. How about, you pay $20 and fill out an application and you get to operate on VHF, or you pay $50 and fill out an application you get to operate on HF? Nothing simplier than that!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NS2CSX on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i am going for my technician's ticket on saturday. as a child, my parents had a few friends that i thought we "out there" that had massive antennas on the houses. my boyscout leader was into amateur radio - even had his callsign on his license plate.
i have thought about getting my ticket for nearly a decade. a few weeks ago a co-worker (WB1FXX) dropped a few copies of QST on my desk as well as the '97 ARRL Operating Manual. i decided now was the time.
i would love to learn CW and eventually will. i see it as another communication tool. phone and packet have their place, as well does CW. i am interested in DXing and phone is only going to get me so far.
because i am new to amateur radio, i thought listening in a few weeks before i had my ticket would force me to know before i spoke. i now understand some of the finer points of proper communication and also, from example, what not to do.
listening has also piqued my interest to move into other bands. 6 meter DXing is fun, but i can only imagine what 20 and 40 meters will be like.
it comes down to this: CW is not as much a technology as a mode of communicating. we no longer need to understand circuit designing with tubes - that technology has been replaced with silicon chips, but we still need to be able to communicate, and i will use any means needed to make a contact.
limiting the modes you can communicate using will only limit the people you can meet. with that said, CW is a far less expensive mode than RTTY and packet. CW is modest in bandwidth and not prone to babbling - maybe i should have sent this in CW
--... ...-- --.--
... - . ...- . .... .- .- -. .-.. --- -.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC licenses radio stations to operate in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." It also licenses qualified station operators under the same terms. When you got your licenses in the mail (yes, there were two of them), one was a station license (mine's framed on the wall), and the other was an operator's license (mine's in my wallet).
When I was licensed as a First Class Radiotelephone Operator back in the '60s, I had to pass test elements relating to the operation and mantenance of various commercial stations. I did not have to pass a Morse code test. The ability to send and receive Morse code was not then, and is not now, a necessary qualification to operate or maintain the stations I was licensed to operate or maintain.
The "public necessity" of the Morse code requirement for amateur operators derived from the potential of hams causing interference with military or marine stations. 90 years ago, these stations used Morse code exclusively. If they had to order a ham off the air, he had to be able to copy their transmission. Now that marine and military traffic no longer uses Morse code (except for certain military special ops units), that "public necessity" for the requirement no longer exists.
There is also no longer any treaty obligation for the requirement.
Unless someone can show that it is in the public interest to maintain the Morse code requirement for HF operators, it could be argued that keeping in place is arbitary and capricious. If that be the case, then the FCC should remove it. Indeed, they may not have the statutory authority to retain it.
Note that the Morse code requirement must now be shown to be in the public interest--not the interest of some segment of the amateur community, but the general public.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N8ILG on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guys, we could argue this "code vs. no code" and "test vs. no test" stuff until the cows come home and it wouldn't solve anything. Let's face it, the long-term prognosis for amateur radio is not good.
Amateur radio is no longer the main gateway into the electronics business and there are too many other computer/audio/video-type hobbies for young people to enjoy with their disposable income. Whether they take a test or not, we will simply not add significant numbers of new members to our ranks due to competition from other technical hobbies. Frankly, I think that most of our internal debates about testing are moot.
In my opinion, the best thing we could do for our hobby is to be active, follow the rules, share our knowledge, and operate the bands and modes we enjoy.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NS2CSX on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
as a reply to CW being in the interest of the public... during an emergency, what mode is quick to setup for long distance, low power communication. FM phone is a bandwidth hog. SSB helps, but still takes up some space. CW is very narrow and quick.
the chance it will be used in an emergency is slim, but it is still a viable mode and form of communication. hell, some could argue it is a minor cipher technology since it is not instantly understood by all.
everything has it's place, and CW, although old, is not dead.
--... ...-- --..--
... - . ...- . .... .- -. .-.. --- -.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K0RGR on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I also truly dislike the current written exam scheme, where the questions and answers are published in advance, but not because people are passing the test by memorizing the questions. Indeed, with over 500 questions in the Technician pool now, it takes a great deal of effort to memorize them - MUCH more than it took to learn the General material years ago.
As one who teaches Technician classes, I'm very concerned about the new question pool. With so many questions to cover, I'm afraid that most of our teaching time will be spent teaching to the questions instead of actually teaching the material we want the students to learn! The result will be even more poorly qualified Technicians in the future. Multiple-guess testing of regurgitated material is a lousy way to assess achievement.
Back in ancient times (the 60's), people memorized the license manual instead. The license manual was similar to today's ARRL Q+A manual, which presents the questions and brief explanations of the correct answers. The General Class license manual material was only a few pages in length - much easier to memorize than today's stuff. More importantly, though, the information in the License Manual was at least sufficient to ensure that you knew SOMETHING - hopefully enough to keep you out of trouble. I do believe it is possible to memorize the current question pool with very little knowledge transfer. The result is much more work for much less benefit.
This is not the fault of the licensees! They're working hard to get their tickets!
I would rather see us find a way to replace the current entry level exam with a required short course of study that would cover the current Tech level material AND expose the newcomers to basic electronic building and troubleshooting skills and modes other than 2 meter FM. I could see this being similar to the British entry license.
Or, at least, scrap the question pools and go back to the old license manual method. Have a pool of secret questions that are clearly and fairly written aimed at testing the applicant's real knowledge, not their memorization skills. The result of either approach would be better prepared Techs.
As for the Morse test, I hope FCC retains it somewhere, perhaps for the Extra test, but that we find a way to grant newcomers limited access to the HF bands without the code. They should have access to all permitted modes on at least one nighttime band and one daytime band with fairly severe power limits - 25 W. perhaps. I'd particularly like to see them get CW and digital priveleges on 30 meters. Historically, Class 'B' licensees had phone priveleges on 10 and 160 meters. The British have chosen to keep their newbies off 10 meters - maybe we should do the same. 15 seems to be much under-utilized.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K8JDC on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love this debate. Operating in the HF (DX) bands is a privilege, not a right. The HF bands are fundamentally different than the normally-LOS bands. Some people act as if the CW requirement is somehow a huge mountain they must climb to get the privilege. I learned code sufficiently well to pass the test in 9 days and believe anybody could learn it and pass the test within a month. This isn't like training for 6 months for a marathon. The test is only 5 wpm and you don't have to get a perfect score to pass. Get real and show a little commitment. If you want the ticket, learn the code. It's not hard. And for those who say they don't have time, then I say you don't have the time to operate HF. If you've got time for one, you've got time for the other. Kids less than 8 years old pass the test! Come on!
If amateur radio is suffering in membership and/or participation, deleting the CW requirement is not going to fix it. There might be a short-term rise in licenses awarded, but this will not be a long-term solution to the hobby. People who aren't willing to spend 3 weeks learning code to have HF privileges are hardly the saviors we've been waiting for.
JDC
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WO5I on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the end, this code vs. no-code issue really isn't about what we NEED to know, it's about what we have ACCESS to.
On a written test, we are expected to know about all the modes, frequencies, and techniques we have ACCESS to. It's fair game to put questions about moon bounce, meteor scatter, modulation, packet, or anything else that an amateur operator can encounter. Most hams will never use moon bounce. So, by this mentality, we should do away with the moon bounce questions on the extra test. "BS!" says me. If you have the ability to access it, you have to demonstrate the knowledge of its use -- at least as far as ham radio goes.
Is it in the public interest to keep code requirements? I think so. If your goal is to keep it simple, there is no simpler mode than CW. In the worst of conditions, it's so much easier to make out the presence or absence of a pure sine wave tone than it is to distinguish between the phonic combinations required to form a spoken word.
The requirement for code may disappear one day, but the mode never will. Not as long as there are hams out there that want to work Ducie Island on 15 meters during the bottom of the sunspot cycle.
Besides, CW saved the world! Anyone who saw the movie "Independence Day" knows that! Hi Hi.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KA2LIM on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW LEARNED AND USED PROMOTES DISCIPLINE. DISCIPLINE PROMOTES GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES FOR ALL MODES. DISCIPLINE IS K.I.S.S.
KEN
KA2LIM
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Young KC9ECL, please enlighten us all and explain what you meant when you wrote "73s". What are "73s"? Is it some sort of "secret handshake" for the Yaesu walkie-talkie club or something? Is it some sort of new grid square locator? Does it mean "10-4-break-go-break"? Does it mean that you have a bolt stuck through your nose and have a tattoo on your butt? Is it a code that lets other "gays" know that you are available or something? What's the deal? Please give us some "enlightenment".
|
| |
|
CW testing different from other topics
|
|
|
by AG4DG on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing that many pro-CW-TESTING arguments conveniently overlook is the UNILATERAL power of the Morse Code test. Upgrading to General or Extra requires passing a Morse Code exam. (At least the 13 wpm and 20 wpm exam requirements were discontinued in 2000.) NO single topic has the unilateral importance of Morse Code. If you have no knowledge of a particular topic tested on the written exam, you can still pass if you correctly answer enough of the other questions correctly. You can miss all the questions on propagation but still pass if you answer all the other questions correctly. THE CW testing REQUIREMENT is a turn-off to outsiders. To an outsider, CW is a relic of the 19th century, and being required to learn it to get on HF makes them see our hobby as an old boys' club.
I am willing to bet that the FCC will either eliminate the 5 wpm exam requirement completely or retain it only for the Extra license. Since the restructuring, the FCC no longer issues Tech Plus licenses and thus does not track which people have passed the 5 wpm exam and which have not. It sounds to me as if Riley Hollingsworth didn't intend to keep the current CW testing requirement around for very long.
The argument that eliminating CW exams will lead to eliminating written exams is a classic red herring. RF exposure questions have been ADDED to the exams since the restructuring. The exam question pools are getting bigger, not smaller.
I predict that if the CW test is eliminated, there will be MORE CW operators in the future. As I said before, CW testing is a turn-off to the outsiders. When No-Code Generals start using HF, a few will discover the joys of CW. They will be exposed to overcrowded phone bands, contests, QRP, and other parts of HF that will open their mind to CW. Some percentage of the No-Code Generals will become avid CW operators sooner or later.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WO5I on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Please don't let YKY's post turn this thread into something horrible. Give it the attention it deserves: Zero.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WB4OFT on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Maybe it's not as elegant a way to communicate but it's still fun and inexpensive, and all the no-code debate makes interesting reading.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KC8UNF wrote, "It's only a hobby and it should be open for EVERYONE to enjoy". Aw yes, how sweet, more liberalism...and the wonderful world of even more expansion of the great socialist society. Yes, yes, yes, lets get out the "roger beeps" and reverberators...make the hf bands into "CB" radio. No reason to have licensing or having to put forth a little effort to learn that mean ol' code stuff. Then everyone can "enjoy" themselves. What a wonerful socialist utopia it will be. 10-4-break-go-break. Now you're mod-ju-laden.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KF6JZC on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IMHO, I don't think that a CW requirement has that much affect on who becomes interested in ham radio. I don't have the facts to back up this claim but I don't feel that there are that many new users of CB either. The reason why there are not a lot of new comers to ham radio, is because most people don't see the need to communicate with a radio when computers and cell phones will communicate anywhere in the world much more reliably.
I got in to ham radio because I was interested in the technology of radio communications (as a hobby). I think a majority of people get into this hobby for the same reason, or to use ham radio as a means for some other purpose such as emergency communications.
I don't believe that eliminating the CW requirement is going to increase the number of hams. To get more people interested in ham radio, you need to get them interested in technology. From what I have been reading on the web and hearing on the news, this is going to be difficult since more engineering and other technology jobs are being moved to other countries to reduce the cost of labor in this country. So why would anyone become interested in technology when getting a job (for example) is going to get more and more difficult? Why would they bother getting an education in engineering when they won't be able to get a job when they graduate?
I would like to do more in ham radio also, but can't because I am one of those engineers that has been out of work as an engineer since January (in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the highest unemployment areas in technology there is).
In summary, then, to increase the ranks of ham radio, I think you need to get more people interested in science and technology. This won't happen until there again becomes a need for more people to work in these areas.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hmm, some young "fella" thought my question to the kid about the "73s" foolishness was "something horrible". Must be a lib. Maybe, perhaps, even a member of MANBA or something???
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K8JME on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why should morse code (NOT "CW", by the way -- CW is an emission; morse code is not) be required? Because of its reliability. The only reason that amateur radio maintains its privileged status with the feds is because of its utility in emergencies. If our value to society declines because we are no longer reliable in emergencies, then we lose our privileged status -- and eventually we will be pigeon-holed with CB and "family radio" operators.
Some of us gripe about how we are being edged out by commercial band allocations. Well, guess what? We are doing it to ourselves by surrendering our technical competence. If we are no more that a different flavor of "CB'er", then why should the FCC treat us any better?
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.= B.S.
|
|
|
by K7LA on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The reason you learn CW is to enhance the technical portion of your amateur radio experience. Any ham worth his salt knows you can transmit further on less power using cw than voice modes. Antennas are simple and easy to build. In other words, you become a better operator.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N0UY on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is my opinion that CW is, and will always be an integral part of Amateur Radio whether it is a requirement or not. Anyone who has experienced a difficult path or conditions will utilize this mode if they truly want to give it their all in making the contact. I spent the first ten years as a technician class operator. I did not dwell on the FM portion of my privileges, but chose to explore the weak signal modes and participated in the ARRL VHF contests as often as I could. Much of this was because I was fortunate enough to meet a great older ham who exposed me to the possibilities. I took to it like a fish to water and thoroughly enjoyed what I was doing. Prior to that there was no need for CW so I really had no use for it. The addition of CW to my hobby has only enhanced the total experience for me and has brought me greater satisfaction. I’m still not a good CW operator but I do find myself as a better ham for it. As Walter used to say, “That’s the way it is”.
Best Wishes, Ray N0UY
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by AB6MB on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again.
Why should I learn morse code when I won't ever use it.
Why should I learn theory when I won't ever use it.
Why should I learn about other modes when I won't ever use them.
Why should the tests be the least bit challenging at all when all I want to do is talk.
In fact why should I even take a written test at all when all I want to do is talk.
Hmmm, no written test when all I want to do is talk. Sounds like CB to me.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again floging a dead horse.
What will happen in the future will happen in the future. All this is at this point is whining and wasting time.
Right now I'm waiting until this bunch of kids gets to the college level. To get my degree I had to take courses that I didn't like and will never use them or ever hope to use them. Why did I take them? Only because they were required. It was a matter of have to not want to. Are you going to whine to the college officials because you don't like the required courses and of course the tests? I don't think so!
Today the CW test is required for HF operation. You have three choices. (1) Get a tech license with no code. (2)Learn CW and pass the test and get on HF. (3) Wait until the rules are changed. If you select option #3 don't cry if you have to wait awhile. Government moves might take some time for the welfare license to be issued.
|
| |
|
It's simple already.
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes indeed, here we go again.
I beleive that the code / no code debate is a conspiracy engineered by phone companies to 'milk' those still on a 'pay for call' dial up connection.
Let's foil thier cunning plan! It's simple. First read the 98709808480980804 posts on this subject throughout Eham.net. Then adopt one of the following stances:
1. Argue long and loud that you had to take a CW test and so should everyone else (BAD - pointless and gives money to the phone company).
2. Argue long and loud that you don't want to take a CW test (BAD - pointless and gives money to the phone company).
3. Accept that a CW exam as a gateway to HF is soon to be abolished. If you like CW think about how you can encourage others to 'see the light' If you have no interest in CW leave the morse guys alone. Both parties could then concentrate together on more positive debates concerning the future of our wonderful hobby (GOOD - allows us all to move and be constructive).
Best wishes
Steve
M0HEU / G7HEU.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by THEWISEONE on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is nothing more than another no-code trying to get over on the already too simple system. You guys that think just because the cw req maybe dropped had better wake up. By the time this gets around to becoming law you guys trying to get over are going to be old white haired men like us. Quit whinning about it and learn the code
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the whole exam process is badly in need of an overhaul, whether the code requirement remains part of it or not.
We have newbie Extras posting questions about how to connect a dipole....this sure wasn't the case back when the tests were given in front of FCC Examiners and were comprised of questions not from any published "pool."
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N3XL on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
OK Dave. Good idea and there is one thing I might add. There is a difference between knowing Morse Code characters and being able to use them to communicate. Just by memorizing a few characters a person can be able to recognize, or even send, an SOS or an AS. By learning the associated meanings of these signals, a person has learned a part of a language that might be extremely important and/or useful. As an Officer of the Deck in the Navy, where flashing lights are a real form of communication, I had to know the above signals to be qualified. I feel that anyone calling themselves a Ham should know SOS, AS, CQ, de, r, c, and k and their meanings. IMHO a good place for testing this knowledge is at the Technician/entry level. As the Brits did with foundation licensing (if I understand it right) all a person would need to know is that an S is 3 dits and an O is 3 dahs, etc. No listening or sending requirement, but a foot wet in the language. As you have said, a person should be able to listen and decode a QSO at 5 wpm to be licensed to use the CW portion of the bands associated with their level. This to me is patently obvious. We cannot let someone use freqs that they don't know how to even listen on effectively.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KA5N on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another plan to "swell the amateur ranks"???
The last hamfest I attended indicated that the amateur ranks were swollen already. Average weight well over 220 pounds (me too).
Allen KA5N
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NS2CSX on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i like several of the ideas about changing the system to have a "foundation" class where you are able to get on some bands and learn. to move up to the next class and gain access to more bands you would need to be able to pass a test for knowledge of subject and one proving ability to communicate.
it appears to me that one could guess their way to a ticket in the current system. i think everyone should start out at the "foundation" level and then be able to move up the ladder. being a higher class will come not only with knowledge, but with experience. i wonder if adding a mentoring type of system would work. for a general class holder to move up, they would have to spend X hours mentoring a technician class holder. that would help the technicians to "learn the ropes" and it would improve the level of communications out there.
but what do i know, i don't even have my ticket yet ;)
--... ...-- --..--
steve hanlon
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by CURMUDGEON on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have no intention of debating anymore on any subject with newbies. This is my last post at eham.net
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K0RGR on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Last time I looked, there were about 600,000 hams. The majority of those have not passed a code test. There are about 280 million Americans. I'm afraid we code fans are outnumbered about 1000 to 1.
Personally, even if all code tests are simply abolished, I doubt that we will see much more than 1 million hams in the US. A high percentage of those who are unwilling to learn code are also unwilling to spend any time studying the rules, regs, and basic theory. Japan has had a no-code HF license for decades (in defiance of the ITU regs) and their ham population has not exceeded a million by much.
I think our best hope is to A)influence FCC to overhaul the current license/testing process to provide better prepared newbies and OT's alike and B)to influence FCC to make any changes in a way that will still encourage and reward those who learn the code - look at the Japanese and British no-code priveleges. Japan does require a code test in order to operate in the CW bands, but their no-coders (4th class licensees) can run 10 watts on all HF phone bands except 30, 20 , and 17 meters, and 20 watts above 30 Mhz..
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NS2CSX on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
weren't you once a newbie? wait, you are the Jesus of Amateur Radio - not born of sin. it's no wonder that society is in such a bad state - those with the knowledge are not passing it on. with knowledge comes responsibility. why not help to educate the "newbies" so they understand what amateur radio should be vs. what it has become.
-steve hanlon
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't believe that anyone has yet offered a cogent agrument establishing that the Morse code proficiency requirement still serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The best suggestion so far is that Morse code might be useful for disaster communications. That might be true, but is it sufficient to require that all amateurs with HF operating licenses demonstrate proficiency in Morse code?
I had to master the Morse code in order to become a First Class Scout back in the '50s. I used while serving in the Signal Corps. I've used as a pilot to identify beacons. And as an Amateur Extra licensee I've used it for a total of 3 QSOs. I can pass more traffic with fewer errors using PSK31.
When one considers the huge number of laptops that can run Digipan, etc., and the vast number of SSB transceiver that can support HF digital modes, the stronger argument seems to be that our current amateur radio infrastructure would do better with RTTY and PSK31 for long haul disaster communications than with Morse code.
I'm the Advisor of a Venturing Crew centered around ham radio. (Venturing is a part of Boy Scouts that is similar to the old Explorer program.) One of our scouts is an excellent phone operator and a dynamite contester. He homebrews equipment. He writes his own software. Such youngsters are the real future of our hobby. He holds a Technician license because he has trouble with Morse code. It is not in the public interest, convenience, and necessity to keep such people off of the HF bands.
During WWII, the British Army had to haul everything possible out of storage for use against the Nazis. That included some old artillery pieces left over from the Boer War. No one on active duty knew how to use the old guns, so some ancient veterans were called in to demostrate how to fire them. One of the old artillerymen stationed himself well back from the guns. Just before they were fired, he would come to attention, half raise his right arm, and make a fist. None of the regulars watching the demostration could figure out what he was doing. It turned out that his job was to hold the reins of the horses ... an ancient requirement whose time had passed.
So it is with Morse code.
|
| |
|
Re: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by AD6WL on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We have all heard the phrase "Keep It Simple Stupid".
This is the only point that I agree with you.
“Someone has probably described me as stupid during my life; therefore I like to keep things simple. I would like to apply that phrase to the ongoing discussion about the decreasing number of Hams and what to do about it."
Wrong! The number of hams is up. There are more Tech, Generals, and Extra than there ever was. So there is nothing to do about it.
“If someone passes the written test for technician, then they can operate phone in the band plan where technicians are presently allowed.”
No, they can operate other modes on VHF/UHF besides just phone. Simple.
“If they pass the general test, then they can operate phone in the band plan where generals are presently allowed.”
No, if they pass the General Exam and Pass the CW exam they can operate in the General portions of the bands. Simple.
“If they pass the extra test, then they can operate phone in the band plan where extras are presently allowed. “
I guess we can see where this is going: You want the privileges without earning them. Simple
“If they pass the code test, then they can operate CW within the band plan that matches their written test abilities. “
So, a Tech can’t operate CW in the VHF/UHF bands?
“Simple. “
Yes, and stupid.
“We should not require code testing for someone who tests and otherwise shows proficiency to operate at a general or extra level, but does not have the desire to operate CW. “
This is where I repeat myself: You want the privileges without earning them.
“This way, we keep it simple, and expand the ranks of amateur radio.”
We don’t need to lower our standards just to get new hams that do not want to work to get the HF privileges.
“How many Hams do you know that only learned code to get HF privileges, then rarely if ever use CW? “
About the same amount who memorized the test and didn’t learn anything. Simple.
“How many more Hams (or non-Hams) do you know who possess technical knowledge that could pass the general or extra written tests, but do not take the tests because they do not know code and figure what's the use?”
Great, with only a couple weeks of work they can easily learn CW at 5wpm to pass the exam.
“How many Hams do you think might find an interest in code if they were allowed to operate on the HF phone bands and had more exposure to code? (How would exposure to the HF phone bands cause any interest in learning code? - ed.) “
None.
“Perhaps an acceptable compromise is to require the code test for extra class licenses, because extra class is the highest amateur license and should be held to the highest standard. That way, thousands who are capable of passing the general written test can get into HF (or band of interest), and still have incentive to learn CW if they strive to attain extra class.”
A compromise where everyone looses in the long run. You want quantity not quality. I want the opposite.
“The code requirement is keeping many good, technically capable people, out of the HF bands. The ability to work bands of interest will keep and attract more folks to Amateur Radio. More Hams represent power to lobby for frequencies, more sales for businesses dealing in Ham related industries, and more elmers to help those interested in becoming Hams. More Hams keep this hobby and service alive in this modern world of computers and instant communications.”
No, it’s keeping people out who don’t want to work for the privileges. If it’s not worth the work for someone to learn code at a simple 5wpm then they are not worth having on the HF bands.
Simple.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Just think of it...if the 5 wpm code test is eliminated...Outfits like Ranger and Galaxy will be offering new lines of "equipment" for the new hf CB bands...complete with reverb and "roger beep". Then there will be the new CB-hams that will want to form new CB clubs to get FM repeaters for all hf bands up and running. Won't this this liberalization of the hf bands just be wonderful? Haw!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by ROOT_ADMIN on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Curmudgeon -- DONT GO AWAY OM, we old farts need to stick together to elmer these KIDS... After reading the current thread, they will need all the help we can offer - even if we must feed them with a bottle.
73
Curmudgeon in Training
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K0FL on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee Dave (the author)..seems like you are another "old Timer" with vast experence under his belt trying to tell everyone how it needs to be. I'm sure since you signed "73's" you think/know thats the way it should be done, but in fact what it easly shows to those that DO know about ham radio is you DON'T know much. Reminds me of the kid in grade school crying about having to learn history cause it already happened..or doing math cause everyone has a calculator now a days. I have little doubt the code requirement will be removed one day. But if you think you'll be a better ham because of it you're fooling youself again just as you did with the "73's"
I'd rather see ham radio die a dignified death than turn into channel 19.
de KŘFL (Since 1978)
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by MUNGO on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am glad to see the cw requirement fading away and not a moment too soon. Ham radio should be easier to get into. It's a great hobby and it should be more inviting. Getting rid of the ridiculous cw requirement is long over do.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
His first Premis is not correct. Who says ther are less Hams now than before. I think if you check the license count there are more now than ever before.
Second if you like cw, use it, if you don't like it, then don't use it.
Third, you take the test in effect when you test. The FCC decides it and you take it. what we say really doesn't matter on a day to day basis.
If you want to learn the code and be a "real Ham" then learn no matter what the requirement. Next week, you will have to work PSK 31 to be a "real Ham" or what ever some bozo thinks.
Remember, if you passed the test , you Are a Ham. end of discussion.
tom N6AJR
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K4NNK on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The test to become a ham is a filter, not a necessity.
Demonstrate commitment; earn the right to play.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K8MIA on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What keep it simple like CB ! They should have never changed the code requirement to start with. You should have to do 13 wpm to get your General and 20 wpm to get your Extra Class License. Any more simple and they will be passing them out in Cereal Box's. That’s what’s wrong with Ham Radio today, to many CB'ers Operating on Ham Bands. When is the last time you or anyone you know took a piece of Radio Traffic from a Traffic net and passed it? Or how many can? That was the purpose of Ham Radio to start with, to be able to assist in time of a Disaster or Emergency. How many Hams can do that today? NOT MANY, there’s to many CB'ers Running with Extra Class License. You want it simple, Radio Shack sells CB's....
K8MIA,
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S. (Reply to DOODAH)
|
|
|
by KG6JEV on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
QUOTE:
That attitude disgusts me. Just because YOU had to
suffer, everyone else has to? If, at the time you
were learning, the regulations had changed, would
you have accepted the change? You betcha you would
have. So, your bitterness is clouding your thinking,
you should watch out for that - it makes you illogical.
UNQUOTE
For what it's worth, I'd like to disagree with your observation. I was first licensed in 2001 as a Technician No-Code. After passing my test, I ws talking to the VEC about testing for General. His response to me was to the effect that the Morse requirement would be removed in about a year, and that I should wait until that happened in order to avoid learning Morse code. Well, that wasn't the purpose of my asking him about testing for General. Just a few short months after getting my first license, I decided I didn't want to wait for the Morse requirement to be deleted, that I wanted to do it the 'old fashioned' method and actually learn Morse code. After three hard months of everyday studying, I took and passed my Morse and General tests. I wanted to do it the hard way and not have HF privileges just 'handed' to me. Had I been aware the Morse requirement was going away, I still would've wanted to do it the hard way. I'm glad I did it the hard way and I'd do it again if I could. I may be one of a few, but I disagree with you. By the way, my callsign is KG6JEV, what's yours? Just curious...no QSL in the mail.
73,
Steven Peterson
KG6JEV/4
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W5USB on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yep, it's a filter, and a darn good one at that. There seems to be no end to the crying about CW....weh weh weh.
There simply isn't enough room for everyone on HF, plain and simple. Logic dictates that the most qualified get the privilege. And how might the best be found? Drawing straws? NO! Learn the code, preferably faster than 5wpm. For pete's sake, deaf people have learned it, blind people too. Heck, even limbless people have learned it.
30 years after the introduction of the calculator, and we stand in line at a burger joint watching the clueless cashier try to figure simple change. Pitiful. Is this how you want Ham radio to be? "What antenna are you using". "Uhhhhh, I don't know..I paid a neighbor to buy and erect it for me".
Look, never mind. I lose. Traditions lose. We have been invaded by the new generation. We should just step the heck outta the way and let these greater-than-thou children decide this issue in their own way. They simply don't FEEL like putting in the work to learn it. They do, however, feel like spending lots of time bi%#%ing about it though.
This issue is already settled, as far as the ARRL is concerned. We know what side they are on, don't we? CW testing is dead. Next up, re-allocation of the protected CW sub-bands to phone use. Mark my words, it WILL happen. When it does, it's war. Make no mistake about it!
Art Granda W5USB
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W5HTW on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. This is most likely a total waste of bandwidth to discuss this, as the international decision has been made and almost certainly the FCC will follow suit.
2. Why the heck does someone have to start it anyway?
3. Does the code keep 'good operators' out? Or did it just keep "operators" out?
Who cares? The new ham radio of the very near tomorrow is going to be big time different from anything we've seen before in this hobby. I find myself wondering how many of the hams who came into the hobby over the past ten years, including fairly recently, will then be griping about how much it has changed from when they entered, and why it changed. Even 'their' Golden Days of Ham Radio are just about over.
What is for sure is the code bands will continue to exist for a while longer, though they probably will be reduced in size. That means those of us who who not want to participate in the multi-band CB can still do ham radio. No computers, no yakkity-yak push to talk "Roger, QSL?" and no "10-4's on the channel."
Yes, we are a dying breed in a dying hobby, and not all of us are even hot-shot CW ops. We have just seen the hand writing, in bold-face 500 point type, on the wall, that it is just about over. As the hobby of ham radio slowly fades into the sunset, so will a lot of the hams who built the hobby, who kept it alive for so many years.
And who cares? I don't, not really. It is too late to care. By the time CW is banned, or there is no place for it, I will be an SK anyway. So I'll take what's left and use it and let the world go on doing it's "make it easy for me" act, as ham radio morphs into something completely unrecognizable.
But then, anyone who was around ham radio 30 years or more ago finds it unrecognizable today anyway, so what the future holds doesn't matter.
Pick your pleasure, gentlemen and ladies. Operate what you like (within legal bounds) and enjoy the hobby the way it is now. 'Cause it won't be that way long.
73
Ed
|
| |
|
READ THIS NOW.
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All
Who is ready to 'elmer' me on CW via HF? I have abt 7 w.p.m. TX now and need to speed up. WHO WANTS TO ELMER ME??? I have abt 100W at my disposal and a high 1/2 G5RV. I have yet to contact the U.S.A. Got Brazil on SSB though and he seemed like a very professional operator ( he he ).
C'mon boys - put ur money where ur mouth is and make a sked - the future of CW depends on blokes like me.
Please forgive the title / capitals but a previous and similar posting resulted in 00000000000000 replies from the CW stalwarts.
Best wishes
Steve.
|
| |
|
Re: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KR4XH on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Regarding AD6WL's comment's...
"What he said..."
And very well said...
73
don, KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: READ THIS NOW.
|
|
|
by HAMESCHEESE on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>Who is ready to 'elmer' me on CW via HF? I have abt 7 w.p.m. TX now and need to speed up. WHO WANTS TO ELMER ME??? I have abt 100W at my disposal and a high 1/2 G5RV. I have yet to contact the U.S.A. Got Brazil on SSB though and he seemed like a very professional operator ( he he ).
C'mon boys - put ur money where ur mouth is and make a sked - the future of CW depends on blokes like me.
Please forgive the title / capitals but a previous and similar posting resulted in 00000000000000 replies from the CW stalwarts.
Best wishes
Steve.<<<<<
Hello Steve, don’t let your speed stop you from working CW. I would be more than happy to meet you on the air or help in anyway possible. I can work all amateur bands from 160m to 70cm and would like to try an on the air contact. Let me know a time, in Zulu, and a freq that is good for you.
You are right the future of CW does depend on hams like you that actually want to learn.
You can also try the link that I have included below. I and many other hams have no problem with QRS with a new or old ham.
http://www.eham.net/articles/5392
You can email me at AD6WLatAMSATdotORG
|
| |
|
RE: READ THIS NOW.
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bloody hell
Not only do I have a taker but its HAMCEHEESE and he has revealed his call-sign - I think.
Well cheesey ham - I'm there. I'll send you a seprerate E-mail but thanks for your reply. I'll look forward to our CW contact.
Many thanks
Steve
G7HEU / M0HEU.
|
| |
|
Here we go again!
|
|
|
by WB4M on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I believe this is just another troll making yet another "cw debate" post hoping to rack up replies. This entire debate was covered by a post a few down from this one. However, I must say, the CW has worked as a filter, it kept you wannabes from upgrading!
|
| |
|
ATTN - WB4M
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well done!
I hope you have had a lot of enjoyment from your hobby. Perhaps when you were new some guy helped and encouraged you.
Glad to see it rubbed off on you. Plainly you are are a great asset to amateur radio.
Keep it up.
Steve.
|
| |
|
RE: Here we go again! K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N1RWC on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For reference, on 9/11/01 and the days after, CW WAS NOT the mode of choice for communications. It was SSB and FM Phone. I will say that CW does get through when all else fails, only if the sending and receiving operators know the code.
I am not one to beat a dead horse, but this horse has been dead and buried for a while.
Face it folks, the WRC-03 declared Code not being mandatory for operation below 30 MHz, but individual countries may require Code Proficiency to operate below 30 MHz.
THAT MEANS THAT UNTIL THE FCC SAYS OTHERWISE, 5 WPM CW EXAMS ARE REQUIRED FOR OPERATION BELOW 30 MHZ. UNTIL THEY CHANGE IT, IT STANDS.
For the record, I am a Technician without the 5 WPM Endorsement. But I operate CW on 50 MHz, 144 MHz, and 432 MHz weekly, without a cheat sheet or computer. Some Day I might try the 5 WPM, but it's more fun playing on 50 MHz.
|
| |
|
REDS IN THE BED!
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All non CW enthusiasts are communists and should be removed.
As should homosexual FBI bosses.
Thank you and good night
J.E.H.
a.k.a Steve.
(Neither a communist or a homosexual or a leader of the F.B.I. But then you never know.....).
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W8OB on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Wow I had a great fishing trip over the weekend, lots of fresh perch to eat now. Anybody doing anygood on the trout streams?
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N4QA on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wait, fellows, WAIT!
Please don't kill off CW just yet!
I just bought an Icom IC-703 QRP rig with a CW filter.
Let me make a few CW QSOs with it, otay?
Then I'll work you guys on PSK31, RTTY...even SIDEBAND or AM/FM!
You know,this '703 is much smaller than my Novice rig... the Meissner Signal Shifter, model EX and RME-45 receiver combo.
So sad to learn that, after only ONE HUNDRED SIXTY years or so, Morse Code has become so disliked by our youth :(
tch tch tch
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W4ROT on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am tired of the post.
I am tired of the rhetoric.
I do not care what any ruling body decides. My father was not a ham, but he gave me a J-38 when I was 10. When it was given to him it was new technology, beyond semiphore. It took me 30 years to realize what he was offering me.
If you forget the past you will never grasp the future. Its always been 0's and 1's, no matter how you look at at it.
Screw the system, know the code.
I will always be my father's son. Love you Pop!
Terry
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't know why we keep talking about it. I think the code should be kept. Actually since I had to do it I think you should be required to receive and send before the FCC. I also think the question should be kept secret. I think all the old ways should have been kept but guess what they are all gone except for the morse requirement and it soon will be. Will this mean a great number of people join the ham ranks. I don't think so. When the started the no code tech I didn't see our numbers swell and I don't think they will now. I just don't think there is that many people who care to join our ranks. I don't understand why we are so scared of the CB'rs. Just for the fun of it I turned my CB on and on the 40 channels I heard two conversations. I guess we don't want these 4 people to join our ranks. I hate to say it but I believe the vast majority of hams came from two places. The old radio ops from WWII who are now in their late 70's and 80's and I know I going to hear about this the CB'rs of the 70's CB craze who are now in their 50's and 60's. To sum up my thoughts. I was sad when they ended the sending requirement to pass the test, I was sad when they ended the minute perfect copy and started giving multiple choice questions for the code, I was sad when they VE's started giving the test and not the FCC. I was sad when they lowered the requirement to 5 wpm. I will be sad when they end it altogether. I have cried and I have gotten over it. I just want people on the air that know and respect the rules and share the same love of radio I do.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At last, two dumb threads for code vrs no-code access to HF, running at the same time.
Please. Please. PLEASE! Someone start a "I don't like contests!" thread.
An "I hate the ARRL" thread could round things out.
Don't the people who decide what gets onto eHam have any shame?
How about someone who cannot afford, or doesn't have the space to put up a tower and beam for HF--start a ban towers and beams thread!
Don't like the fact you can't break piles ups with 100 watts? Start a thread banning HF amplifiers.
Let us start a thread to see who can post the most complaints in one posting! We can then make a "BEST Complainer Award".
DXCC to hard for you? Ask the League to lower it to 95 for you.
WAS too hard? Ask the League to kick out 5 states with the lowest ham populations!
Bob
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W5AH on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now for a different perspective...
After reading the responses to K I S S I checked my logbooks back to 1 January 1990 to see how many SSB contacts I have made since then. There were more than I thought... 111 total, representing 95 new countries and 16 countries worked one weekend to check out a new antenna for a CW test the next weekend. There are thousands of CW contacts. Logs for 1963 to 1989 have been lost so no way to check any further into the past.
I have 5 reasons to possibly use SSB. They are E4, FR/J, FT8X, P5, and VK0. Once they are in the log, I will have no reason to own a microphone for my HF rig.
73, Bob, W5AH
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
He who hides gets found out eventually. Hello Hamescheese. I'm not even going to post anything about the old debates of pro and anti CW.
I will just say this: Sure, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID! And more simple, and simpler yet. Let it get so simple that anyone can do it. Simpler testing. Simpler licensing. Simpler everything. Make it so simple that when you apply, your name is already printed for you on the application--AND IT'S ALREADY SIGNED. (Much too hard to pull out a pen and actually write your name)
If this is the way things keep going, hams will lose the privileges of building our own equipment for our use (too complex--have to keep it simple), modifying the rigs we own and use (too complex again), setting up home stations (oh gosh, what a strain), and field day--wow do we really have to think to set up a working emergency type station (way too much for a poor little ham operator to do!). Remember, got to KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!
The only thing is, when ham radio loses those privileges, it will no longer be ham radio. Ham radio will be DEAD.
To those who want it simple, go buy a gmrs radio or a cellphone. Leave this hobby alone, leave it for those of us who want to work for the privileges we have.
Chris J. Smith, K1CJS
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before my last post is misconstrued--I am still against MANDATORY morse testing but still believe the code should be used voluntarily. I strongly believe the theory testing is way too simple and should be changed to include essay type answers and diagramming.
I was not going to include my position on CW but did not want some other posters to refer to me as being hypocritical. Thanks and 73.
Chris J. Smith, K1CJS
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N7JI on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It was stated:
"How many Hams do you know that only learned code to get HF privileges, then rarely if ever use CW?
How many more Hams (or non-Hams) do you know who possess technical knowledge that could pass the general or extra written tests, but do not take the tests because they do not know code and figure what's the use?"
My answer?
I learned code to get HF SSB privileges.
Once I had them, I used them for a while and realized that code was far more fun for me.
A ham who wants to be a ham (it is a privilege, not a right, after all) will jump through whatever hoops are there if he/she wants it badly enough.
Remember, a ham license is a voluntary thing.
I've tested literally thousands of applicants - many written, some Morse - and even tested an older gentleman who really wanted to pass 13 WPM...NINE TIMES before he finally passed. There was literally a party in the exam room when his passing grade was announced.
By the way, I have a Master's in EE and got it because I wanted a Master's Degree. I might know enough to pass my PE license exam but you have to take the FE exam first, followed by working under a PE for a few years. Nobody is changing those rules for me, nor should they. I know the rules and I will make the effort if I see fit (which someday might happen).
Similarly, I might someday go for a commercial radio license. Do I know enough now to pass? Maybe. Again, I would not expect anyone to change the rules just to let me in. I know the rules, and will do what I need to if I see fit to.
Scott N7JI
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W5USB on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well put, Scott.
Somewhere along the line...humanity has picked up this "Kobiashi Maru" mentality (from the Star Trek movie).
When faced with a (seemingly) insurmountable goal, it has become fashionable to "change the rules and then pat yourself on the back for it" rather than to accept the challenge and overcome it.
This isn't merely limited to amateur radio, it has permeated our society....and will be our undoing...eventually.
Going to bed now...nite all!!! ;-)
Art Granda W5USB
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC2TX on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If we do away with cw. We are going to have a group of operaters that will not be able to identify repeater id's, probagation beacons, (6m and 10m) Or work dx on bands like 160. At the present time if you wish to work dx on 40m, most of it is in the cw bands, especially the first 25khz. When I listen to my local police frequency, they id in cw. Also, if I recall, FAA beacons are still using cw. From my vantage point I feel it is still usefull to have knowledge and skill of.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N9CYS on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To twist the phrase from Harry S. Truman, "If you can't stand the code, get out of the HF shack." When I was a novice we had NO PHONE privileges - nada, zero, zilch. Not on HF, VHF, UHF! I wanted phone privileges, so I learned the code - simple solution.
If you want to LEGALLY work DX on HF, take the time to learn the code. With all of the tools available today, ANYBODY can learn if they have the initiative, desire and discipline. But YOU have to make the effort.
You already have the written question list...so you're halfway there. Turn off the handheld and tune in W1AW until you get it.
It isn't rocket science - hell, everybody uses the same part of the brain to learn language. Language is innate, built-in. we learn it by accident (as infants) - unconciously. Learning to use a toilet is tougher - and judging by public toilets, still not mastered by some!
BTW, how do no-coders feel about corked bats?
Jim
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WO5I on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ya know, I've only been a ham for 25 years, a relatively short time compared to the true OTC members out there (if you don't know what OTC is, you don't qualify! Hi Hi). But in that fairly short time frame, I could be rich if I'd put a nickel in a jar everytime I heard some ham or other declare the end of the ham world as we know it. "It's going to be mahem!", or "It's going to be so different I'm getting out now!"
Ham radio, like life, is in a constant state of change. We're a long way removed from spark gap transmitters and oatmeal box receivers. We've seen the birth, death, and rebirth of AM Telephony. We've gone through digital modes that, tough once exotic (facsimile and RTTY) now seem pretty mundane.
When SSB came along, some change-o-phobes figured that ham radio was about to go to the dogs. I read some pretty grim editorials in QST from back in the 50's that would have you believe ham radio would never be the same once SSB became popular.
When Packet Radio became the latest and greatest thing, many figured that the whole hobby would just become one big computer and we might as well pull the plug on our mic, straight key, or teleprinter and go to bed.
Change. That's what's stayed constant throughout the entire history of Ham Radio. Oh, yeah, and CW. CW has been here since the dawn of radio and the first messages sent by Marconi's group.
And ya know what? It doesn't matter if the FCC and other world telecommunications bodies elect to eliminate the requirement to learn even a modest pace of 5 WPM, CW will still be used by many. Why? Sheer elegance! It's like knowing the simplest universal language. You don't even need a radio to communicate in CW, let alone a computer, microphone or television. You can send Morse Code with a flash light, a buzzer, or even a stick and a can.
I honestly think knowing Morse Code betters an operator. It allows them to use the single mode which will be useful in virtually any communication scenario or condition. It allows people of different languages to communicate using the simplest of exchanges. It has no accent or dialect to overcome. It doesn't care if you're deaf or blind (any operator can copy Morse Code by placing their fingers on the speaker cone and feeling the rhythm of the vibration. Try doing that with even a 20 over 9 SSB signal).
In time, the Morse Code requirement will likely disappear from testing for your ticket. In time Ham radio may evolve to a point where CW allocations disappear from our spectrum. But I figure I've got another 35-40 years of hamming in my future, if not more (I'm 38). If I had to bet on it, I'd bet that CW is as popular in 35 to 40 years as it is today. It's just the simplest, most reliable form of telecommunication available to ham radio. And the more technologically complex our hobby becomes, the more appeal that simple form of communication will have to nostalgic purists like me.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Code is just another mode. We had the same argument r spark gap to CW tone equipment. Non spark gap hams were ruining the service, and the same for phone over CW, then it was Those Darn SSB'ers ruining ham radio over the AM hf folks ( related to the hi-fi ssbb'ers ??), then the FM repeaters wipe out the real hams on AM 2 meters ( ever heard of a tower, or a clegg?). It never ends, folks it's called progress.
CW is another mode. I learned it, passed the test at the FCC office in 1978 , and even I realize it is just another mode. If you cant't copy it now, tune on the hf bands and have your computer decode it, or your neat little MFJ decoder. Eventually you will get it. I finally did.
So folks CW is just another mode. Ya want to keep it simple, here it is. Take the test the FCC says to take when its time for you to test. End of discussion.
That is about as simple as it gets. You want to change things, go file a paper with the FCC, or run for office with the ARRL and work for change from there. Have you sent a leter on the power line crap yet, or on the antenna bills working through government here and there? Just what have you done beside complain here.. Put up or shut up, thats wha I was always told.
Cw is a mode, so is fm, and ssb and hellschreiber and psk31 and amtor and vhf ssb and satalites and tv and very low freq testing and packet and AM . Which is the best, it depends on my mood today. CW is just another mode.
73 tom N6AJR
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3DCG on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Finally, an ID on Ham&Cheese! :)
I think the idea of requiring Extras to pass say...the old standard (fine, call it HARDER) 20 wpm is a nice idea. And sometimes, I'm even an optimistic realist, so 15 wpm seems okay, although 20 is not really so much farther from 13wpm.
Then comes the harshness of reality. Boooo. Hissssss.
I find myself wondering, if 5 wpm was the bottom, entry-level requirement back in the "simpler" days, and 13 for General, and 20 wpm for the Extra, and the written exams have supposedly become "harder," then why not the code, too. But now that the precedent has been set, such god idea has about the same probability of occuring as taxes going down.
I also understand the need to sell radios and increase club membership dues revenue. I can also see how the Internet and computer age has possibly succeeded in making the most popular "technical" past-time computers. And I'm sure there are many a ham out there, here especially, who are counting their lucky nickels by the thousands, maybe millions, because of computers, and that is not at all a bad thing, it is a good thing.
I find most interesting, how very many hams are into computers, but not the other way around. We see examples of hams taking their technical type brains, and applying computer/software technology to the world and their hobby. Especially via the marriage of computer/software technology and wireless communication, "Amateur innovation is alive and well." DSP an example of computer processing making life nicer for radio enthusiasts. Contesting without a computer? Been there, done that, forget it. Talk about an organizational data migraine...
The very many ham computer programers out there who have written all manner of code, antenna modeling software, rig control, spectrum analyzers, and more, making once cost prohibitive instrumentation readily accessible to most hams.
Creating eHam! didididit didit. didididit dit dit.
I wonder who started this site, anyway... wonder if whomever they are think CW is outmoded. Wondering out loud, that's all, maybe I already know the answer, maybe not.
I think CW is outmoded, as an information mover, given super narrow/low power modes like PSK31. I think it's a relatively slow way to move information. Old fashioned?
hmmmmm...
Perhaps when CW first started, telegraphy at railstations, on boats, etc, mostly via straight key, then came the Vibroblex, this moved speed up a notch or two. Then came electronic keyers, and paddles.
In my considered opinion, high speed CW is not Old Fashioned. Over 30 wpm, it is "simply" AWESOME. Hams that can do it that fast and much faster are all over the place, in the CW ham bands- who says CW is not key to the heritage of ham radio, it's the last CW bastion in the known universe. Within the world of Amateur radio, therefore, CW is timeless, and very much in vogue. Only within ham radio can one truly realize, that CW is FASHIONABLE. sTYLE-In' * rADICaL * gNarlY *
Wayyyy Coool.
However, as a percentage of all hams CW operators are few. As a member of humanity on Earth, higher speed CW operators are an infinitesimally small, hair-line sliver of humans on planet Earth.
Know Something Do They?
That makes knowing CW a cool thing. Some people try to brand CW enthusiasts as elitist or something. Yet all I ever hear, are very courteous people doing CW. Admittedly, yes- in a massive pile-up things can get nasty- humans being what they are, frustration can sometimes render the most conscientious, temporarily impared.
But to the point, what is the definition of elite?
CW linguists are not to blame for their small numbers, they wish it were not so. Some of them may worry that in 20 years the art may be lost. So they fight to keep it alive. Hardly an exclusive attitude. Some may feel that fighting to retain the itty-bitty 5 wpm REQUIREMENT is about keeping the art alive. It's truly about INclusion, not exclusion. If that means forcing people not to knock it until they try it, then so it is. LOTS OF PEOPLE DON'T EXACTLY RELISH WEARING NECK-TIES FIVE DAYS A WEEK, SO WHY DO THEY? We should pass a law banishing the implied requirement of suits and ties at the workplace?
How many humans can modulate a microphone?
How many humans can make a paddle sing, as if they were typing? No computer required, just the internal rig keyer, a paddle, and the computer between your ears.
Say CW is OUTMODED by what? Digital modes? Extemporaneus conversational speed via digital mode is generally limited by how fast you can type. What if you average 30-40 wpm on a keyboard, typing. Need a keyboard, how much space does that take, a keyboard. Need a computer, okay lap-top, no big deal.
I mean to point out, that if the average digital moder, types 35 wpm, well, that's the limit of W1AW code practice, so people do 35 wpm all the time, and relatively speaking, they are exchanging information just as fast, only it's more mindful.
In this case, CW is not all THAT slow a mode. It's just a real kick. It's FUN. A person can operate phone via VOX, but try breaking in, in the middle of a word. Can this be done on phone? So just how outmoded is CW, really?
When QRN is over S9, and you're operating barefoot to a wire less than 1/2 wave up, how outmoded is CW?
And may I remember, it's ALL good!
In fact, my operational goal, is to pry my fingers away from the keys, and DO MORE PHONE. I love listening to articulate phone operators. Their voices modulating the airwaves are too, like music to my ears.
CW Forever...
Infinitus Jedidius.
Wellness to All.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1OU on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I just got home from the tavern, and let me tell you, even when drunk, this argument is arduous. Imagine the feather leaving the hand, and just let it go!
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WA4PTZ on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the looks of your article you do not fully
understand the R&R to begin with. On the other
hand, let's take our nations educational policies
and compare them to Amateur Radio. The "All Knowing"
keep dropping the standards so that the lazy, the
uninspired and the oppressed can reach a reasonable
level of accomplishment on paper. But in reality
the product that they are turning out has never been
worse in our history. Somebody sure doesn't understand
the benefit of "QUALITY". Now, you are proposing that
we do the same for Amateur Radio while the current
standard is the lowest it has ever been. Why don't
we just award you an Extra class license just
because you can't meet the standards and while we
are at it why not give you the best equipment that
money can buy without requiring any return , obligation
, or responsibility from you, what so ever.
I believe they should return it to the 13 wpm of
the past. If you can't learn CW at 5 WPM, maybe you
aren't cut out to be a HAM.
Tim
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by DOODAH on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can we stop this 'priviledge, not a right' nonsense please?
The radio spectrum is a natural feature of our
universe, we the people have a RIGHT to use it - and
we task OUR government(s) to control it (as it would
be chaos otherwise). OUR government then ALLOWS us to
use it, so long as we demonstate that we understand
what problems we could cause (passing a test), and by
using callsigns and logbooks we can be traced if we
cause a problem and possibly have our RIGHT taken
away - RIGHTS are BALANCED with RESPONSIBILITIES.
This doesn't sound like a priviledge to me (which
implies priviledged minorities to me, and that
someone own the bands and graciously permits us
to use them), no, I believe that a licence is a
right FOR ANYONE - an ALLOWANCE based upon
competence and continued good behaviour.
If using only SSB isn't causing a problem, then
a democratic majority is unlikely to want to stop you.
It's people power than counts, folks.
Those who want to 'keep out the riff-raff' are just
sickening snobs, and thankfully a minority.
A bit philosophical perhaps, but it's the TRUTH as I see it!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N4OI on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I got my first ticket last October and then upgraded to Extra in November. I spent about six weeks learning enough code to pass the 5 wpm element but did not expect to operate CW. Boy did that plan change! I just didn't feel right about "wasting" my effort to learn the basic 5 wpm so I continued to practice and when I got to about 10 wpm, I tried a couple of QSOs. I was hooked. I now operate almost all CW (around 18 to 20 wpm) and just got my FISTs CC number. My goal is to copy 25 wpm in my head some day. Bottom line: I am sure I never would have "discovered" CW if I wasn't forced to learn the basic 5 wpm. Therefore, I urge the decision makers to retain the code requirement - dropping it would "short change" new hams like myself. 73 es God Bless de Ken - N4OI
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by DOODAH on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I am sure I never would have "discovered" CW if I
>wasn't forced to learn the basic 5 wpm. Therefore, I
>urge the decision makers to retain the code
>requirement - dropping it would "short change" new
>hams like myself
Why not force young ladies to try ******* *** as
well (fill in the blanks as dirtily as you like)...
.. a lot of them would like it if they tried it...
There now, your 'logic' doesn't seem so reasonable
now, does it?
Best not to interfere with someone else's HOBBY,
that would be a bit fascist, dontchya think?
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by THEWISEONE on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The previous post is evidence of what everyone is talking about that I want it for nothing and you have to give it to me. I am with curmudgeon I am outta here no more wasting time with wannabes
|
| |
|
RE: Not again...
|
|
|
by K1MKF on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Years ago when I took my no-code test I really wanted to be a CW HAM. I year or so later I passed the 5 wpm with not a lot of effort but it did take some time. With that I learned two things. 1) Passing the 13 wpm was gonna be harder that I thought and 2) I really didn't care for CW. I played on 10m phone for a few years until the requirements were changed then upgraded to General.
Does the CW test keep bad ops off the bands? I'm not convinced. Does it keep good ops off the bands? Probably a few. But so does the geography of your QTH. That's why I'm not on 160m!
As for keeping the tests "simple", I'm not sure what that means. I beleive the testing and class structure is overly complicated but what do you want? I'm all for only having two tests like in the UK. Combine the Technician and General for VHF and give the code test and Extra written for HF.
|
| |
|
Re: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sigh ...
Perhaps I have a skewed perspective. I have several licenses issued by various levels of government. Some of them were obtained by simply paying a fee. Some required passing a test to prove that I was qualified to perform a particular task or service.
For example, I had to prove to a State Trooper that I could drive before Tennessee would issue my first driver's license. I had to pass an examination in safe gun handling before California would issue a hunting license. I had to pass a flight physical before the Feds would issue a pilot's license. I had to demonstrate knowledge of rules and operating procedures before the FCC would issue a commercial radio operator's license.
None of these tests were arbitrary. Each related to something to do with public order or safety.
I have an Amateur Extra operator's license. When I took the examination, I had to demonstrate proficiency with Morse code. At that time, there was treaty obligation for the FCC to assure that I could send and receive Morse code if I operated on the HF bands.
That international requirement has now gone away. What is the justification for continuing to require Morse code proficiency? Morse code is no longer a preferred mode of emergency or public safety communication. It has not seen any significant use in disaster work--9/11, hurricanes, tornados, etc. The military have phased out Morse code except for special operations; a pool of trained Morse operators is no longer of any particular use to the armed forces. So what is the benefit to the public of maintaining a Morse code proficiency requirement for hams? Remember, the FCC is supposed to regulate the amateur service in the public interest not in the narrow interest of a few hobbyists.
Those of us who have mastered the Morse code have an accomplishment that sets us apart from the general public. That does not give us the right to demand that the FCC continue to impose a Morse code proficiency requirement on future amateur licensees. It may be that such a requirement has some relation to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. If is does, fine. The FCC should let the rules stay as they are. However, if it cannot be shown that the requirement is necessary, it should be dropped. For the FCC to continue with an arbitrary Morse code requirement is just as unsound as for a local government to have an arbitrary limitation on antenna structures.
Sure, some OFs like me will grouse about youngsters having it too easy. We can congregate on 75m and swap stories about spark transmitters and walking barefoot in the snow to FCC office for our exams (uphill both ways!). But we shouldn't demand keeping the Morse test as, for all intents and purposes, a hazing ritual.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by DOODAH on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Goodbye THEWISEONE and curmudgeon, don't let the door
hit your butt on the way out!
>The previous post is evidence of what everyone is
>talking about that I want it for nothing and you have
>to give it to me.
NO! As stated, we have access to the bands based upon
tested competence and continued good behaviour.
Where's the problem with that? Do you have a problem
with operators that know the rules and operate well,
but just happen to not know Morse?
If the written tests are too easy then remedy the
problem, but it's nothing to do with Morse testing.
But to suggest that we HAVE to have a go at Morse
because we might just find that we like it... hello?!
Remember this is a HOBBY!
I wonder how many other activities that poster hasn't
tried yet that he really would enjoy, oh the humanity
that he's missing out on so much!! Listen, life is
short enough, and it's up to us to get the best out
of it. Just don't go around trying to force things
onto other people - you don't have the right.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by ROOT_ADMIN on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WHY OH WHY do I keep reading "we did not use CW during 9/11"... well, guess what, the 9/11 attacks and clean up were LOCAL... LOCAL means FM on V/UHF.
I do not think that you will be using V/UHF when the next typhoon clears Guam, or Kaui'i, or the eastern seaboard, or an earthquake in Alaska/California/Mexico.
CW will remain a very important part of Amateur Radio and should remain in the exams. Perhaps not for entry level but for HF privledges it should.
|
| |
|
Re: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, this thread is serving some useful purpose..... It is either identifying the posters who like to hide OR is is the cause of them leaving..... :-)
To get to the point, I am rather disappointed in the attitude of some of the posters here. Such as "the right" to have an amateur license. Comparing requiring code to requiring people to wear a necktie 5 days a week. Comparing life to a movie script. Come on people!
The rights we have in the radio spectrum is the right to listen, and not to the entire spectrum, and the right to transmit on non-licensed portions. Anytime a license or grant is required, the right ends because a condition is imposed. The right then becomes a privilege if the condition is met. For example, no one has the "right" to drive a car. If a person learns how and passes a test (and pays a fee!) the license is granted and that person then has the privilege of driving. If a law is broken by that person, the license may be lost and the privilege is no longer in effect.
As far as code and a necktie--where is it said you have to pass a test to wear a necktie??? Very bad comparison.
As far as life vs. a movie script, it may be a valid comparison, but if you have to go that far to find such a comparison, you're on very shaky ground. People have been looking to change the rules to make things easier since time began.
Time was a telegraph system (comparible to morse, used the same system if not the same code) was required to send messages across the country. Now, pick up a telephone and dial. Easier, simpler and more efficient. In the early 20th century, morse and a spark gap transmitter was the easiest most efficient way to send messages between moving stations. Now, with tuned carrier transmission, spark gap transmission is obsolete. Morse, even though kept because of its ability to get through when other modes cannot, is outdated and has been rapidly moving toward obsolescence for quite a while. There are digital modes nowadays that get through just as well as morse and sometimes better. Morse is going the way of spark gap because of the need to find better, more efficient ways of communicating. That is progress.
It is 'changing the rules', and of course people give themselves 'a pat on the back' when progress is made. Do you want to go back to long distance communication by telegraph? I don't think so. Everybody yearns for the good old days, and people in those days also yearned for the good old days, and so on back to the beginning of time.
Progress is going stay in the mainstream of life no matter what we as individuals do, one way or another. Progress is a part of human nature. And like it or not, we're all human. To deny progress is to deny yourself.
73 to all, Chris J. Smith, K1CJS
|
| |
|
Re: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, a substantial amount of health & welfare traffic was passed on HF in the days following 9/11. While I am certain that some was sent via radiotelegraphy, much was handled via phone or digital modes such as RTTY, PACTOR, and AMTOR. No one was forced by band or operating conditions to use Morse code. Some operators chose to use that mode. Fine! They got their traffic through. They simply used an outdated and inefficient method that worked.
No one has seriously proposed a ban on Morse code. I hope it will always remain an option to hobbyists who enjoy it. I plan to maintain a reasonable proficiency with it just in case I do need it someday.
One of the reasons the FCC exists is to regulate the use of a finite public resource, the radio spectrum. The FCC licenses US amateurs not to benefit us as hobbyists but to benefit the public. 47 CFR 97.1 says:
---begin quote---
The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.
---end quote---
Now that there is no longer an international obligation to maintain the Morse code testing requirement, those desiring to maintain it are obligated to show how it fit with (a) through (e) above. As shown in my opening comments, telegraphy plays an ever diminishing role in emergency communications. Using a 19th-century technology does not seem to have much to do with advancing the state of the art in the 21st century. Outside of clandestine operations, there is little or no call for telegraphers in either the government or commercial worlds. And there is no requirement that we communicate by telegraphy to maintain international good will.
One can only make a case for retaining the Morse code test as a means of "(e)ncouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills ... " However, any such argument must show that knowledge of Morse code is a critical skill in the 21st century.
I understand that there are folks out there in radioland who believe that Morse code is such a critical skill. I'd like to see their case presented with facts and examples.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Root_Admin:
Why do you insist on attaching CW to HF as far as 9-11 goes? CW is also a valid transmission mode on 2 meters, you know.
During the 9-11 disaster, 2 meter FM phone had a very tough time getting through, operators had to leave a building and find open space in order to make contact.
The point being, 2 meter phone couldn't get through, why wasn't CW used then? Why weren't the 2 meter transceivers set up for it? Why didn't the emergency operators have CW capable 2 meter sets and CW keys with them.
Answer: The CW mode is and was outdated and obsolete. The equipment used is too unwieldy for use in mobile emergency communication where speed in set up and communications is essential.
CW stands a better chance in getting through in lousy band conditions, granted. But ask yourself this, during declared emergency conditions lately the FCC reserved certain frequencies for emergency communications in the HF spectrum. Were those frequencies in the CW reserved portions or in the phone portions?
Thank you for your attention.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K4IQT on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again, with the anti-CW guys fighting it out with the pro-CW crowd. Again.
This issue has been a matter of controversy ever since the late 1960's when a particularly difficult ham radio magazine editor started spouting "Morse is dead - they are keeping good people out of ham radio and occupying otherwise useable phone spectrum."
With the exception of a VERY few, the Morse requirement has kept ONLY those out who want something for nothing. Most of those folks can be found between 27 and 29 MHz playing with their microphones and pretending to be hams - they would not make the COMMITTMENT to EARN a ticket, blamed the FCC, ARRL, and CW ops for their predicament, and then simply got on "HF" and started talking.
Now, some of these "HF'ers" have since seen the light and have worked for and become licensed radio amateurs. Unfortunately, most are still operating illegally and apparently consider it their right to use the aether with no legal restrictions, or if there are any, ignore them.
Being a "good op" is NOT a qualification for a radio amateur. Read the definitions in Part 97 - if you don't have a copy get one, because I'm not repeating here what is in print there. It also does not mean that one has to use any mode requiring International Morse Code, either. But why, pray tell, is it asking too much for a prospective radio amateur to spend a couple of weeks learning a very basic slow code speed as well as learning enough technical and regulatory stuff to pass the exams? Is there no committment here? Do we want to simply buy a license along with our brand new rice-burner rig? Why don't we want to work for it? Instant gratification, perhaps?
Maybe it's like my church pastor says - some folks have "lite religion - all the fun, all the good feelings, and only half of the committment." Perhaps some hams want the same thing out of ham radio.....
|
| |
|
CW obsolete?
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Anyone who says that CW isn't an important skill that should be a requirement for HF operators just doesn't understand ham radio.
I don't care if someone can homebrew electronics, write software, and is courteous on VHF voice. That's great... but that's besides the point. The question that should be asked is, why hasn't this person invested the couple of hours necessary to pass the 5 wpm test? Not, why is that person required to learn Morse?
Ham radio will NEVER be a popular hobby (more than 1/2 of 1% of the general public). Why? Because unless you have some curiosity in the process of ham radio (how radios work, how to build and fix them, how to make an antenna) then using ham radio for utilitarian purposes is pretty stupid. Cell phones work better for voice communication in the vast majority of situations, and you can talk to just about everyone. Computers and the Internet work better for data communication in the vast majority of situations, and you can communicate with lots more people than ham radio operators can.
The people who become hams and who stick with the hobby are not the ones who clamor for HF access and basically want a more powerful CB radio. Instead, they are the ones who have the interest in the technology, who want to be able to understand HOW a radio works. These people generally have an above-average willingness to persevere, to work at something that may not always be easy. They make good hams.
The push to eliminate CW is popular with those who would profit from a larger "ham" community made up mostly of appliance operators with no technical knowledge. HT sales would be more profitable than the commodity FRS and CB sales that their market is currently buying. Of course, we'd end up with anyone who could plunk down the $$ on the ham bands... and we have only to look at the Citizen's Band to see what THAT would be like.
I don't want everyone to be a ham. I don't want it to be any easier than it currently is to get access to the HF bands. It's easy enough already. The FCC's licensing figures show that, with the easing of the CW requirement, there is no great rush from Tech to General. Instead, there is a great rush from General to Extra. Yep... the CW complainers are still sitting and complaining, while those people who are into ham radio are taking advantage of the system to get access to more frequencies.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W8OB on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Count me in with the other two guys, I have had enuff of this crap. I am out of here and going to go back fishing. I didn't get any comments on my earlier post about fishing so I guess that means most of you here do not have a life other than ham radio and finding yet another tiresome topic to argue about. I sure hope the brook trout are hitting on flies today.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K1JCS, the reason was because the kind of screwballs that go running into a trouble area like to pretend that they are cops...and little FM walkie-talkies help them in their effort to try to impress people. They also did not use cw because most of them have nothing more than the little FM shacks in the pocket. Such screwballs are too lazy to learn code and also think that is too much effort for them to have to have a real antenna (totally reliant on nearby repeaters)...such types do not know how to use a vfo and would be totally lost without their pre-programmed FM channels.
|
| |
|
L.P.L.S
|
|
|
by KA9XPA on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lazy People Lower Standards. Come on. We all know why no one "can" learn morse code today -- it takes too much time and effort! Unless you exhibit some disability that might inhibit your learning capacity you CAN learn morse code. You just don't want to break yourself away long enough from video games and Jerry Springer reruns to study.
As Ayn Rand said, "The producer becomes the slave of the non-producer." Thus, in a society where the welfare mentality breeds faster than the work ethic, we lower our standards so people don't have to overcome obstacles. They learn to become dependent upon their government to assist them by passing rules that make it easier to give up and over time, you have a dependent populace of sheep.
If you really REALLY wanted to be a ham operator, you would MAKE yourself learn code. Next, they will be eliminating calculus from the world as it is just too hard for those degree seeking folks! Oh yeah, and Trigonometry? Too hard!!! Oh, and foreign languages?? Oh NO!! That will get me off my lazy butt way too much. Go ahead, use rhetoric to stupify yourself and use excuses to blame someone else rather than you. If you can learn a language, or math, or English, or play a freaking video game, you can learn code. Same amount of time required!!! You just don't want to, BUT, you want all the benefits without trying. Blah blah blah. Whiners! "Freedom and bread enough for all is impossible."
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W3JJH said that cw was an "outdated and ineffective method" while promoting RTTY, PACTOR, and AMTOR. Hmmmm. How well do those modes work without a computer? Now then what modes are "outdated and ineffective"?
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KG4MCC on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really appreciate all the comments to this topic. I am reading each one (good & bad) and considering everyone's point of view. I even got a comment from the editor...EXCELLENT!
I am not saying that CW should be done away with, but it should not be a requirement for amateur HF privleges.
Let me put it another way.
I didn't have to have Morse code in my communications classes in either my associates degree in electronics or bachelors degree in electrical engineering.
I didn't have to know code to maintain or operate mission critical, top-secret military communications systems when I was enlisted in the U.S. Air Force.
I didn't need code to control VSAT (satellite) systems when I worked at Spacenet (formerly GTE Spacenet).
I didn't need code to administer and maintain telecommunications systems and technical support for a national satellite subscription service company (TurnerVision).
I don't need code to administer and maintain telecommunications and data systems for the hospital/healthcare groups where I have been employed for over five years.
You're probably thinking that I'm just lazy about learning the code. Maybe. But the point is that I've worked in critically important communications for most of my adult life.
I'm not saying that amateur communications are not important, in emergencies they can be critical. But I am saying that the communications systems that I have worked on for most of my career are critically needed all the time and do not require knowledge of the Morse code.
Why is it a requirement to know the Morse code to operate on the amateur HF bands when most of the time those frequencies are not being used in life or death situations or for national defense?
So, I'm back to my original question. Why can't someone who can pass the written exam for general or extra amateur license be given credit for the ability that they have and at least limited privleges to the phone portions of the amateur HF bands?
I know that the code requirement will likely go away in the future, but it seems to me that since the beginning of the 'solid-state' era, that the code requirement has been exclusionary rather than practical.
Dave - KG4MCC
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So what? How many courses did you take that you didn't like during your school or college career? I know I took a bunch that had nothing to do with my career. I didn't want to take them but I wanted the diploma. guess what? I took them.
Again we're back to the gimme license. I don't like but you gotta give it to me. You may be right and the requirement will be removed but not without a fight.
There is no right in the U.S. Constitution to an Amateur Radio License. You know, there are some people in this world that isn't cut out for it anyway.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was surprised to see Ayn Rand quoted in support of intrusive government regulation. She is normally associated with a libertarian perspective.
This raises the political/philosophical question of liberty vs. license. American courts are now trending toward protecting our personal liberty so long as our behavior has no unwanted effect on another. This is borne out in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the recent Lawerence decision in which the Supremes said that Texas did not have the authority to regulate private conduct between two consenting adults which had no effect on any third party. Behavior may be ill-advised or immoral but still be beyond the scope of government's police powers.
However, when one's behavior begins to affect the general public, the issue is not liberty but license. The government may restrict and license certain public behavior. That is why hams are not at liberty to use the public's radio spectrum willy-nilly.
One of the guiding principles of government licensing which has been upheld by the courts is that regulations may not be arbitrary or capricious. Regulatory requirements must have some connection to the public good. Again, I ask the question: How is the general public served by requiring amateur radio operators to be proficient in telegraphy? Not hobbyists, the general public.
To answer another point--
RTTY works just fine without a computer. Perhaps some newer hams don't remember the Model 15 teletype, but some of us OFs still do.
So what if modern modes require computers? Radiotelegraphy requires a radio transmitter and receiver. Writing requires pen and paper. All non-face-to-face communication requires technology.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W9SZ on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Without getting too much into the code/no code debate, I'd just like to point out that Morse code still has some usefulness because some of us still use it. Those who have done some weak-signal VHF+ work know that when the band is marginal and SSB won't make it, most ops switch to CW. Yes, there are fancy digital modes (I use them myself) but if you're sitting in your car on a hilltop somewhere trying to work someone on microwaves, you probably aren't using a computer to decode a digital signal.
I've seen quite a few people who were participating in VHF contests miss out on some QSO's because they couldn't or wouldn't work CW. On Field Day, CW contacts count double the points of SSB contacts. One year I saw people on FD trying to work 144 MHz SSB. There were people on the same frequency calling CQ on CW. I asked why they didn't work the CW station. "I don't know CW and don't have a key."
Some day CW may be completely gone from our bands. But it will be some time after I become a SK because I intend to keep using it. And as long as some of us still use it, it will be useful.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W8FAX on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All you tech's with crystal balls who say you will never use it, how do you know??????????? Time and age change a lot of things.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WD4AWO on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By all means, let's keep it simple.
Do away with the cw requirement.
Do away with the published question pool.
Do away with the multiple choice answers.
Help the no-code for HF minority do exactly what they
promote.
Let's get some high-tech operators on the HF bands and allow them to show that they are qualified by the following:
No more published question pools.
Fill in the blank answers with multiple fills on every question.
Allow them the opportunity to show their proficiency, since they are so high-tech, of how inductors become self-resonant, how many degrees of each cycle a half-wave rectifier utilizes, how to match an unbalanced coaxial feedline to a yagi antenna, various classes of transistorized amplifiers, how even-order harmonics can be reduced or prevented, explain phase angles,etc.
Wanna bet that they complain even more that the requirements are unfair and prejudiced?
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N8WP on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
International treaty is the main reason for the CW requirement on HF. The radio spectrum is a worldwide resource. No one country controls it. Now this requirement has changed. The 5 WPM CW rule has changed. It is now up to the individual countries to require the CW rules.
There is no reason why anyone cannot learn 5 WPM and get on HF right now. A couple weeks of dedication will get the CW done and over with. I have encouraged and helped many others to overcome the code barrier. Just make up your mind and do it.
Why does this society think that the world owes us something? Earn it and be proud. A 16 year old does not deserve a car just because he can get a drivers license. Anyone who gives a 16 year old a car without earning it is a fool. I guess that fools abound. I know that I earned my first car, and I earned my HF privileges.
There would be a lot more General class licensees if operators redirected the energy they use to whine about not being able to operate on HF into learning the Morse code.
Flame me all you wish. I know where I stand.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N8FVJ on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, CW has kept good operators out of the hobby. I also believe it has kept more bad operators out of the hobby. Let the CW requirement stand as is.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YKY--
Check your facts before you post unless you want to confirm you are a fool.
There was no one permitted into the disaster area in the wake of 9-11 who was not checked and cleared by the authorities. Every such relief worker was issued a picture pass by those authorities for access to the area. Those who somehow got into the "secured area" without an issued picture pass were arrested and escorted out.
The amateur operators who accompanied every emergency relief team did not use "pocket shacks", they had full powered 50 watt rigs, emergency antenna and battery packs.
Those operators needed to pass messages and traffic quickly and efficiently, but sometimes were in situations where they had to relocate or reorient their antenna to contact the emergency operation center. They used phone, not CW, because CW would have been too slow and speed of communication was essential--as soon as the team was done at one location they had to move on rapidly to the next.
One last point, those "screwballs" as you refer to them were commended by the New York authorities for the assistance rendered by them to the relief effort.
I wonder if you self centered bulls**t spewers would have done half as well.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Folks, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I learned Morse code in the Boy Scouts, got a First Class Radiotelephone commercial ticket in high school, and had been a practicing electrical engineer for over 30 years when I took Elements 1, 3, and 4 to upgrade from Tech to Extra. My entire study program was to review the question pool items relating to operating rules the night before I took the exam. I got a minute's solid copy and passed Element 1. I missed one question on Element 3 and got 100 % on Element 4.
Because of my professional background, I had an easy time with the exam. Yet, none of that qualifies me as a good amateur operator. If I am a decent op, it's because I am respectful of my fellow hams on the bands. The licensing exam doesn't screen out lids; just listen to the junk on 75m!
The purpose of the licensing exams is to verify that amateurs have a minimum level of technical background needed to operate their stations safely within FCC regulations.
The comment has been made that "CW is religion." Amen, brother. I do not expect to convert the true-believers to my way of thinking. Nor to seek to prevent them from practicing their beliefs--so long as they are also tolerant of others.
These questions still remains: How is the interest of the general public served by retaining the telegraphy proficiency requirement for amateur operators? If that interest is not served, why should the FCC retain Morse code testing?
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A show of hands, please:
How may of those who are advocating keeping the Morse code requirement because it might be useful in emergencies
a.) are active in ARES, or
b.) have participated in a RACES drill during the past year, or
c.) have participated in an SET, or
d.) have ever initiated or answered a MAYDAY or SOS, or
e.) all of the above?
Extra credit will be awarded to anyone who used telegraphy while handling an SOS. Note: OFs who may have handled QRRR traffic may count that as an SOS.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W5USB on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I vowed I would not post on this topic again, but have decided to just one more time.
Someone above mentioned what happens when people trade the difficult for the simple. They do themselves a tremendous disservice.
I was thinking earlier about the state of knowledge possessed by most hams about the "innards" of their equipment, and how possibly to fix something if it were to break.
As often I do look back to earlier times to get a perspective relating to today.
In the early days of amateur radio, ALL operators knew what comprised their "shack". Not the make and model number, they knew ALL about it because they built it themselves. This was difficult but necessary. These were Amateur Radio [OPERATORS].
As time progressed, hams would "farm out" more and more of the difficult tasks to others, sometimes to companies started by hams or by friends more knowledgable than they. There's nothing wrong with this as long as one understands that the first ham is trading the chance to learn more about his/her rig in exchange for time.
The next time something breaks, the first ham will be doubly interested in farming it out again. They benefitted from the free time gained and figure with such a good source for repairs right around the corner, why bother to do it themselves. Slippery slope time.
Zooming back to today's time, we see the exact opposite from the earliest days. Very few understand exactly how that "box" works and know even less about how to fix it. 80 years of "farming out" has left us with 4-6 big radio companies who happen to know a great deal, and hundreds of thousands of hams who mainly can OPERATE their radios, if that. These are Amateur [RADIO OPERATORS].
In closing, I need no further evidence of "dumbing down" in this hobby. And furthermore, this has happened due to our choice alone. We chose to give others the knowledge, in exchange for talk time.
The removal of the CW requirement is just another stage in this de-evolutionary spiral. Life is kinda like Michael Jackson's moonwalk, it appears as though we are moving forward, all the while we are travelling backwards.
So goodbye CW requirement. It goes the way of all humanity. From independent and intelligent, to dependent and ignorant. This cannot be good for radio. The eventual end to it is overweight, lazy, unhealthy, unknowledgable "operators" with plenty of meaningless "talk time" to fill what's left of the bands. It's inevitable, sadly.
I concede...
I am defeated...by progress.
Art Granda W5USB
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KE2IV on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh goodness...not one of these. Again!
CW sucks unless you love it....so there!
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by AB7JK on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Code is fun - more fun than anyone can anticipate before they learn it and use it for awhile. If all the people who never tried for a license due to the code requirement had tried it, 30% to 40% of them would have grown to love it. Sure beats communicating with the slobs on SSB - on top of that you can work more DX more often with lower power with a unique skill that most people do not have.
I don't care if no one wants to become a ham due to the code requirement. I don't care if ham radio disappears or is abolished. I'll work cw in stealth mode - I do it anyway so as to avoid violating code restrictions!!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
JCS, when the WTC was attacked there were walkie-talkie screwballs running around pretending to be cops before the second plane hit...before the buildings fell...before any "lines" were set up. If you believe that a "full power station" consists of 50 watt FM rigs, little antennas, battery packs, and relying on repeaters...it is YOU that is a "fool".
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
"How will the general public be served by operators being profecient at telegraphy?". That's easy to answer. The public will be served by preserving the Amateur Radio Service, rather than turning it into CB radio with more channels. If, and when, no code is required for hf operation there will quickly be 2 types of stations on the hf bands...CB and CW. They might as well do away with callsigns to. The libs will probably do that at the next WARC.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KD7ODH on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree totally a written test showing capability in technical aspects of radio =phone priv. cw test=cw priv. in bands that go with written test band plan,[what a concept] but maybe that would be to simple. Sometimes simple means results, more operators on air will show that we need the band allocations that we presently have and could use more to the fcc, and an aditional benifit of more hams upgrading would mean more lobbing power against thing like broadband over power lines that would be a big benifit. More operators without cw on general band plan does not mean more trash ops. it would mean more ops. to selfpolice and take pride in radio.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by ROOT_ADMIN on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH:
a.) are active in ARES, or
b.) have participated in a RACES drill during the past year, or
c.) have participated in an SET, or
d.) have ever initiated or answered a MAYDAY or SOS, or
e.) all of the above?
A=yes
B=yes
C=yes
D=no
E=no
perhaps this may count, we used CW to get traffic passed after a hurricane took out the state wide comms. We used CW to keep the traffic as secure as possible, we HOPED that the people listening in would not be able to copy the code. OMG! ENCRYPTION!
(btw oo dude)
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The "broadband over power lines" might be a good thing...if they really do eliminate the 5wpm code test and make amateur radio into just more CB channels. The power line noise might full well be a blessing, rather than interference.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8OB
The fishing around here is pretty tough, no water in the stream or river beds!
But, there seems to be a feeding frenzy on this thread--the Piranhas and Sharks are attacking each other again.
Just imagine what the FCC will be going through as they try and dig themselves out of all the petitions to remove CW for HF phone access, all the petitions to retain CW before access to HF is granted, and petitions to no-code HF access but restricted to sending CW in the Novice sub bands.
I wonder how many times, and for how many months eHam is going to take the bait an run code vrs no-code threads?
Bob
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W8JI on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>What are "73's"? Maybe learning to operate a little >>cw would help
73's are much more friendly than 73, which is just the common old "Best Regards".
73's= Best's regards's
73= best regards
Personal here is= I get warm and fuzzy (and maybe a bit excited)when you call me this
Handle or name= operator's nickname or name
On the side= I fell down. Please pick me up.
Break= I want to join in
Base (station, rig, etc)= It has channels and plugs in
to the wall
Home or Fixed (station, rig etc)= an old fixed or home station (rig) that requires some skill to operate
Balum= Grease you smear on an antenna to prevent it from chapping
Balun= connects to antenna
Antennae= Connects to your bug
Antennas= connect to your radio
Anyone think of any more???
I'm on the side, over.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W5USB on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I wonder how many times, and for how many months eHam is going to take the bait an run code vrs no-code threads?" says another ham directly above (can't remember callsign, sorry)
Answer: As long as the hit counter keeps spinning out of control, I suppose.
BTW, the last thing we need is to "put this to sleep". You see if we are through discussing it, all thats left is for the powers-that-be to completely remove the CW spectre once and for all. This is unsatisfactory.
Hmm, I'm confused. Are folks being forced onto these CW/no CW threads? Does one have to read every post here, in order to advance into other topics? If you are tired of reading these posts, then why do you?
I guess it's about "keeping the lid on this" so the authorities can do as they please, unencumbered by dissent.
Art Granda W5USB
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Anyone who's really listened on 80 meters, is painfully aware that the current CW requirement has obviously not kept bad ops out. It's therefore naive to assume that eliminating it, will make things much worse than they already are.
If you want to experience the true depths of poor operating procedures, foul language, and general rude behavior, look no further than the Amateur HF spectrum. I've never witnessed more hypocracy than I have since my involvement in the Amateur Service.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YKY:
Joe, were you in New York on 9/11 or in Oakwood? Are you basing your statement about the amateur response on your eyewitness information or hearsay?
I don't know from first hand experience exactly what went on in New York. I do know what happened at the Pentagon. Our county ARES/RACES sent operators there. The modes used were FM (VHF and UHF), packet, and APRS. No telegraphy. BTW, many of the ops were Techs like you.
I don't think you understand how tight the security situation here was on 9/11 and the following days. Any screwball pretending to be a cop would have been busted on the spot. Within seconds of the NY crashes, lock downs began. After the Pentagon crash, evacuations of federal employees began. There were cops, state troopers, MPs, and federal security people everywhere. Photo ID was required to go near any point of interest. I had trouble entering Goddard Space Flight Center on 9/12 even with an NASA ID.
Please do not presume to lecture those of us who where part of 9/11 on what really happened.
You also state: "If, and when, no code is required for hf operation there will quickly be 2 types of stations on the hf bands...CB and CW." One can't tell from the FCC data base whether or not you have passed Element 1 and have Novice/Tech HF privileges. Let's assume you do. Do you spend your time in the Novice bands pounding brass? Or are you on 10m SSB? Or 2m FM?
Or are you a No-Code Tech? Is the telegraphy requirement keeping you off of HF?
Are you saying that when I operate PSK31 I am a CBer? Are the MARS nets that no longer use CW also CBers? And what's wrong with CB? Sure, it's got almost as many junk operators per kHz as 75m, but it has also been the first step to ham radio for many excellent operators.
Look, Joe, it may be that dropping the telegraphy requirement will induce an evolutionary change in ham radio that will degrade the amateur service. I don't know, but I doubt that it will. Yet, I am willing to listen to a reasoned argument of an opposing view--a structured discussion citing facts and data, one that offers logical proof rather than ranting opinion.
Now, to return to my (as yet) unanswered question: How does retaining the telegraphy requirement for HF amateur radio operators serve the general public interest?
73 de W3JJH
John
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH:
Thank you. At least someone knows the facts of the situation and is willing to say something about it.
KB9YKY:
If it is your belief that a 50 watt station is a full power station, so be it. I made no such claim--I simply said those emergency operators didn't use "pocket shacks"--YOUR WORDS, not mine. You made claims based on your beliefs, not the facts.
Also, if you insist on using callsigns, get them right, please. If you are trying to imply something by switching the letters around, please take note I am not and never claimed to be.
I was not at the NYC disaster area but did all I could to assist including helping the families of hams who were there as much as I could. It was from those generous people I got my facts. May I ask where you got your "facts"???
There were security people, police and firemen running around with walkie talkies between the times the first plane hit and the second plane hit. I can only assume these were the people you are calling "screwballs". There wasn't enough time for anybody else to get there unless they were already there.
I can only feel sorry for you and your obvious frustration in not being able to be there yourself, it seems that is the only thing causing your anger. It must be terrible being all dressed up with your pocket shack on your belt and your bouncy wired microphone on your lapel and have no place to go.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N3XL on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, first I'll tell you what just happened to me while pursuing WAS award. Hopefully we can all agree that the awards system, and contesting, are ways to engender better operating skills/stations - operating skills and stations that could help in emergencies. I don't want, and hopefully don't need to explain all the ways awards and skills are related, but hopefully, anyone can see at least some of the relationships.
I made a SSB sked with an operator in Portland for yesterday night - I'm in MD. I could barely hear him and he was totally unintelligible to me on the freq we had agreed on. I found out later via e-mail that he could hear me well enough to make out my callsign. If I was ready, I'm sure I could have finished a 2-way QSO.
Here's my fix for next time. I will send out a CW message for a quick QSO and if no CW response is heard, I'll send freq coordination (QSY) message. According to my band plan CW transmissions are allowed anywhere in the bands, although CW ops normally stay in there normal segments. I will send the numbers slowly and repeatedly, then QSY and hope it works.
I just feel very strongly that CW is by no means a dead art or useless skill, even after surviving for 35 years as a professional communicator without it, I find it delightful and feel a greater sense of satisfaction in developing my CW skills. Also, I have found it to be the superior way to chase DX.
73
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
CJS, YOU did say that the little 50 watt FM jobs were "full powered rigs". YOU did say that. It wasn't me. It was YOU. It was YOUR words EXACTLY that I quoted, word for word, in a previous post. Why do YOU now try to deny it and say that I am the one that said that? As for me being as YOU said "being all dressed up to go and no place to go"...about the only place that you would find me taking a walkie-talkie to would be to a hamfest. It is very, very rare that I would be found on a walkie-talkie, on FM, or on someone's repeater. The screwballs that I referred to were NOT police/fire/etc and YOU know that. The screwballs were on scene and were "CB", 2 meter, and 440 walkie-talkies. The screwballs were heard on every repeater in the area. All one had to do was listen to 40 meters...alot of guys were talking about all the screwballs that they were hearing on those repeaters. Why did YOU say that I was "frustrated and angry" because I was not there in NYC? I am glad that I was nowhere near that mess! Furthertmore, I am delighted that I will never be in a sewer like NYC, or any other huge filthy cesspool, under any conditions. It also makes me happy that I never have to get closer to a place like Chicago than within less than 120 miles. No, if I would have wanted to be there, I would have gone...I am not one bit frustrated about not being anywhere near it. What was it that YOU did for the ham-famalies while their ham was there? What did they need YOU to do for them? If so helpless they should have never been deserted in the first place by the head/ham of the house!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
YKY:
Once and for all I did not say 50 watt FM 2 meter sets were "full power rigs"--THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS--I said full powered 50 watt rigs. There is a difference AND YOU KNOW IT. Here is the exact wording, cut and pasted:
"The amateur operators who accompanied every emergency relief team did not use "pocket shacks", they had full powered 50 watt rigs, emergency antenna and battery packs."
I know the difference between 50 watt rig and an all mode base station with output of 100 watts or more. Just because you don't know how to interpret a statement correctly doesn't give you the right to change wording around to suit yourself--and then accuse someone else that they don't know what they're talking about.
Also, you just admitted you weren't there. Where did you get your information? How do you know what went on there? How do you know what was actually said on those local repeaters. WHO'S BEING A FOOL NOW???
I admitted I wasn't there, but I was assisting with the efforts from my area, had contact with people who were there and helped by letting their families know they were OK. At least I took time to try to be a part of the efforts there. Can you claim as much??
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W3JJH, were YOU in NYC or were YOU in Maryland or at the Goodard Space Flight Center with your little "NASA I.D." card? Are YOU one of the no-code Extras that passed a code test but has never touched a key in his life? Or one that has never touched a vfo? Or one of those so-called Extras that does their PSK31 on 2 meter or even illegally on "CB"? Seems rather odd that one would not know "what is wrong with CB". Are YOU also unaware that there are many very good cw ops that are Tech+ or even "no-code" techs? Did YOU also not know that there are some operators that do EME only, nothing else, at every license level...including the no-code tech? Maybe you didn't even know that there are quite a few Extras that never work hf? YOU also probably don't know how it can be much, much more expensive, and time consuming, to operate a really effective vhf, or higher frequency, station than it is for operating on the hf bands....and that much of the theory and knowlege for such makes most hf operation nothing but child's play in comparison. Now before YOU start asking if I operate a really effective vhf or higher station, or EME...the answer is NO. My station is modest, although well above average, and is always being improved. Now to answer some of YOUR questions. No, the "code test" does not keep me from upgrading to a higher license class. I will upgrade if and when I have the need to do so. I have only been licensed for just over 2 1/2 years. I am somewhat unusual as I did not start out with the usual FM/repeater nonsense...instead started out with 6 meter ssb. I very quickly learned that to do much with vhf/weak signal work that cw is essential. I have much, much to do and learn about just on 6 before I worry much about any other bands. The way it is sounding it may never payoff to concern myself with hf...if they do in fact decide to make the hf bands into "CB" by eliminating all "code-testing"...it will only make sense just to stick with 6 meters and/or eventually work on the higher frequency bands....IF they are left intact. Chances are that once they open up hf to CBers, and everyone else, they will start eliminating the bands above 50 mhz for more needed uses than what was amateur radio.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I would wager that CJS is a registered liberal/socialist (sometimes referred to as democrats)...He sure carries on like one.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YKY:
Well, Joe, since you asked ...
I wasn't in New York on 9/11. I was here in the DC area. Yes, I work at Goddard Space Flight Center. I was eerie watching the smoke plume from the Pentagon over the trees. It was also very inspiring to listen as the Virginia ARES/RACES got things together. There was very tight coordination with MARS and SHARES on the federal side, Virginia Emergency Management for the state, and the Red Cross and Salvation Army from the private sector. Security was tight. We were warned that the background checks would be tough for ARES/RACES operators on site. They were even checking for outstanding traffic warrants.
I'm not a no-code Extra. While I was in the Signal Corps, I could do about 30 wpm. I'm a bit rusty now, but I can still copy a bit. The only time I do Morse code now is when I'm elmering. Otherwise, I find it boring.
All of my rigs, except for a Clegg 99 boat anchor, have VFOs.
As a matter of fact, I have operated PSK31 on 2m. It was during a demo of the mode. The two stations were setup using HTs with the power levels down around 100 mW. All quite legal.
No, I haven't (and wouldn't) used PSK31 on CB. I do have a CB radio. I think I used it about 4 years ago to coordinate with some REACT members at a Boy Scout event. I have a set of FRS radio that I use with Scouts while teaching Radio merit badge classes.
I think I have some idea about operating at VHF and up. I was a Tech for 3 years before I upgraded to Extra. Like you, I spent much of my time doing 6m SSB. I particularly enjoy QRP SSB; I find it a greater challenge than QRP CW. I also have a bit of experience at even higher frequencies. If you've ever watched the chase plane video of a Shuttle landing at Edwards AFB, you were viewing the output of a microwave receiver I designed.
Joe, it is clear from you posts that you do have a lot still to learn about 6m--and ham radio in general. In particular, you might want to review the Amateur's Code. You can find it on the ARRL's web site. The first point says that an amateur is
CONSIDERATE ... never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the pleasure of others.
There are jerks out there in radioland who behave badly. They are bad hams. They are lids. And, if they're on HF legally, they passed the telegraphy test. That one datum is proof that knowledge of Morse code is not an accurate figure of merit for good manners.
There are several logical fallacies in your reasoning in support of keeping the telegraphy test. Among them is the Category Error of Composition. In essense, you say that since some hams who do not wish to learn Morse code are poor operators, that all who do not wish to learn Morse code must be poor operators. Nonsense! Your reasoning also suffers from at least one Fallacy of Distraction, False Dilemma. You say that the either we keep things as they are, or we eliminate telegraphy testing as watch the bands go to hell in a handbasket. Those are not the only alternatives. For example, the FCC could eliminate the Morse code test and replace it with some other currently appropriate practical test--and increase enforcement activities.
Finally, while you have addressed the possible effects on us as hobbyists, you have not addressed the effect on the general public. It is the general public interest that the FCC primarily considers not the special interest of amateur radio hobbyists. How is the general public interest served by keeping the telegraphy test for HF amateur radio operators?
73 de W3JJH
John
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WB6AEA on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm confused.
You claim the elimination of the Element 1 will make HF nothing more then CB. Yet you are a no-code Tech working 6m... which is already accessable to the no-code crowd.
If your logic holds true then why hasn't 50mhz become like CB?
I'm not trying to start a fight with you OM... I just want to understand your logic.
Thx
Jon
WB6AEA
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hi, Jon. Actually alot of 6meter activity is very "CB"ish. Another reason why cw is so useful on the band. It would be much worse but fortunately the CBers on 6 do not know about antennas, polarization, and feedlines. The problem is getting worse as Ranger sells their little rigs as CBs with "special" channels, complete with roger beep. The main thing that helps keep the illegal CBers off of the vhf/uhf bands is that 6 meters just doesn't have the range that the illegal CBers are looking for. When the CBers find out that they can legally get on hf without any "code test" they will...and they will find that they can hook up about anything up for an antenna and "get out" further than on the current 27mhz CB band. Can't you even picture what will happen when the word gets out as to how they "get out" on say 20 meters? Inexpensive radios with 100 watt output? Oh yea. Readily available and low cost amplifiers that will do 1500 or more watts? No prob. Such will happen.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As far as retaining the code test requirement serving the public interest, lets take the items listed before one by one.
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communications service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
How does retention of the morse code serve to recognize and enhance the value of the amateur service? Answer: It does not. The only way morse would serve to advance the recognition of amateur radio is by the recognition of the constant infighting caused by the code vs. no-code debate. I don't think we want that kind of recognition.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
How does continued use of a mode of operation most popular in the first half of the twentieth century and waning ever since, a mode whose widespread use has been discontinued by all other radio services and the international amateur community contribute to the advancement of the radio art?
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
It could be argued that morse code testing, being that morse is a communications art, should be retained, but the key words here, "advancing skills" stops that argument in its tracks. Morse code is simply not a skill that is any sort of advancement anywhere.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
Why create more operators trained in morse code when morse code is no longer used by any other agency or service. Operators in the existing reservoir won't be called upon for morse code communications, an order has been put out by the military prohibiting morse use in relation to any military extension of the amateur service such as MARS, etc.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.
If the international amateur community has discontinued morse and most member countries follow suit how does morse promote international goodwill? In that case it would probably discourage it.
_________________
Forcing the retention of the morse testing requirement no longer serves any fundamental purpose in relation to amateur radio, as a matter of fact, it may end up harming amateur radio in this country. Consider, if the requirement is kept operators from other countries would know they are talking to a minority of hams in the US, that those hams were forced to learn something the other operators may not know and therefore may not be predisposed to communicate with them. I admit, that may be stretching things, but it is possible.
I say again, forcing newer operators to learn morse may keep them from wanting to use morse, while letting newer operators be exposed to morse may cause them to wonder about it and therefore learn it.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Just as obvious, you can force a ham to learn morse, but you can't make him use it. Better he be attracted by morse and learn it voluntarily, he is more likely to use it than the one forced to learn it.
BTW, I am attracted by it and am trying to master it, but still don't think it should be forced down the throat of those who have no wish to learn it.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
JJh, I have already said why it is in the interest to the general public to maintain the amateur radio service, rather than making it into "CB" radio. Making amateur radio into just more useless CB channels would seve no purpose. It would seem that since you admit to having a cb radio and associating yourself with such foolishness as "REACT", it is you who needs to know more about amateur radio. As for your QRP operations on 6...Yes running QRP ssb does make it more challenging than cw. I quite often run AM to make it even more of a challenge. However on 6, when the band is open, QRP using any mode is not really all that challenging...mostly just luck catching the right propagation with a station on the other end. What really makes vhf work interesting is what you can do WITHOUT the band being open...no tropo, no F2 propagation...just what one can do with nothing but forward scatter to work with. In other words, everyday "normal" conditions...not the seasonal, and other, sporatic openings. Here is another example of what I am trying to say... I have never worked a Eropean country yet on 6...naturally I want to someday before I move onto some other band, or bands...but when and if I do it will most likely be due to just sheer luck, it will not be because of any real skill or involve anything as far as really having any better of a station. Many people do it from my area with far less skill and equipment than what I have. Just more of a matter of being at the right place and at the right time. Sure, I like band openings, but I like much better what I can do without the idea conditions of a band opening. WANTED TO SAY MORE...but must run along for now...have something other than playing on the internet that needs my immediate attention. Later. Bye.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K1CJS's post above is exactly the sort of thing I mean when I ask for a logical argument. May we please see a similarly well thought presentation of the opposing view?
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is one real reason why 6 meters haven't turned into the another cb band--6 meters doesn't have the inherent range of 11 meters.
Back in the 70s when the cb heyday was here, cbers were buying, converting and using linear amplifiers to try to get their signal as far as they could--to talk to people as far away as they could. Why oh why do you think linears were outlawed on the 11 meter band? And before you even ask, yes I was a CBer then--although I didn't use more power than was authorized.
The laws banning those linears were a two edged sword--one of the reasons those so called cbers found out about ham radio. Those people who got those linears asked about or just found out about the bands the amplifiers were meant for, thats when the cbers started migrating to the ham bands.
If you've heard about the encroachment of present day cbers into the ten meter band, thats a result of those days, although not a direct result.
So, as far as six meters becoming another eleven meter band, don't worry too much about it. Rigs for the six meter band are a little too pricey for the pirates to get, and as I said, the distance they want to achieve is only occasionally possible for six meter operation.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W6TNI on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
IT SEEMS TO ME IF YOU WANT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO REACH THIS GOAL THE REQUIREMENT OF CW WASNT PUT IF PRACTICE WHITHOUT A PURPOSE CW IS THE MOST RELIABLE COMMUNICATIONS PERIOD ASK ANY CW OPERATOR ANYWHERE. THE REQUIREMENT FOR CW IS NEEDED THE SPEED STILL SOULD BE 13 WPS THE WRITTEN TEST SHOULD BE REQUIRED NOT MULTIBLE CHOICE IF YOU HAVE TO WRITE OUT YOUR ANSWERS YOU WILL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT WAS A SAD DAY WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A LICENSE WERE CHANGED. WHEN I WAS FIRST LICENSED THIS WAS THE RULE 1941 AND I EARNED NY TICKET. IF WE DONT USE THE FREQ ALLOTED TO CW SHAME SHAME IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A ENGINEER IN ORDER TO BECOME A AMATUER HOWEVER I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT A SO CALLED EXTRA CLASS LICENSE OPERATORS WOULD BE AT LOSS IF THEY HAD TO REPAIR THEIR EQUIPMENT I BET VERY FEW COULD DESIGN OR BUILD THE SIMPLEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. ALL YOU HEAR ON SSB IF COMENTS OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT NO LONGER IS THE CQ USED TO ANY EXTENT WHAT A SHAME MEMORIZING A LIST OF QUESTIONS DO NOT MAKE A AMATUER IF BET I JUST MADE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAD HOWEVER I STAND BY WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN 73S BOB W6TNI
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB3YKY:
You better believe that I've got a CB radio in my ARES/RACES roll out kit. Only two Troopers in my county have 2m rigs in their units, but every Trooper and every State Police barracks has a CB radio. I also carry FRS radios to hand out to unlicensed personnel. I even carry a cell phone.
Let's see ... what else is in here.
A Kenwood TH-F6A--primary HT that lets me into the 222 MHz repeaters in the area if necessary.
A Kenwood TH-79A--backup
A Mirage MD-25 amp--might need more than 5 W.
A Yaesu FT-817--gets me into the 6m repeaters or on the the MEMA HF nets.
A Vibroplex Vibrokeyer--hey, I might need to send CW. I can, you know.
A Mac laptop to support packet and other digital modes.
Hmm ... All the amateur bands from 160m to 70cm. All mode capability (except FM only on 222 MHz). CB. FRS. A phone. Wow! I might be able to communicate.
Have I ever had to use anything other than 2m FM, 2m packet, or 40m SSB for an ARES/RACES activity? No, not yet, but, like I learned in Boy Scouts--Be Prepared!
When I was a new ham, there wasn't much in the kit other than the TH-79A. After some years experience, I've added capability based on lessons learned.
I sincerely hope that I will never have to handle any more disaster traffic. If I do, I don't care if I have to net with another ham or a CBer or a State Trooper, I'll do what it takes.
Jim, the final point of the Amateur's Code says that an amateur is
PATRIOTIC ... station and skill always ready for service to country and community.
ARES is not a bunch of screwballs trying to be cops. We're an important part of the ARRL's service to our communities. RACES is not a bunch of screwballs trying to be cops. We are an auxilliary communications service provided by amateurs to our state and local governments. When the FCC declares an emergency, the Amateur Service goes off the air and only RACES remains. REACT is not a bunch of screwballs either. They are radio hobbyists (some CBers, some GMRSers, and some hams) who devote time to community service working hand-in-hand with organizations such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and National Weather Service.
Your bitterness toward CBers does not serve you or ham radio well. Sure, there's immature behavior on CB. And on 75m. Rather than curse the darkness, light a candle. Try elmering a CBer into ham radio. One of the best operators I know (skill, courtesy, you name it) was a CBer 4 years ago. He found an elmer and became a 20 wpm Extra. That's CBer to Tech to Advanced to Extra in about a year. He's an avid contester. He's chairman of our ham club's training committee and has personally brought a dozen or more new hams into the hobby in the past two years. He's also president of REACT in our county.
It's much more useful to turn a badboy CBer into a decent ham than to bitch about CBers. It's a particular pleasure to help someone take a Ameritron 600-W mobile amp out of a freebander rig and hook it up to a legal Icom 706 and to watch that new ham learn good operating practices from experienced elmers.
73 de W3JJH
John
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W6TNI on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
IT SEEMS TO ME IF YOU WANT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO REACH THIS GOAL THE REQUIREMENT OF CW WASNT PUT IF PRACTICE WHITHOUT A PURPOSE CW IS THE MOST RELIABLE COMMUNICATIONS PERIOD ASK ANY CW OPERATOR ANYWHERE. THE REQUIREMENT FOR CW IS NEEDED THE SPEED STILL SOULD BE 13 WPS THE WRITTEN TEST SHOULD BE REQUIRED NOT MULTIBLE CHOICE IF YOU HAVE TO WRITE OUT YOUR ANSWERS YOU WILL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT WAS A SAD DAY WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A LICENSE WERE CHANGED. WHEN I WAS FIRST LICENSED THIS WAS THE RULE 1941 AND I EARNED NY TICKET. IF WE DONT USE THE FREQ ALLOTED TO CW SHAME SHAME IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A ENGINEER IN ORDER TO BECOME A AMATUER HOWEVER I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT A SO CALLED EXTRA CLASS LICENSE OPERATORS WOULD BE AT LOSS IF THEY HAD TO REPAIR THEIR EQUIPMENT I BET VERY FEW COULD DESIGN OR BUILD THE SIMPLEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. ALL YOU HEAR ON SSB IF COMENTS OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT NO LONGER IS THE CQ USED TO ANY EXTENT WHAT A SHAME MEMORIZING A LIST OF QUESTIONS DO NOT MAKE A AMATUER IF BET I JUST MADE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAD HOWEVER I STAND BY WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN 73S BOB W6TNI
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W6TNI on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
IT SEEMS TO ME IF YOU WANT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO REACH THIS GOAL THE REQUIREMENT OF CW WASNT PUT IF PRACTICE WHITHOUT A PURPOSE CW IS THE MOST RELIABLE COMMUNICATIONS PERIOD ASK ANY CW OPERATOR ANYWHERE. THE REQUIREMENT FOR CW IS NEEDED THE SPEED STILL SOULD BE 13 WPS THE WRITTEN TEST SHOULD BE REQUIRED NOT MULTIBLE CHOICE IF YOU HAVE TO WRITE OUT YOUR ANSWERS YOU WILL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT WAS A SAD DAY WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A LICENSE WERE CHANGED. WHEN I WAS FIRST LICENSED THIS WAS THE RULE 1941 AND I EARNED NY TICKET. IF WE DONT USE THE FREQ ALLOTED TO CW SHAME SHAME IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A ENGINEER IN ORDER TO BECOME A AMATUER HOWEVER I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT A SO CALLED EXTRA CLASS LICENSE OPERATORS WOULD BE AT LOSS IF THEY HAD TO REPAIR THEIR EQUIPMENT I BET VERY FEW COULD DESIGN OR BUILD THE SIMPLEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. ALL YOU HEAR ON SSB IF COMENTS OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT NO LONGER IS THE CQ USED TO ANY EXTENT WHAT A SHAME MEMORIZING A LIST OF QUESTIONS DO NOT MAKE A AMATUER IF BET I JUST MADE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAD HOWEVER I STAND BY WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN 73S BOB W6TNI
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WB6AEA on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi, Jim... and thanks for the reply.
I understand your fear, and maybe I'm naive, but I think it's overstated. I'm a 6m op too. Probably not as sophisticated as you... IC 706 and a horizontal polarized dipole... but when the band is in I have a good time and make the most of it. And I'm a good operator, as I'm sure you are. I've not experienced the CB mentality on 6 personally. Maybe I've just been lucky.
I've never been a CBer. It just never caught my interest. But I've been around Amateur Radio since the early 60s via my uncle and my father, who's call I now carry in his honor. I don't want to see the HF bands get any worse then they already are, which is pretty bad in my opinion. If the purpose of the Element 1 was to keep the riff-raff out then it's a dismal failure. I've heard language I never dreamed I'd hear on HAM radio; heard intentional interference; heard folks claim a frequency as "theirs". I frankly don't know how it could get much worse unless it would just be on an order of magnitude.
I guess my bottom line is that I'm not really worried about it. First, I don't believe we'll be over-run with hard core CBers. The theory test will keep most of them out. And if it doesn't, I belive they'll behave the way we train them to behave by setting an example for appropriate behavior. If we demonstrate by example how a good op works they'll pick it up. However, if we act like we expect them to act... well... then they've not won. We've LET them win.
It may be a naive point of view but I believe most people will be good citizens given the chance and education. Those who behave badly on CB do so because that's the standard on the band. The HAM bands are different because of the attitude and spirit of the Amateur Radio Operator, not because of the code. But that's just been my experience. Yours must have been different.
The exception, of course, are those who just don't want to be good citizens period. And a code test won't stop them. Just listen to 20m now and you'll hear what I mean. They're jerks on the radio, on the road or wherever they happen to be.
Hope to see you on 6!
Jon
WB6AEA
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB1GYQ on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W3JJH: the reason that you don't see many well thought out, logical presentations is that code/nocode is mostly a religious argument! A diatribe. The fulmination of nearly a century of history. (pun intended)
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3DCG on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"BTW, I am attracted by it and am trying to master it, but still don't think it should be forced down the throat of those who have no wish to learn it. "
5 WPM is forcing it down someone's throat? No one is forcing anything down anyone's throat. There is certain No Code entry into Amateur radio as things are now.
"CW is also a valid transmission mode on 2 meters, you know."
Aside from 2m DX, burst modes, meteor scatter, Auroral, and such weak signal modes- and of course, Repeater ID, how much is CW used on 2m?
The reason I keep asking if HF was used during 9/11, and I did not bring up 9/11-- is because if HF was hardly used, then the CW requirement HAS NO BEARING ON THE AMATEUR response during that horrible disaster. My hats off to every participant, ham or not. Doesn't matter if you are a No Code Tech or not, if you are there and helping, you are awesome.
Just because of that you feel privledged to be allowed on HF, without first meeting the super low, already giving it away, 5 wpm code requirement?
No matter what anyone's position is on CW, a ham not knowing Morse code well enough to communicate effectively will always be like a Decatholon athlete who never "mastered" the Pole Vault.
So the disenfranchised lobbied the IOC to change the rules, such that, the participants lowest scoring event is simply, DROPPED. There. Now you can do the Decathalon, and never learn to pole vault.
Hey, those that flock to participate in the Decathalon because of the change in that ruling sure can feel good about themselves, yes?
That way, they can participate in the Decathalon, having never learned to get past 6 feet using a stick.
Bet the ones who hope to some day Vault, would be against changing the rules. You know, the types that want to have earned their place. 5 wpm is slow enough, that if you want to use your voice on HF, it can't possibly be asking too much.
It really comes down to values.
It really wouldn't be the Decathalon anymore though, or would it?
I find it fascinating, that there are so many who are embracing No Code HF.
If anyone was interested in joining the military, and then heard they were doing away with Basic Training, would more people be calling the recruiters?
Look at the jobs after all... there are all manner of them in the armed services that really have little to do with being in good shape. It has everything to do with base-line STANDARDS.
"To deny progress is to deny yourself."
To accept what has always been privledge, without having demonstrated that you have honestly earned it- is to deny yourself.
Is ridicule the best you can do?
Is there any difference between a story and a movie script, or a screen play? Do stories have any value? Perhaps some more than others. The ones mainstream society tends to value, are- stories that have MORAL VALUE. Stories that teach ethics.
I'm afraid you are missing the entire point- sure it's a movie script, yes, it is for entertainment, like most HOBBIES are mostly for entertainment.
For those who cannot see the value of tools which teach people to value good morals, and learn respectable ethics, pity is for you.
Personally, I value not self-pity.
Hey, the US is founded on debate. I value a good debate.
I could never be a professional beggar. Out of principle, I never give an able bodied beggar any change. I feel I'm doing them a dis-service by giving them what they think they want.
I was in Mexico long ago, and the thing I most remember is, the kids on the street REFUSED TO TAKE MY MONEY for FREE. They insisted on giving me some gum or candy or something they were selling. It had to be an exchange. They would get angry if I refused to take their stick of gum for the nickel they were asking. They simply REFUSED to take my money unless I took their stick of gum.
Those kids made me cry.
They can look at their reflection in a puddle of muddy, brown, disease ridden water, and be proud, they can truly respect what they see reflected back to them, no matter how dismal their surroundings may be at times. In these moments I was absolutely proud of humanity. When I saw this, I realized once again, there is hope.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N5QDY on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If we drop the code:
I'm thinking I like KB9CRY'S proposal of requiring a period of proven SWLing before obtaining a license. This will give the potential ham a chance to really see how HF works by listening to shortwave broadcasts as well as ham operators. That would be invaluable experience.
I also like the idea of requiring the potential ham to demonstrate their operating ability to the VEC.
These seem to be logical requirements, at least to me. Of course, next, someone will gripe they don't have the money to buy a receiver for SWLing. So BUILD one in a Quaker Oats can! It's cheaper. That'll be a real learning process (I need to get started eating all those oats)
Scott
N5QDY
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KL1LV on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All this code/no code controversy makes me wonder if I will be accepted by the ham community! I “earned” my general 13wpm ticket in 1974 or 1975, while stationed at Bitburg AFB Germany. If memory serves me I attended classes 2 nights a week for about 8 weeks. For a variety of reasons I did not keep my license current. A “good buddy” of mine is a “real ham” and encouraged me to get back into it. I picked up the question pool and several other books, studied or memorized…whatever you want to call it…the material and about a month later I took the tech test and passed it. For the next month I did the same for general, took the test and passed it. We can only test on the 1st Saturday. I am working on the code and will probably take it August., unless the FCC drops the requirement. It is their choice…not mine.
But after reading some of the comments here, I am not sure if I want to key a mic or pound a key!!!
The attitudes (of some) towards people who haven’t even been licensed yet is pretty scary!! I am sure there will be some people who will be part of the “10-4” crowd, but I suspect that the majority of new hams will be just a perfect as the “old real hams”. Since I haven’t had a CB radio in over 25 years I am not completely aware of what is going on with that band. But I have considerable doubt that “neer do wells” will spent 1000’s of dollars for a radio, tower, antenna, etc. just to “10-4 good buddy, what’s the 20 of that feed house where Sally hangs out?”
What would be wrong with giving the newbies a chance, then teach them the right way when they screw up. Remember, we all started at the first step, and learned as we went.
Which brings me back to the original question, as a born again ham, will I be accepted into the fold or be shunned for actions beyond my control??
One other question, anyone know how many people are operating on the hams bands illegally?
73
JFro
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K4TDD on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WELL AS A HAM SINCE 1978. I THINK CODE MADE GOOD CBER'S GOOD HAMS. I THINK NO CODE WILL MAKE BAD CBER'S BAD HAMS. AND IT WILL MAKE GOOD HAMS SAY EQUIPMENT FOR SALE. WE SHOULD START PRACTICING SAYING 10-4 GOOD BUDDY? CODE WAS NOT THAT HARD TO LEARN. I HAD TO LEARN 13 WPM NOT JUST 5 WPM.IT LIKE NOBODY WANT'S TO WORK FOR ANYTHING. MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST SELL HAM TICKETS AT WAL-MART.
|
| |
|
RE: READ THIS NOW.
|
|
|
by W8FAX on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
HAMECHEESE...Go to the FISTS.org web page and get signed up for a code buddy. You will be paired up with someone who will be glad to help you at any speed, skill or location. Your turn to put up..........Al/W8FAX
|
| |
|
ATTN W8FAX = RE: READ THIS NOW.
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think you've missed the point OM.
Mr HAMCHESE was kindly offering to help me. He is already proficient in CW. I will have a look at that link though - thanks for the info.
Steve
G7HEU / M0HEU.
|
| |
|
ATTN W8FAX = RE: READ THIS NOW.
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think you've missed the point OM.
Mr HAMCHESE was kindly offering to help me. He is already proficient in CW. I will have a look at that link though - thanks for the info.
Steve
G7HEU / M0HEU.
|
| |
|
RE: ATTN W8FAX = RE: READ THIS NOW.
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why is that there twice? I really did only hit the button once (and 'ribbed' somebody for multiple posts yesterday).
M0HEU / red ears!
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KL1LV: Will you be shunned for actions beyond your control? That is indeed the million dollar question. The answer however, is quite simple. Yes you will, at least by some. Many of those who speak up with pro CW interests, take the issue to an entirely different level. Don't misunderstand me. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the pro CW point of view. In fact, I too feel that CW should remain a requirement for upgrading. The problem however, is not in where they stand on the issue. It's in their narrow minded and downright arrogant attitudes.
In order to really understand what's going on here, you first have to understand the profile of many of these die hard Hams. You see, a great deal of this stems from insecurity. I've witnessed the exact same phenomenon on numerous occasions in my lifetime. I've been a Paramedic, Police Officer, and worked in other related fields. All of those fields required various types of certifications and required training. Some by the way, included an extensive understanding of radio communications. During my tenure in those fields however, there was one thing I quickly learned. Regardless of what you do, you will NEVER, EVER, reach the same level of expertise as some of the other "informed" people with whom you'll be affiliated. Their training, experience, understanding, general knowledge, etc,,, etc,,, will always be just a little bit better than yours.
Don't waste time attempting to justify your existence with your degree in electronics, or the fact that you've been involved in radio communications all of your professional life. They don't want to hear that. Besides, that type of information can prove to be threatening to the typical insecure Ham. The truth is, many are not really interested in improving the hobby one way or another. They classify themselves as the elite, and are legends in their own minds. Take your little four or six year degrees and throw them in the nearest "G" file. They fail by comparison to their handfull of workbooks, and their vast knowledge of one single outdated artform that they'll cling to like a toddler with their teddy bear.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
KC8WCW has a brain!
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8WCW
That Sir was one of the most rational points I have read here.
Not very exciting though. Can't you too get hot under the collar and stoke things up a bit? If a few more level headed people like you come along this thread will die. We wouldn't want that would we?
Best wishes
Steve
(tounge firmly in cheek).
G7HEU.
|
| |
|
RE: KC8WCW has a brain!
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8WCW
My hat is off to you, sir. I have never seen those points so well stated. You are a credit to our ranks.
No matter what anyone tries to stress and prove those die-harders will always discount it and reinforce their own opinions.
I think I'll just sit back and browse through the remarks your post are sure to bring. ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9-YKY on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, now that my numbers up I've got 2 choices. I can change my condescending behaviour, stop the ranting and raging against those with different interests like F.M., repeaters, HT's, big cities, liberalism, gays etc.
-or-
I could be blind to KC8WCW's post, believe it doesn't apply to me and continue to post my narrow minded thoughts. Hmmmmmmm which will it be?..... To take the high road, or live in denial, weakness and fear?..... hmmmmmmmm.
Stay tuned.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W3JJH on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8WCW:
Yeah, you're right. Someone always is just a bit better. I'd shoot a 198-8X, and the guy in the next lane would shoot a possible. Because of your background as a cop, I suppose that you understand what I wrote. Not everyone will. I've used jargon to mystify the some readers and set us apart with our esoteric knowledge. (For the rest of you--I said that I'd shoot a score of 198 on the pistol range with 8 of the 20 rounds in the X-ring of the bull's eye, but the guy in the next firing lane scored 200 out of 200; all 20 rounds in the 10-ring or X-ring.)
Laurence J. Peter (famous for the Peter Principle) pointed out that insecure people often adopt jargon as a secret language to set themselves apart and make themselves special. Some of us who know the Morse code have used that to set themselves apart from other radio hobbyists as if being a telegrapher conveys some sort of special moral or intellectual status.
One of the distrubing themes which has floated through some of the threads comments is the equation of dropping telegraphy requirement with political liberalism. Huh? One wonders if the anyone holding such a view has an grasp of the political history of 20th-century America. The idea of federal requlatory agencies came out of the progressive movement in the early years of the 20th century. It reached full flower during the New Deal in the '30s, that is, at the time the FCC was created.
Political liberals generally favor government requlation while political conservatives generally favor a free-market deregulated approach. Of course, conservatives recognize that some regulation is necessary for public order and safety, but only a minimum of regulation. Hence, one would expect a liberal to be more likely to support continuing to regulate hams with respect to telegraphy and a consevative to favor removing an obsolete requirement.
Now, someone will argue that eliminating the telegraphy test amounts to a welfare handout for CBers, and welfare equals liberalism. Among the many problems with this line of reasoning is the idea that since "I learned the code, I earned my license." Nonsense! First, a license cannot be earned. One does not perform labor and receive a license in return. If one is qualified, then a license may be issued. Second, the licensor determines the qualifications, not the licensee. Under our system of government, those qualifications are there to assure that the licensee operates in the general public interest. Because the world changes, license qualification criteria change. The conservative approach to such change is, to paraphrase Jefferson, government regulates best which regulates least.
If any argument is like that of a political liberal, it's "let them in without code and the bands will turn into CB." Doesn't that follow the same logic as the liberal argument against concealed carry: "Let them have guns, and the streets will be like Dodge City." The desire to continue restrictive regulation with respect to firearms has been shown to be well-intentioned but wrong in over 30 states. The desire to continue restrictive telegraphy requirements may be similarly flawed.
73 de W3JJH
John
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K3GI on July 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It's years past the time for the code requirement to be eliminated. That does not mean that code will disappear. Ending the requirement means that we are finally going into the 21st. century. I think it will be several years before the U.S. ends it though.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WB8JKR on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Anyone who can't put forth the effort to learn the
code well enough to pass a 5 wpm test does not have
the interest and dedication level they think they
have. Nobody wants to do a little work anymore,
period. You can complain and talk all you want, but that is the real fact.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KT4VW on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why don't you change the subject line to read "10-4 good buddy!! How am I hittin ya 1.2.1.2". The ARRL is loosing members fast, you know why??? Cause they have taken our hobby and ruined it. It's turning into 11 meters so fast it's sickening. Arguments, cursing, carriers. I know you wouldn't understand because you never experienced what the bands were like 15 years ago, but it’s sad. I say bring back the 13 and 20 WPM exams......and if it keeps good people out, I'm sorry. But I know if would keep out the people who don't respect the hobby and clean up the bands.
And if I were a technician I might feel the same way you do. Start studying......good buddy you might even find that you enjoy CW.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KG4UIL on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've only been a HAM for a year. During that time I have worked hard to learn the code. In this day and time everyone wants something for nothing. To upgrade, you need to learn the code,That simple. Learn it. All it takes is a little time to learn it. I'm ready to take my test now....I think. The 2 meter repeters in my area already sound like a CB radio at times. I'm afraid if we relax the test anymore, the entire HF portion of the band will go to the sound of the CB band. One can already get in to HAM radio without a code test, so no one is blocked out. They will just have to learn the code to advance. It's not anyone's RIGHT to hold an HF ticket. It has to be earned.
Thanks,
W4SWT
Roger
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4UIL: If you think that the 2 meter repeaters sound like CB, just wait till you get a good listen to the activity on the HF Amateur spectrum. It's the definition of hypocracy.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH: By the way, that was an excellent commentary. I just wanted you to know that someone was paying attention. You are definitely a gifted journalist.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB8JKR--The only "real fact" there is that that is your opinion.
KT4VW--Sure, go ahead and bring back the 13 and 20 WPM testing requirements-it won't make any difference. Just look at the HF bands and the operation on them, especially 75 meters and to a lesser extent 20 meters. Just don't you dare try to tell us all that the HF bands got that way after the requirement went down to 5 WPM.
_______________
I am trying to learn morse, but after I see the the drivel posted here by those so-called pro-code HF operators and their hypocritical attitudes that the HF bands can only be saved from invading CBers by the code, I really wonder why I even am trying.
It seems that HF will forever by populated by these people and their bulls*it to the point that its just not worth even upgrading.
To the HF operators who don't care about CW one way or the other and the ones who operate as ham licensees should, I apologise.
To you who are pro-code whiners and CB doomsayers (who seem to be in the majority here):
Keep the HF bands for yourselves. The people with CB mentality who want to chase DX will still get the license, code requirement or not and you're welcome to them, every last one of them.
Leave us poor lowly techs the VHF and UHF bands, but if you operate there, be as polite and civilized as the majority of us are. True there are some of us who operate with the CB mentality, but due to the "limitations" of the VHF-UHF bands, the rest of us can track them down real quick and have them taken care of. So be nice on "our" bands.
Maybe, just maybe, thats why most bad operators stay away from the VHF-UHF spectrum--they can be tracked down and found out a lot easier than on the HF bands.
Hey, maybe it's better here after all.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS: Have you ever noticed how the bulk of poor operating procedures and other rude behavior on VHF/UHF, tends to immediately be followed by 4 or 5 digit callsigns? That's with the exception of course, of those Real Hams who are not required to provide station ID.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N9AVY on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"... it's about the continued lowering of the bar ..."
I'm afraid that this is all to true. Listening to the bands lately one hears a lot of bad operating habits and total lack of disregard for procedure. Two meters is sounding more like 11 meters every day !
I do think that perhaps the bar has been lowered too much. Seems that we're more concerned with quantity than quality. I've always believed that which we obtain too easily is valued least. Yes, I sweated bullets learning CW and for me it was my climb up Mt. Everest. Drop it or not, I'll never regret that accomplishment and certainly won't begrudge those who got licenses without CW test.
We do need more Elmering in this hobby, but unfortunately, many of us have busy schedules and finding time to take that new licensee under one's wing is not always possible; might even be harder if that new guy doesn't want help. I've learned a lot of things from the old timers in my ham radio career, but I took the time to listen.
A while back one new ham was talking about making a dipole but didn't know the formula; so, I broke in with the formula. He insisted that it wasn't the formula. Another friend broke in and supported that the formula was correct. The newbie still insisted it wasn't correct ! We just left him to work it out on his own. Help offered-help refused.
If you're reading this and you're new to hobby, I suggest that you latch onto a local ham who is a good operator and learn everything you can about operating procedures from him. As for CW, well, maybe it will go away, but if you learn it you won't have wasted your time. CW is just another challenge met.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W2BSA on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to say these arguements are totally moot. The FCC when it reduced the code requirement to 5 wpm said it was doing so because it was the minimum necessary to meet the treaty requirements. Now the treaty requirements state as of 5 July 2003 that morse code is no longer necessary to operate on HF. It is left to the administrations to decide for themselves. Lets put the facts on the table folks. The Swiss have already eliminated the morse code requirement from their amateur radio testing requirements. The attitude of the FCC is that testing for an amateur radio license is a regulatory requirement only. The FCC also has stated that it is up to the individual amateur radio operator to advance him or herself within the hobby. So, that being said I expect that the morse code requirement in the US will be eliminated in the near future. In fact it would not surprise me that someone or some organization will file a petition with the FCC to have that happen shortly and is probably writing it now. So let's stop arguing the pros and cons of morse testing and get on with advancing ourselves.
73,
Bill Stewart, W2BSA
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dave,
To keep it SIMPLE and understandable to you and others wishing to have HF privileges presently YOU HAVE TO LEARN CW @ 5wpm!!!
Can't get any SIMPLER than that!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8SXD on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YKY said "The slow CW test has never kept anyone but the CBers, off of the hf bands." I disagree. I am a smart dedicated operator, who despite months of study, cannot "get" code. My brain refuses to co-operate on this one... I would love to get my general ticket, as I routinely pass the practice tests for element 3. The only thing that keeps me off the HF bands (and in direct communication with my best friend in GA.) is the code. I've tried various software, tapes, CD's, you name it. No luck. VHF and UHF is getting boring. So, I'll keep trying to learn code for now. If I still fail, and the FCC keeps the code requirement, then I'll probably only have the radio on during storms. If they drop it, I'll see you on HF!
73,
KC8SXD
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8SXD,
You said, "I've tried various software, tapes, CD's, you name it."
Have you tried a human being? I learned CW back in the early sixties and tried records and tapes. All I ended up doing was memorizing records and tapes. When I got Weck, W8AL, now SK, to hepl it came in to focus and became enjoyable. I took about twenty years off from ham radio and re-licensed in 2001. I hadn't listened to CW in years, except as jamming in Europe. Once you learn it, you don't lose it. It is just like riding a bicycle.
I think one of the problems is how you're taught. From what I've read on this and other site, it seems like people are trying to learn the code from charts rather than the rhythm of the character.
I don't Elmer many because they have an attitude but you seem different. Let me have your email and I'll try to help.
73,
Bob
KG4OOA
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KR4XH on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The previous post is "what it's all about"...
No flame, no venom. An honest offer to help.
That's where we need to be. How we get there is also pretty-much up to us.
Flame away...
73
don, KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Try
http://www.g4fon.co.uk/
Its free, and it works.. even for us folks who can't learn a "new " language..
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N1OFZ on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find the code/no code debate extremely tiresome. Especially since the assumption is that 'no coders' are all former CB'ers.
I hear the same story: In the old days we had real CW tests. We built our own equipment and could fix anything. Yada yada yada.
Let me ask you a question? Can you build a 24 GHz station (transverter, PA, antenna)? Can you even see a smt resistor? I'll not ask you to try to solder one. Can you repair that solid state tranceiver on your desk? If not then you don't have the right to bitch. You are no better than the new 'no coder' by your own argument. How many non FM UHF/SHF bands are you on? Just curious as the hams of the old days were innovators. UHF+ is the only place that today's ham has the opportunity to innovate anymore. Yet last night when I turned on the rigs I heard no one above 222 on SSB/CW. By the sounds of all these 'real' extra's out there I'd have thought that there would have been a whole bunch of rag chewing on 1296 & 10 GHz. Guess I missed it. By the way did you know that the vast majority of SHF QSO's are CW? If you don't know CW on these bands it is awfully lonely. But it is not a requirement to operate on these bands. By your own definitions the only 'real' hams are the guys innovating on those SHF bands.
I guess us techs will go back to our home brewing of microwave gear, living the spirit of real ham radio on the bands that matter. You want to know my definition of HF. It's that 28 MHz part of my FT-847 that is the IF for my 222 transverter. Keep HF and please don't come up here. There are a bunch of GREAT hams (where your license class doesn't matter because we all have the same privileges) having a real good time.
Dana
N1OFZ
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
Anonymous post on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The major and probably the only reason that this activity is dying is that it is entrenched in the past. Most of the tradition that everyone seems to want to keep is nothing but cornball crap. Elmers (the word itself is stupid), traffic nets (for what?), the word "ham" in ham radio, "amateur" radio, other stupid jargon, meaningless contests that don't prove anything, people who put vhf antennas on their head, money and work building a station to make 7 second dx contacts, people who interfere in a qso so they can argue something and piss off the whole band while they are doing it, those that try to find ways so they can play highway patrol with their radios, etc, etc,........all make "hams" (I hate that word) look like something from another planet.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WB7TOG on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If these indviduals are so excellent and technically qualified how come they cant pass a simple and painfully slow 5 word per minute test?. Cw is a form of communication used on the low bands. When the band conditions are poor CW always gets through and is the most efficient form of communicating in bad conditions. Its handy to have this skill in case of emergency, and the hams are called upon often in disasters and emergency situations. You should know the code if your going to be on the low bands as you will be transmitting around the world and not just ragchewing in trafic on your local repeater. One of the questions on the novice test has to do with keeping a skilled pool of radio operators in case of disasters or emergencies. The CW requirement is there for a reason and is as much part of HAM radio as a peice of coax. I dont buy the excuse of it keeping skilled qualified people off the bands , as I mentioned if they are that skilled they can certainly pass that test. We all did. --... ...-- "s Thats CW for 73s
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9ERU on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Anyone who's really listened on 80 meters, is painfully aware that the current CW requirement has obviously not kept bad ops out. It's therefore naive to assume that eliminating it, will make things much worse than they already are.
If you want to experience the true depths of poor operating procedures, foul language, and general rude behavior, look no further than the Amateur HF spectrum. I've never witnessed more hypocracy than I have since my involvement in the Amateur Service.
KC8WCW>
Try 20 meters as well. Give a listen to 10 meters. People are going to Radio Shack and buying a $49 10 meter mobile and "playing CB".
It is my feeling that we should be worried about the lack of FCC enforcement of "non-licensed" folks than the code/no code issue.
My $.02 cents. Prices subject to change :)
Mick KB9ERU
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You could raise the bar to the extent that Amateur licensing required a graduate degree and twenty years experiencing in broadcasting. Even then, I will submit to you that the current issues would still exist.
The bottom line, is that the bulk of issues facing Amateur Radio are no different than those facing any other organizations in our present age. We live in a society that is void of personal accountability. Rules and regulations only apply to the other guy, never to ourselves. In fact, there is generally a level of arrogance that finds it's way into the minds of those who've "moved up in rank," so to speak. To those persons, they are even less accountable than all the "little people" beneath them. To retain or delete the requirement for "CW," is the least of our concerns.
Until someone determines a way to attract only mature, responsible, and ACCOUNTABLE persons to the Amateur Service, this will continue to be an issue. In the meantime, we're all beating a dead horse.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I hope this puts the CW on 9/11 to bed once and for all:
From one persons comments:
"The reason I keep asking if HF was used during 9/11, and I did not bring up 9/11-- is because if HF was hardly used, then the CW requirement HAS NO BEARING ON THE AMATEUR response during that horrible disaster."
It was stated that 2M phone could not get through from some locations following the disaster because of poor conditions, so then this from another persons comments:
"When the band conditions are poor CW always gets through and is the most efficient form of communicating in bad conditions. Its handy to have this skill in case of emergency, and the hams are called upon often in disasters and emergency situations."
So my statement, why does everyone insist that CW is only connected to 2M through special operating conditions? It can be used ground station to ground station on 2M also. BUT IT WASN'T. I won't even go into the reasons why.
Some pro-coders are saying "To be a REAL ham you have to know CW." then they turn around and say "CW had no bearing on the responce on 9/11.
Which is it to be??? And you wonder why you die-hard code advocates are called hypocrites.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9ERU on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You mean there are some mature, responsible, and ACCOUNTABLE people left???
We could fill up another post talking about THAT issue :)
Enjoyed the post
Mick KB9ERU
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N9AVY on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So maybe the FCC should just put licenses in every box of cereal and stop wasting time and money on testing ?
|
| |
|
CW use on 9/11...
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
...is irrelevant. What this person is saying is, if CW wasn't useful on 9/11 then it isn't useful in an emergency.
In the past decade there have been several instances on HF _AND_ VHF/UHF where someone used CW to call for help... and someone heard CW, understood it, and was able to provide assistance. These instances occurred in situations where other means of communication were either not available or insufficient.
Just because CW isn't used for EVERY emergency doesn't mean it is not useful for emergencies. The Mariner's Net (?) on 20 meters uses SSB voice primarily and they have helped out on some high-profile rescues recently... does that mean we should eliminate any questions pertaining to VHF FM repeater operations since no VHF HTs or repeaters were utilized during these operations?
Here's what I don't understand: why are some people SO opposed to learning something that they expend several times more effort refusing to learn than it would take just to learn? You idiots who brag about refusing to learn CW (and yes, I use this word intentionally) certainly do not exemplify the qualities that most people think of when they think of 'ham'.
Hey, I have absolutely NO interest in operating moonbounce. Why do I have to learn enough about moonbounce comm protocol (freqs, modes, when to listen, when to call CQ) to answer several questions to upgrade to Extra? For the same reason you idiots need to put in a couple of hours to learn just enough code to understand 'S-O-S' or your repeater's callsign: you might find it useful and it may help you to be a better operator.
Now, you idiots can sit there and brag about how "Can't no one make you learn nothin'!" and... sadly, you are right. Wilful ignorance is nothing to be proud of, however... and it certainly isn't an attribute that I associate with ham radio.
EVERY ham ought to know enough CW to have a QSO at 5 wpm. EVERY ham ought to know enough to be able to find, and use, a VHF or UHF repeater in another state without referring to a book. EVERY ham ought to know enough about the band plans to know where to operate, with what mode, and where NOT to operate. EVERY ham ought to be able to run any radio he has from a car battery... including being able to make up the cable. EVERY ham ought to know enough about antennas to be able to make a functional antenna out of two-conductor speaker wire that won't require an antenna tuner to operate on the desired frequency. EVERY ham ought to know enough about radio direction finding to be able to at least identify what direction a desired signal is from his location. EVERY ham ought to be willing to learn something new about the hobby, so he or she can honestly say that they know more today than they did yesterday... and they will know more tomorrow than they do today. If these are qualities you lack, and have no interest in developing... isn't it cheaper and simpler for you and your buddies to get some Nextel cell phones and talk to each other whenever you want, wherever you are?
|
| |
|
RE: CW use on 9/11...
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
6.5 (sic) paragraphs and only 3 uses of the word 'idiot'.
If you really want to drive your wedge deeper you'll need to get much ruder than that.
Best wishes
Steve
G7HEU / M0HEU.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N3TNQ on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K.I.S.S. Reply
by W3JJH on July 10, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
A show of hands, please:
How may of those who are advocating keeping the Morse code requirement because it might be useful in emergencies
a.) are active in ARES, or
b.) have participated in a RACES drill during the past year, or
c.) have participated in an SET, or
d.) have ever initiated or answered a MAYDAY or SOS, or
e.) all of the above? YES
No extra credit points however : )
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by G7HEU on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also, can those who suggest things like:
'In the past decade there have been several instances on HF _AND_ VHF/UHF where someone used CW to call for help... and someone heard CW, understood it, and was able to provide assistance'.
Please list some examples.
Steve.
(Pro CW but a realist).
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not in the past decade, but it was used when the TITANIC went down...........
Also, I don't use any medication, YOU'RE the one who seems to be delusional..........
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Also, I don't use any medication, YOU'RE the one who seems to be delusional.........."
My apology, your post was misread--You're right!!!!!
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W9TM on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree, a cw requirement should not keep sharp, technically competent folks away from ham radio. They should be able to get access to high tech privileges by passing challenging technical exams. But these privileges should NOT include yakity, yakity, yakity operation on ssb! Digital modes, satellites, you bet. But don't try to justify motor-south ssb spectrum occupancy on the basis on passing today's multiple-guess quizes.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9TM,
We have just that. It is called a Technician Class License. We don't need to change anything.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N5LOU on July 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I got my Technician license about a year and a half ago and will be taking my General this weekend.
There are so many "aids" for learning code that I really think that just about anyone can learn well enough to copy 5WPM. There may be some exceptions but they are in the minority.
I am using a program called "Code Quick" that has enabled me,
in less than a month, to copy the 5WPM requirement. If I don't pass the code test, it will be because of nervousness and not lack of knowledge.
Even if you never use code again, I don't think it is asking too much to master the current General/Extra requirement. If you really want to get that General/Extra ticket, you will be willing to put forth a bit of effort to do so.
I am not like a lot of the CW enthusiasts who feel that code is the ONLY way to go. There are many other forms of Amateur Radio, something to appeal to everyone.
But I really do think it is not an unreasonable requirement. Plus, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you have accomplished something very special and have working knowledge of something that you may perhaps never have thought was possible.
Also does wonders for self esteem.;-0)
Lou
N5LOU
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N5LOU on July 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In reply to the post below...I tried to learn Code with my Dad when I was a teenager. We tried learning via dits/dahs, while looking at .....'s and -----'s. It did NOT work for either of us. Then, at the age of 55 I WOULD learn Code, come "hell or high water". Through the learning tool, Code Quick, I HAVE learned it. I may never be a CW operator but I will always keep my Code fresh in my mind via a bit of practice now and then. OR, I may decide that I enjoy it so much that I will increase my speed and become a CW enthusiast. At this point, I want to pass my code test and get my General.
Really, there are so many ways to learn code now that I truly believe almost anyone can do so.
Code Quick (no, I do NOT have stock in the company...LOL) teaches you via word phrases:
D is DOG did it. If you ask me how to write D in dits/dahs, I would really have to think about it. But when I hear it sent, I hear DOG did it and know immediately that it is a D.
There is a fantastic Yahoogroups list called "hamradiohelp". Such great folks on it and TONS of encouragement and help. Check it out.
Lou
N5LOU
KB9YKY said "The slow CW test has never kept anyone but the CBers, off of the hf bands." I disagree. I am a smart dedicated operator, who despite months of study, cannot "get" code. My brain refuses to co-operate on this one... I would love to get my general ticket, as I routinely pass the practice tests for element 3. The only thing that keeps me off the HF bands (and in direct communication with my best friend in GA.) is the code. I've tried various software, tapes, CD's, you name it. No luck. VHF and UHF is getting boring. So, I'll keep trying to learn code for now. If I still fail, and the FCC keeps the code requirement, then I'll probably only have the radio on during storms. If they drop it, I'll see you on HF!
|
| |
|
RE: CW use on 9/11...
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From a past posting:
"Just because CW isn't used for EVERY emergency doesn't mean it is not useful for emergencies. The Mariner's Net (?) on 20 meters uses SSB voice primarily and they have helped out on some high-profile rescues recently... does that mean we should eliminate any questions pertaining to VHF FM repeater operations since no VHF HTs or repeaters were utilized during these operations?"
You just answered your own question in a way. Being tested on "Questions pertaining to" a mode is VERY different than being tested on the actual operational mode.
Again, from the past posting:
"Hey, I have absolutely NO interest in operating moonbounce. Why do I have to learn enough about moonbounce comm protocol (freqs, modes, when to listen, when to call CQ) to answer several questions to upgrade to Extra?"
Same here. "Learning enough about" a mode is different than actually having to learn the entire mode--memorize the entire morse code.
"EVERY ham ought to know enough CW to have a QSO at 5 wpm."
Knowing "enough" CW is knowing it all--every character. Or are you only going to use a few letters of the code during that QSO?
I stick to my original statements about morse code being an outmoded, outdated, antique form (mode if you wish) of communications. Learning it if you want to is a lot different than having it 'shoved down your throat' if you want access to the HF bands. By the posters own reasoning, if actual operational testing on morse code is required--then so should actual operational testing of every other mode of communication used on ham radio be required to obtain an amateur license.
Just because morse testing was required in the past--a traditional part of ham radio--doesn't mean that is should be required now. Just because some 'had to' do it doesn't mean testing should have to be the same way now. Times change, requirements change. It is really too bad that ham radio is the last radio service to recognize that fact, we used to be the innovative radio service, the leader, the first to do things in a newer, different way.
Don't say ham radio isn't dying, it is. Just because we have more operators now than ever before means nothing. We also have a larger population in the US than ever before. The one major overriding reason ham radio is dying is because of the reluctance of most hams to move on and embrace progress and the insistance of those same hams to retain and glorify the past. The past should be remembered, not relived.
We cannot entice more people to a hobby that continually laments about what was, most people do not want to hear about and will not bother with what was. We have to put emphasis on what is and what will be, about the ways we now use to communicate and the newer modes and methods some hams are now experimenting with. That is the only way to attract new blood to this hobby--the only way to actually renew this hobby and expand our ranks.
As far as testing, leave the tech license test the way it now is, as an entry level license, but expand the question pool--and limit the tech licensee to fifty watts output. For the higher class of licenses, eliminate the code test, but include questions about code transmission and reception, expand the question base AND TYPE--include questions without multiple choice answers, questions that would actually have to thought about and understood to be answered correctly, questions where the answers have to be written out. Require diagramming of receiver stages, transmitter stages, antenna and grounding methods, installation of transceivers both in the shack and in the mobile, etc. In other words, make testing harder.
This testing setup would include the ideals most hams want, insisting the applicants have the technical knowledge to pursue the hobby correctly and safely, and also acting to filter out the people who shouldn't have access to the HF bands without the proper knowledge and ability.
I'll get off my soapbox now--thanks for listening.
Chris J. Smith, K1CJS
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid!
|
|
|
by DOO-DAH on July 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you pass CW, you may operate at freqs below 10m.
If you do NOT pass CW, your operations are limited to freqs above 10m. Simple enough for me! KG4MCC is a no-code tech. So what other position would you expect him to take? When I was a tech I held exactly the same opinion. IMHO I believe he would like to be an Extra for ego reasons of personal vanity. That certainly was the case for me. Not a good pure motive however-- even if it does apply to me also. So what are we to conclude? That if we want to find more good operators, perhaps we should go to the ranks of CB to find them?
|
| |
|
RE: CW use on 9/11...
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on July 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How can you test for CW knowledge if you don't test to see if the testee can understand CW? The 5wpm test is pretty durn simple... and most people either get all of the questions right (because they know enough code), or none of them right (because they don't).
It is assumed that anyone who can read the written tests understands enough English to be able to successfully communicate by voice, so the questions in the test cover things like repeater offsets and proper repeater etiquette. So, in effect, if you can't read the written test, and the tester can't understand you, then you won't get your license.
CW is an old method of communication... as is speech and the written word. "Old" does not necessary equal "obsolete." Sure, there are faster ways to pass information (like voice, RTTY, packet, PSK31 [maybe not FASTER, but easier... :)]), but no other method combines the unique capabilities of low bandwidth, low transmission power, and human decodability like Morse. If "old" and/or "obsolete" were the criteria we used for judging the utility of ham radio skills, then we'd toss ham radio and stick to cell phones and the Internet.
I have a question to ask... if everything else is equal, does the ham who knows enough CW to have a rudimentary QSO more skilled than the ham who doesn't? The answer is obviously YES, since the fledgling CW op has one more skill to draw upon. And, since ham radio operation is a privilege and not a right, then what is wrong about having those who would exercise the privilege EARN the privilege?
Oh... BTW I have checked into my local ARES net, I have taken the ARRL's ECC #1 course, and I have made the investment in VHF equipment to make sure that I can help out if ARES is activated... but unlike many ARES members I can also help out if HF CW operators are needed... or if we are stuck at a location and the mike goes out, I know enough CW to be able to jam two wires together and send CW... or copy another station if THEY experience an emergency and can no longer transmit voice. Yes, that is a worst-case scenario... but Murphy's Law applies to emergencies, too.
|
| |
|
RE: CW use on 9/11...
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Although the events of 9/11 were a tragedy and there was a large loss of life the effects were in reality small.
There was only for the most part local communications disruptions. The Amateur Radio Community as well as US Citizens in general should realize that this was only a small attack. If the enemy should launch a large scale preplanned attack we may lose microwave links, telephone switching centers and large servers as well as banks, hospitals and places where there are large gatherings of people. The enemy not only wants a large body count but also confusion, and disruption of the ability to provide relief. After one like this commercial and cable TV may even be disrupted.
In this enviornment the government will provide as much help as possible restoring infrastructure but this will not be an overnight task. With all the outages, etc. we may be called on to do more tasks and different tasks than most hams envision. We may have to network to anywhere asked, not just inside a target area. We will need all of the operator skills that we can find. Don't forget the bad guys may even jam, intrude and interfer on any and all of our frequencies. At that time all modes will be tried voice, data and yes, CW.
I hope what I have described never happens but if it does, will we be ready?
You are asking how I know this? Well, I spent many years in CONAD (Continental Air Defense Command), NORAD (North American Air Defense Command) and ADCOM (Air Defense Command). This was the kind of planning we did. We planned for the worst case. What I described isn't even close to that. Hams weren't envolved but if it happens we can contribute. Will we?
Will CW be used? Yes if needed.
You know I never used data modes. How do they work in very heavy QRM? I can copy CW through it if I can hear the signal at all.
|
| |
|
RE: CODE/NO CODE Argument -> CLASS SYSTEM
|
|
|
by KE4TNN on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To K4III
I couldn't have said it better, thats really great what you stated.
Ryan - KE4TNN
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K4IA on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What has changed to justify eliminating the CW requirement? Nothing.
No one can seriously argue that other modes have made CW obsolete. Even the much-praised PSK is slow, dull and no where near as popular as CW. Listen on the bands. The activity is on CW, not PSK and most of the time not SSB either. Our CW ops smoked the SSB ops at Field Day. If you tune around you will find the efficient pile-ups are on CW and the most activity is on CW. If you want polite and civilized, CW is where it is at. If you don't speak Russian, you can speak CW. If you want to get through QRM, QRN, QSB and rotten band conditions, go to CW. The list goes on. . .
The arguments made against CW haven't changed. People don't want to put in the little bit of effort required to learn it. I heard the same bull pucky 40 years ago. As a kid I said I shouldn't have to learn chemistry, algebra, foreign language, Shakespeare, fill-in-the-blank because I didn't think I would ever use it. What did I know? If education were based on what kids thought they needed to know, we would hand out college degrees in third grade. The world and ham radio will degenerate to the lowest common denominator.
The only thing that has changed is that, today, whiners and complainers get more audience. Next, they'll want to get rid of the written exams too. We'll sign a paper pledging we are sincere in our interest in Ham Radio and that will be it. Then one day, they will do away with the pledge because it is a hardship that impinges on someone's freedom of being - whatever that is.
Does no one have a backbone any longer?
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The changes to justify eliminating the CW requirement have been happening slowly, one at a time.
Every other radio service, one at a time, has dropped the CW requirement. The only service that still required it was the amateur service, UNTIL RECENTLY.
With the dropping of CW from all other services, having a pool of CW operators to draw from is no longer a justification to keep the code testing requirement. This has been obviously pointed out by the dropping of the requirement by the WRC a short time ago.
So, the reason now remaining is the ability of CW (yes, I'll admit it) to get through during bad band conditions. However, CW is not the only mode that can do so. It is only the simplest mode that can do so. That reason has now been shown to be no reason. There are other digital modes which can get through just as well if not better than CW. The people who say you need extra equipment makes me laugh. If one can afford a HF rig in this day and age, one can also afford a laptop computer. Speaking of cost, have you seen the cost of keys and paddles nowadays? Oh, excuse me, you can make a CW signal by touching two wires together. So what? You can make a fire by rubbing two sticks together, but who does THAT anymore???
The only thing keeping the CW requirement alive now is the desires of a group of amateur radio operators who don't want to admit the days of CW are past, who don't want to admit there are modes of operation now--with more coming (phone digital modes)--that get through just as well in poor conditions, who want to keep the amateur service stuck in the past, who want to see ham radio go the way of latin, the dead language, because of their desire to live in the past.
I REPEAT, THE ONLY WAY TO BREATHE LIFE BACK INTO THIS HOBBY IS TO ATTRACT NEW HAMS BY SHOWING THEM WHAT THIS HOBBY CAN BE NOW AND IN THE FUTURE, WHAT HAMS ARE DOING NOW BY EXPERIMENTING WITH NEW AND INNOVATIVE WAYS OF COMMUNICATING, NOT BY FORCING THEM TO RELIVE THE PAST, NOT BY SAYING "THOSE WERE THE DAYS", NOT BY FORCING OLDER MODES OF COMMUNICATING ON THE VERY PEOPLE WE'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT.
To those who say this hobby isn't dying and there are more hams now than ever before, I have this reply: There are more people in the US now also, but the growth of ham operators has not kept up to the growth of the population.
Ham radio IS dying. The growing number of SKs show this. We are not bringing new operators into our ranks fast enough. THIS HOBBY IS STUCK IN THE PAST. Until the CW requirement is dropped, it will continue to be, and people who might be interested will just continue to not bother.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just an observation... I don't want ham radio to die, but perhaps it will regardless.
The lack of agreement and constant bickering amongst our own is what will deep-six the hobby.
I have personally heard many ops say that they will upgrade once the Code requirement is gone.
I have also heard many others chime in with the opinion that the hobby doesn't NEED that type of ham, and that they would do better to just not upgrade.
So what's it gonna be? Any middle ground here? Judging from the posts I read here (which I hope are not a decent cross section of on the air representation) I don't think we can just "all get along".
I can only hope the decision makers will do what's best for amateur radio, because many of its participants seem hell-bent on its destruction!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Again, the argument about CW being obsolete just doesn't hold water. Comparing it to rubbing sticks is, however, illuminating. Those outdoorsmen who CAN start a fire by rubbing sticks ARE better-equipped to handle whatever nature can throw at them.
The argument about CW being unpopular and keeping the # of active hams down also doesn't hold water. To the contrary, many new hams are attracted to the hobby specifically by CW... more than are being turned off by it.
CW QRP operating is the fastest-growing segment of ham radio. This activity is fostered by the ready availability of inexpensive kits that can be built in an evening and that will let a ham get on the air for under $120 including the battery and key.
K1CJS seems to think that there is a problem because more Techs aren't upgrading to Generals or higher, and his solution is to eliminate the CW requirement in order to make upgrading easier. I think that K1CJS has misidentified the problem, and thus his solution is incorrect.
I submit that there are two types of people who become hams. The first category (Techs) get into the hobby because they want to communicate with their buddies. These guys spend a lot of time on the local repeaters, join their local club, and participate in club activities including public service events such as parades and ARES. They are sociable people, and while most of them would LIKE to get their General or higher tickets... their reason for doing so is mostly a matter of esteem rather than utility (they are more interested in "being an Extra" than in spending a lot of time on HF). Techs buy a lot of gear, and help keep the major Asian manufacturers in business. Most Techs aren't interested in putting a lot of effort and study forth to get a higher-class license... but if they can cram or memorize materials some will do it.
The second (Generals) get into the hobby because they are interested in electronics. The idea of communicating with people around the world without wires is fascinating to them, and they want to understand how this is accomplished. Often they are interested in QRP operations, moonbounce, microwave communications, or the digital modes. Today they are most likely computer-literate and are also interested in the digital modes... although many are also from a high-tech background and do not want their hobby to resemble their vocation (these are the hams who are especially interested in simple radios, QRP CW, and homebrewing and kits). General-types tend to support the American ham manufacturers more in that they buy items like amplifiers, antenna tuners, and other accessories, as well as kits. They want to become Extras primarily to have access to the extra frequencies. They are willing to learn the materials, and pass any tests, in order to accomplish their goals.
I submit that, while Techs are important to the hobby, their needs are well-met by the current Tech license, and most of these people would not spend very much time operating HF even if they had the privileges. Those that would, would most likely start noticing the development of aspects of 'General' behavior (as defined above) -- their electronics interest would be stimulated and they'd want to know more about the technical issues -- and they would eventually morph into a 'General'.
The General-type is the true foundation of the hobby... not because of the class of license but because of the characteristics of this type of operator. These are the hams who start companies like Elecraft and SteppIR, join clubs like QRP ARCI and the various QRP homebrewing clubs, and develop products like PSK31 and IRLP.
Incentive licensing is an attempt to 'push' more people into becoming General-types, in the hopes that if enough seeds are sown, eventually a worthwhile crop emerges. Based upon the tremendous technical advances of ham radio in the past couple of decades, it seems to be working. I believe that the REDUCTION of the CW requirement to 5 wpm for all advanced license classes was an improvement that resulted in MORE good ops (because the best way to learn CW is to use it, and it's hard to find other Tech plus code ops in the HF bands). I also believe that, if the HF bands are opened up to any comers, eventually SSB spectrum will be expanded at the expense of the CW community, the General-types will be driven off the bands and ham radio will suffer perhaps irrepairable damage.
In summary, the solution to saving ham radio is to find, and encourage, more people (young and old) with General-type tendencies, and expose them to ham radio. How will eliminating the CW requirement further this?
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KD6NXI on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't see the need to attract new people. If they are interested then they will learn the code. I passed general when I was about 14, couldve passed the extra the same day but I had a bad stomach ache that broke my concentration. CW keeps out the morons on CB, although now with general only requiring 5wpm the code requirement is basically gone now anyway. If the code was 23wrm for all licenses then I might see a reason to complain but 5!!??? come on..
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KE6SCR on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Somewhere along the line...humanity has picked up >this "Kobiashi Maru" mentality (from the Star Trek >movie).
Except that the Kobiashi Maru test was unpassable. <g> As in you wouldn't win, get your a$$ handed to you, etc.
Sometimes your required to do what it takes to win. If people didn't take chances, then life would get really boring.
Kel
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Boys! Boys! Let's not argue these petty CW points other than to say that the FCC should NOW open all CW freqs. to General class and higher as the EXTRA BOYZ don't seem to have any interest in their exclusive lower 25khz!!!
Seriously the EXTRAS only care about phone, and I've got NO problem with that, but since even EXTRA CW activity has almost dwindled to NADA open it up to ALL like prior to the "Incentive-Licensing" MISTAKE of 1967/68!!!
Whaddaya Guys think???
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WO4O on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doodah wrote:
"Your licence isn't the reward, the degree you get at university, no, it's the acceptance for entry to the uni - that ALLOWS you to START learning via doing."
So, you want to pay tuition, like at the university?
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD7KXG: Thank you, sir for reinterpreting my statement--and redefining it in the process. The problem which is evident is not having techs upgrade to general, by the way, I believe your impressions about the different licenses and who they are attract is almost right. The evident problem is attracting people outside the hobby to actually get a license and join the hobby.
People whom many hams have spoken to have just one question most of the time--"Do you still have to learn code?" When they are told "No", they are tickled pink UNTIL THEY FIND OUT CODE IS STILL REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN BANDS. Then they say "You said code wasn't needed, now you say it is" and thats the end of the trying to get them interested in ham radio.
Now, some say that those people shouldn't be encouraged to enter the ranks of ham radio operators. My question is then who are we supposed to attract?? Lets face it, more often than not, the above scenario is the prevalent scenario throughout the U. S. CW IS STOPPING PEOPLE FROM JOIN THE RANKS OF HAM RADIO BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE, AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT CW JUST ISN'T NEEDED IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
Ham radio is dying a slow death while the elimination of a CW testing requirement would more than likely contribute to a turn-around. I am NOT saying eliminate CW itself, CW and the band allocations for CW should be kept mostly intact.
But, for all kinds of reasons, CW is just like the language of Latin--dead for all intents and purposes, but still used by some and remembered by others as a part of history.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know, If I see one more post about CW keeping the "morons" and the CBers off HF, I think I'm going to puke.
The so called "morons" are there now, and they've been there since long before the requirement was lowered to 5 WPM.
I submit you people who have their shorts afire about that issue concentrate instead on their own problems and prejudices instead of posting them on this site.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC0ODY--
The middle ground you seek is the tech class operators who are now studying the code in an attempt to upgrade, but would still welcome the demise of the testing REQUIREMENT. Those ops would still learn code and would probably become more proficient if exposed to the code on the bands.
Those of whom on the thread who do not seek to inflame current general and extra class operators who demand the code remain a test requirement--they may be communicating with them soon enough. So they keep quiet about the whole deal.
Then there are others who are trying to learn enough code to pass the 5 WPM test--then will never "do" code again. They consider it a detourable roadblock and will do what is necessary to get around it. This group include the so called 'CBers'. These CBers do not, by the way, comprize this whole group.
Then there are the techs who cannot grasp the code, the ones with hearing disabilities who are looking for a way to complete the requirement but are having a hard time doing it for whatever reason--inability to grasp the rhythm, inability to "hear" the individual dits and dahs--they all seems to run together, or just the plain inability to understand the individual characters fast enough under testing conditions (read as "nervousness") no matter how many times they have attempted it.
Although you have not inquired about these, there are the ones who just do not want to learn the code, those who do want their licenses "given" to them.
Unfortunately these people are larger in number than is comfortable, and are the main reason the testing must be made technically harder--especially if the code requirement is dropped.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WO4O on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Forget such a trivial issue as keeping or killing CW. Let's tackel an issue of substance, such as: what right do earthlings have to communicate with more than one language?
Why shouldn't all languages but one (and, perhaps, all persons that refuse to speak the one language) be eliminated?
Go ahead, you pick the one language. And, let's get to work!
K.I.S.S. = One Worldwide Language
On 16 Jul 2003 K1CJS writes:
>CW IS STOPPING PEOPLE FROM JOIN THE RANKS OF HAM RADIO BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE, AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT CW JUST ISN'T NEEDED IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
>
> But, for all kinds of reasons, CW is just like the language of Latin--dead for all intents and purposes, but still used by some and remembered by others as a part of history.
>
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IF the problem is in getting non-hams to become hams (of whatever license class), then I submit that the current Tech license is perfect. Anyone can read "Now You're Talking" and then pass the Tech test.
A couple of miles from my house, an elementary school teacher runs a program where anywhere from one to two dozen pre-teens get their Tech license (the school was featured in QST a while back, and have gotten support from ARRL's Big Project). He's been doing this for years, using "Now You're Talking" as the study guide, and it has proven popular and effective. The kids can check out VHF HTs and use them at home, and are often heard on the local repeaters. They also have set up a packet radio node and kids get on and send messages in the CQ topic area.
The teacher's goal here is to get his students interested in technology so that hopefully they will pursue hard science subjects and thus be able to get better jobs and enrich themselves and our nation.
The ARRL's goal is to expose more kids to ham radio, knowing that not everyone will keep their licenses but that one or two hams per year per school will go on to make it a lifelong hobby... and that's a lot of hams over a decade. Think about it... 50,000 new hams a year is not out of the realm of possibilities, and if 1,000 per year upgrade and stick with the hobby, that's 500,000 hams in 50 years. This one source of new hams alone would sustain hams at their current numbers.
I am trying to coordinate with a local repeater owner to work out the logistics of getting an IRLP node up and running for them (I donate the computer and pay for the node, we all get to use it). My goals are twofold: get Techs (not limited to these kids) a taste of DX to whet their appetites and inspire them to upgrade, and to get an open IRLP node here on the east side of the Seattle metropolitan area that I and everyone else can access.
Rather than eliminating the CW requirement, the kids I've talked to on the local repeater think CW is neat and are working on learning it (and several have upgraded to General over the years). I think that perhaps giving the school several QRP 40m kits, and then having a kit-building class happen where the radios are built by kids (NVIS antennas, too), would really spark interest in upgrading to General... especially when the kids realize that they can hear, and work DX on these little radios.
If someone seems interested in ham radio but decides not to pursue it further based upon one conversation where it is mentioned that more advanced licenses require rudimentary Morse capabilities, then that person would most likely not be an active ham who would benefit the hobby anyway regardless of the code requirement.
One change to the current licensing laws that I WOULD support would be to allow no-code Techs to use the former 80m, 40m, and 20m Novice CW bands, with a power restriction of 5 watts. That would be a good way to get no-coders on HF while limiting the amount of interference they could cause.
My final two cents on this subject: if hams are really interested in growing the number of amateur radio ops, then rather than fighting to eliminate CW their efforts would be better spent donating to the ARRL's Big Project and working with local elementary and secondary schools to establish active ham radio programs. Does YOUR neighborhood elementary school have a club, and does YOUR high school? If not, why not?
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Keep the code test. The simple test has proven itself to keep CBers, like vanity call K1CJS, where they belong...on the repeaters/FM channels and with their CB "repeater associations". :-)
|
| |
|
make it real simple
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's make it real simple-eliminate the CW test, because it is an outdated mode, as some have pointed out (Guess I had better throw away those CW QSLs, they came from an invalid mode). Also eliminate the written test, as it asks about outdated things like ohm's law and such. Who fixes their own equipment anymore? Not me, so why should I have to learn that crap.
Now when someone is interested in your radio, you can hand them a 610 form, tell them to fill this out, and they can be on the air in a matter of days. Maybe you can even sell them your radio-might make a nice profit in the deal. Just think of how many hams we would have.
Does the IARU or ITU have a requirement that a written test is necessary to gain priviledges on HF? I ask because I honestly don't know. If it doesn't, then why does the FCC require it? It the ITU doesn't require a written test, they realize the useless of it, and have abandoned it. After all, how many other radio services require you to pass a written test before you are allowed to operate?
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K4IA on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As KD5KGX said: "One change to the current licensing laws that I WOULD support would be to allow no-code Techs to use the former 80m, 40m, and 20m Novice CW bands, with a power restriction of 5 watts. That would be a good way to get no-coders on HF while limiting the amount of interference they could cause."
I suspect this is the direction we will take. It is a return to the old and very popular concept of a Novice class license. It gives the beginner a place to get started and there is no better way to learn good operating skills and habits than on CW.
Why they ever got rid of the Novice license is a mystery to me. Only change I would suggest to the above is increase the max power to 50 watts. QRP is fine and dandy but let's give them a fighting chance.
|
| |
|
A compromise solution
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is a compromise solution. Why don't we give the current technician phone priviledges on 75m. Give them access to the entire 75 meter phone band. Make that the extent of their HF priviledges, and keep the rest of the licensing and subbands the same. We keep hearing about how the CW test hasn't insured good operating on 75 meters, so let the non-cw people up there. Also, it seems that most of the anti-cw crowd just wants to get on 75m and talk with their good buddies anyway, so lets let them have it. There will be a smattering of DX below 3.800 also to give them a taste of the real thing, which might encourage them to upgrade. If letting them have access to 75m to talk with their good buddies will keep them quiet, let me have it! Plus it will allow them to check into their section traffic nets and handle emergency traffic on the most popular traffic band. They can also get on the Century Club to get their Worked All States award. Of course the Geratol net will die with no extra class subband any more.
Also, in opposition to an earlier post, I have a 20 WPM extra license, and I got it exclusively to operate in the extra CW subbands. I could care less that I get to operate in the extra class phone bands, or that people know I am an extra. I only got a 2 x 1 call because it is shorter for CW, and in the pre-vanity days it was nice having a rare prefix for the WPX contest and for PX hunters. Go listen to 40CW some night, especially in a couple of months when the conditions improve. All of the DX is below .025. Same for 80 CW.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS,
If you don't like some of the Comments out here IGNORE them! Everybody, whether you like it or not, has their "own opinion" whether you think it's rude or not!!!
You're adding fuel to "The fire" yourself!!!
Gesssssh!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: A compromise solution
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE0P,
You're an EXCEPTION to the statement I made earlier!!!
The vast majority of EXTRAS could care less about CW like all the other classes of Licenses!!!
Good DXing!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KA1VBU on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K.I.S.S.? dit and dah seem pretty simple. Seriously though. The high speed code kept me suppressed in the technician class for about 10 years. I like the minimal code requirement and really don't think it is a problem to learn. I'm still at 9wpm and have actually decided to work on the code finally.
Enjoy the hobby and remember to answer the next CQ!
73
Dan
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KC8BHV on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a technician class licensee, I am studying for the General Class test as well as the code. I will study and learn until I feel confident in passing the test. I don't want the FCC taking away our bands because we become just another way to communicate without CW. Use a cell phone for that.
Also, as I prepare, I am slowly purchasing radio equipment and antenna's for use on HF, no you won't hear me transmitting on HF, not until I pass my exam. But between now and then, I am learning how my radio works, I am learning about matching networks, and I find that listening in on others conversations gives me a big incentive to keep studying.
As well as listening in on voice, I get code practice by trying to copy others conversations on CW, but the most important part is that I have two sons, ages 7 and 10 who enjoy listening and are thinking about studying for an amateur radio license themselves.
|
| |
|
Re: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K9XYZ on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is nothing wrong with using FM repeaters. I find the rules are more closley followed(at least around here)on the repeaters and even FM simplex than they are on most of the HF bands. Just listen on 75 meters on any night!! Anyone who takes the time can learn CW at 5 WPM. People are just too lazy and full of excuses and don't want to have to earn anything. As far as FM users being CBers' I'd like to know the difference between HF and FM users, I'm on both everyday and I hear more "CB" activity on the HF bands shall I name some Call signs?? Oh well not enough room on this web site. I think the code requirement should stay but not to keep anyone off HF just to encourage people to learn something new. I passed 13WPM to get my General just before the rules changed, yes it took some work. I would have taken the 20 WPM too if that had'nt gone by the wayside.
I'm proud to be in the hobby and proud of my Extra class license.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KG4MCC on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, this thread will drop off of the eHam front page soon.
What have I learned from it?
Well, there are an awful lot of people for and against a code requirement for HF privleges. Most of them would rather die than compromise (on both sides of the aisle).
I'll eventually learn code, if for no other reason than making contacts under poor band conditions. The ironic thing is they may drop the code requirement before I actually learn it.
I have the same problem that a few others have mentioned in their replies, real difficulty learning code. I'm not saying that I can't learn it, but I will need to dedicate a lot more time than I presently have to give. Some people have an easier time learning the technical aspects of engineering than they do languages. I'm just not strong in languages, and learning code is like learning another language to me.
I think that learning in a classroom where there is a set amount of time free from distractions would help me greatly. Unfortunately, there are not any 'structured' classes to learn code in the rural area of southwest Virginia where I live (EM-97). If someone that lives within 30 miles of the Bluefield-Tazewell, Virginia area knows about a nearby class (30 miles or less), let me know (kg4mcc@arrl.net).
There are a lot of good arguments for keeping the code requirement. Using code on CW is a powerful tool to have during difficult situations.
However, I do believe that the arguments against requiring code are more logical and less emotional than those arguing for code requirements. Just my opinion.
Thanks,
Dave - KG4MCC
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YKY: Sure I have a vanity call sign. My old call was N1ZPI. And I am a tech class licensee, JUST AS YOU ARE. I have ALL my contact information listed in the profile section on this website. WHY DON'T YOU???
Seems to me thats the problem in these threads. The people who scream the loudest and are the most obnoxious have to hide. YKY, I pity you.
_____________
NN6EE: What gives? Now I can't express my opinions on this site without YOUR approval? Whether or not I add fuel to the fire is really not your concern. If you don't like the way I state my opinions, you don't have to read them.
_____________
I make no excuses for my opinions. The code, whether or not the testing requirement is kept, is outmoded and outdated. Not one service uses it anymore except hams--but the HF frequencies have very few CW contacts going on at any one time as compared to the other modes in use. I try to tune in and listen to the code so I can attempt to learn it--I am trying, but failed my first attempt at the test--and find few if any code QSOs on the bands. Where are all you CW fanatics? On the phone bands? It seems so.
I offer apologies to the CW operators who aren't flaming anybody and everybody on these threads, and are courteous to everyone. But I wish others would stop their accusations just because of a difference of opinion on code testing.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
By the way, whether or not the code test is dropped, I favor retaining the current bandplans for CW useage. Please don't think that all the tech licensees are out to get rid of code and slam the door on it.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To the last Poster out here!
Get real! It has nothing to do about CW per-se only if you want HF privileges and 5wpm isn't asking a helluva lot out of anybody to get those apparently important privileges, so move on and maybe someday you'll be one of us complaining about how "AMATEUR RADIO" use to be!!!
Human nature will never change no matter what class license you have!!!
:-(((
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by W2RXB on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I think it is time to drop the Code for HF requirement. As the number of Hams decline and the use of CW declines it is time to wake up and eliminate the Code requirement.
We should follow the international direction and make CW optional and not a requirement. If you want to use CW fine use it but Don't insist that everyone learn it.
thank GOD we don't require Hams to use latin.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I hope I am NEVER like some of the you complaining about how amateur radio used to be. I hope I have the good sense to sell my equipment first. I welcome change and advancement, and all that implies. I also have a regard for history and nostalgia, but don't think everyone should be forced to also.
You're right about one thing--human nature will never change, you're living proof. :-(((((
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KB9YKY on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you can't handle the "code"...get a Nextel. It will do everything the no-code CBer wants except the "echo".
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So why do we FORCE everyone to learn electronic theory, when many of us have no intention of repairing or building gear. Talk about outdated.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Dave, KG4MCC.
I disagree with you about the logic vs. emotion. The no code group is totally emotion. It is usually something like "I want to get on HF, but I don't want to learn code. This is unfair." There is no logic in that argument. Or "The code is outdate" which is also not built on logic. If plenty of people are still using morse code, then it is not outdated. On the other hand, the pro code can make such logical arguments as "we need a pool of skilled operators who can use any mode in an emergency" or even simpler "The current licensing scheme isn't broken, so why fix it?"
I have been asking for some time for a logical explanation to this point-and not getting one-"If the code is unfair and screens people out of ham radio, so we should drop it, then we should do the same for the written test." It is also used to screen people out. It also asks about things that some are not interested in. It forces you to learn things you will never use. So, no code group-give it your best shot-explain why we should retain the written-or even make it harder-but drop the code.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again same CRAP, new wrapper.
The CW requirement for full HF privledges seems to have been a filter.
If you want something bad enough, you have to work for it.
If there is a better alternative, I am for it.
How about psycological exams, back ground checks, that new drug test, that will determain every thing you put in your body from a single strand of hair.
Ahhh, invasion of privicy you say! Maybe you might want to stick with the 5 WPM requirment. I think that is keeping it simple!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by DOODAH on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4MCC :
>There are a lot of good arguments for keeping the
>code requirement. Using code on CW is a powerful tool
>to have during difficult situations.
>However, I do believe that the arguments against
>requiring code are more logical and less emotional
>than those arguing for code requirements. Just my
>opinion.
Well said! That sums it all up perfectly.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N9WX on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll K.I.S.S. Let me quote a good friend of mine,
"Just shut up and learn the code."
Thanks and 73,
(Oh, I mean best regards...No CW= NO 73)
Daniel
N9WX
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N9WX on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll K.I.S.S. Let me quote a good friend of mine,
"Just shut up and learn the code."
I've had the honor of being an amateur radio operator since I was 16 years old and I loved this hobby enough that I worked my butt off to learn CW...Is that what this is about? We just want everything handed to us on a silver platter? My mother taught me that anything worth having is worth working for and may not and most likely will not be easy. Is 5 wpm not slow enough?? What's wrong with learning a skill that our "ancestors" used? And CW is the "first" digital radio communication mode by the way. I'm only 25 years old, maybe I'm a dinosaur before my time. At this point, the ITU requires a CW exam of some sort so we can't just get rid of it no matter what some may think.
Long Live CW!!!!! ... _ _ _ ._ _ _ .._ ... _ _ _
._.. . ._ ._. -. _._. ._ _ !!!!!!
Thanks and 73,
(Oh, I mean best regards...No CW= NO 73)
Daniel
N9WX
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N3VY on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Obviously a license is required to "operate". But some technical knowlege is required to get a license. So,why shouldn't CW skills be a required part of the technical knowlege? After all, most new ops will buy "plug and play" equipment. Few will build a transceiver from scratch. So much for "technical knowlege". Morse code was the beginning of ham radio, hence should be learned for both historical and operation procedure reasons. Many CW ops use better operating procedures and courtesy than do many voice ops, in my limited experience. Anyone can pick up a mike and talk; CW is an enjoyable skill in addition to the native lanquage. It's a universal and "inclusive" language, not "exclusive". Stay the course!
73 Don N3VY
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by AE4BK on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Has anyone identified the "problem" with the current system? I can see both sides of the argument but the overwhelming thing that I hear is people saying "I don't {want} to learn the code". Back to the original question..........The code is keeping lazy good hams out of HF compared to hard working good hams. I too came in as a Tech No-Code but then worked my way up because I wanted to have full band abilities. I have also seen what a FRAUDLENT VE team can do too! A club in my area had what most considered the dirtiest VE teams in the country and you sure can tell by the quality of operators that you hear on 2M repeaters around here and you can ask them where they took their test!!!!! Anyway, that is another reason I got my Extra too. I made sure to take nearly every test that I took with different VE teams out of my local town because I wanted nothing to do with the crooks! I would love to comment to see what "no-code" would do to the ham community, but it could not be accurate when the waters here have been made muddy by crooks!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K9XYZ on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well now I beleive I have re thought my position on retaining the code. It seems that we are in ever changing times and fast changing times and we as hams need to keep up. CW had its place and time in history but when you seriously give this some thought one realizes it is just that "CW HAD its time" its old hat and really not required or needed any longer, its major use now is for fun for those interested. I beleive that the code requirement should be abolished. In these days and times with technology moving forward, we as amatuers most move forward too or risk dying out completely. Everyone has a cell phone on their belt(me too) and everything is going digital as fast as you can think. The internet is in most households now with new people buying PCs everyday. How many ham shacks don't have a computer in them? Not too many. Seems mostly the old timers want to keep the code requirment, it's that old "I had to do it so should you" attitude. But why? Really it doesn't make sense. We need more hams not less if we want to keep our beloved bands, after all they are worth billions of dollars and others would love to have those frequencies. When the new rules came about a couple years ago lots of people said, "well this is the end of ham radio", well it wasn't and it wont be if the code requirment goes away either. Other countries are already dropping it. Those that love CW will continue to love CW and use it and those of us that don't really care for it wont use it as we don't today. I learned it to upgrade but never enjoyed making contacts with CW. I still beleive 99% of people can learn code if they invest a few minutes a day esp. only 5 wpm, but why?? Just because you and I had to is not a valid reason any more. We must look forward to the future and stop looking back all the time or that's where we will be, left behind. When I listen to some of the traffic nets nowdays on HF bands I can't help but shake my head because I have never heard anything that could not have been more quickly and efficiently done via the internet or a cell phone, etc. these "traffic" items are done merley for the novelty value, nothing more. I do beleive in times of storms and disasters and at events etc. we can provide a valuable service even today, but most of ham radio is just for fun now days.
That's why we need to move forward. I heard someone just a couple of days ago when asked if he was interested in becoming a ham say,"why do I want all those antennas and expensive radios when I can talk to people all over the world on my computer?" One has to think about that. The answer for most of us is easy though because we love radios and antenns and making things and knowing we had to work to make these things work properly etc. Eliminating the code requirment will not be harmful to amatuer radio as some think, but I beleive it help us in the long run, get more people interested, the manufactures will sell more HF rigs etc, good for everyone.
BTW just listen on HF everyday and you will hear lots of folks who had to learn code but they don't behave any differently than those who don't want to learn it!!
73
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK..Short and sweet. What us old fart pro CW hams are worried about is that the HF bands may turn into FREEBANDING.
Does having to learn code make you a good op. There is no answer to that!How ever psycology shows us that learning an obscure skill like CW, does improve ones
learning ability.
I guess that is why they made us E.E.'s take all that math and physics we might not ever use in real engineering situations.
I never liked the V.E. conversion. There has been corruption. Not much however.
I have to admit I was pleasently surprised by the NO-CODE TECH. I have worked many a fine No code tech on 440.
I am trying to have an open mind right now. Instead of my usual extremist PRO-CW stance.
Have an open mind. Maybe learning CW will improve other cognitive skills.
All I am asking is of the extremist no coders is this
What would you suggest instead of a CW requirement.
Somthing that would prevent HF from getting any worse than it was 20 years ago.
Those of us that took the hard road are entitled to our triump's at the FCC field offices. I also have the right to be proud I passed 20WPM! NOBODY is taking that away from me!
I am not putting any of you down that are doing it V.E. and no CW.
You are putting in the effort. You could have just said heck and just freeband or go GMRS(sounds like 2 meters)I am sure your all going to be the best ops.
In the old days our novice tickets were only good for 2 years, so we all had a flame under our butts to upgrade. Like other posters said, those two years was your trial of fire. I got all sorts of lip when I was a
novice. That is how many of us learned!
73 and good luck code or no code
HF has gone down hill over the last 25 years in terms of liddy practice.
I am not being pro or con CW right now.
ULTIMATE QUESTION.....How do we keep the bad apples out!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS,
I don't like to rag on other people, but you missed the WHOLE point of my COMMENT!!!
I'm not saying I'm better than anyone else, that's your own INANE interpretation!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: make it real simple
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE0P,
You're right on the money, why have a theory test either for a license??? Dropping the CW requirement is a assine idea! Will it happen? Probably!!!
So let's eliminate ALL TESTING.
That's apparently what everybody is shooting for anyway!!!
Cynnical? YES!!!
Realistic??? Definitely YES!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by N4DFP on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
At this point in this thread I have little hope of many seeing this, but here are my two cents anyway. I have a severe learning disability that wasn't diagnosed until middle-age. I was unable for 20 years to upgrade to general because of it. I suppose I could have gotten an exception if it had been diagnosed earlier, but about that time, the code speed was dropped to 5WPM for all classes. My point is... in spite of my learning disability, I was able to get 5WPM. My very first license was Technician. 5WPM, for crying out loud, is like taking a full minute to recite the alphabet. I am presently having great success teaching my 9YO grand-daughter the code, and she is LOVING it! I am not trying to start a flame war, just stating simple facts... if you can't do 5WPM, you just don't want it bad enough.
|
| |
|
RE: make it real simple
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN6EE,
If I misunderstood you I offer an apology. Sometimes its quite hard to tell when you're reading these comments just who is kidding and who is not. Especially when some just want to flame to see who jumps, and I'm not leaving myself out of that--I am guilty as well.
73!
|
| |
|
RE: make it real simple
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim, NN6EE:
I for one would like to see the testing toughened, as you no doubt have understood from my earlier posts. :-)
If the theory testing is abolished, I for one would dismantle my station, for then the amateur service would turn into the same sort of mess that CB was in its heyday.
|
| |
|
RE: make it real simple
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris, K1CJS !!!
No problem on the mix-up and besides all of us who are Amateur Radio operators up until now had to go thru some type of licensing process, so you're definitely "ONE OF US!!!"
Initially Chris I also was all for the ARRL creating a "NO-CODE" license and I still think it's a great idea but again I do have a problem when a lot of guys who want HF privileges without learning 5wpm code!!!
Their bitch'n is really out of hand!!!
Besides CW isn't dead by a long-shot, and even SOME of the guys who become "NO-CODE" whatever class will want to learn CW themselves because it's a challenge and they'll be able to do what their own Ham Buddies won't be able to do, and those that learn it will RAG ON their own buddies because either they could'nt or DID'NT WANT TO!!!
You can count on it!!!
Warmest Regards,
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KI9A on July 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does this keep "good" ops out of the hobby?
Maybe.
Does the theory keep "good" ops out of the hobby?
Maybe.
I didn't agree with dropping the 13 & 20 wpm requirements, but I can accept that, it is HARD to learn the code at that speed. Some folks don't care to work that HARD on a hobby. But doing away with 5 WPM? Not wanting to learn 5 WPM is plain L A Z Y!
How long will it be before these LAZY folks start whining about how hard the theory is???
Get off your LAZY duffs, learn 5 WPM & stop complaining!
73-Chuck
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Like I said earlier Chuck that question both of us had put forth is NEXT!!!
73,
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
Still waiting
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am still waiting for a logical argument on how the code test is any more unfair than the written. Haven't seen any yet, so much conclude that the anti-CW crowd is running on pure emotion on this one.
K1CJS, you want to make the written test harder. Why? Won't that keep good people out of the hobby? Won't that force people to learn things they don't want to? Won't that make people learn about outdated things like electronic theory? It is funny that you think the code test is horribly unfair, but you support doing the same thing to the written test. You then say that ending the written test will make ham radio in CB, but criticize the rest of us when we state that ending the CW test will do the same.
In keeping with the original article, there is nothing simpler than no code test, and no written test. Just sign your name and pay the fee. No grading to do, no complaining about how this or that is unfair. No studying, just get on and operate. After all, in the time you spend studying for the written test, you could be out doing public service or emergency communication.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KF4URJ on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, first off, I believe I have an answer to the question of "how does retaining the CW requirement serve the public interest?". In the event of emergency, and by this I more refer to hurricanes, tornadoes and winter storms more than terrorism, this requirement provides a cadre of trained operators in a VERY electrically efficient mode of communication to maintain contact with the outside world while electricity is not available. I am reminded of our Great Storm of 1993 here in East TN where many were without electricity for up to a week in many cases, and a similar storm in more recent years in North Carolina where many were without electricity for over a week. It is a simple electrical fact that 300mW will make batteries last longer than 50W, and will be less of a load on a generator.
Second, I have heard it said here that the code is 'hard to learn'. Horse feathers! I passed the test with *2 weeks* of study, and one of those weeks was simply memorising the "dits and dahs" I printed out from a website. Learned the numbers and prosigns on the way to the VE session, and if I had taken the time to clean up my copy on the first attempt, I would have passed with 26 consecutive characters. No tapes, no computer, never actually listened to sent code before that evening except for repeater IDs. Downloaded Morse Academy, and went back the next week. Copied 30 consecutive AND answered 8 of the 10 questions. Passed both ways.
Does the Morse requirement keep good ops off the HF bands? I don't know. Will I operate CW? Most likely, as I believe I would be of more service to the county ARES and RACES as a skilled 'fist' with a good Vibroplex Bug. Should it be kept as a requirement? I am beginning to believe so.
--... ...-- --..--
-.- ..-. ....- ..- .-. .--- -..-. .- --.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KF4URJ on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Almost forgot, I did see a reference to the allegedly 'dead' language of Latin. You know that chicken scratch on the prescriptions you take fron the Doctor's office to your pharmacist? That's in Latin.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those that might want to sample what no code, and no theory is like, try GMRS UHF.
Simply go to the FCC website. File on line with your credit card. Shazzam, your ticket and call sign gets printed up on your computer printer.
There are repeaters up thier. The activity will sound anywhere from just slightly better than 11M CB
to more professional than some 2 meter repeaters.
Plenty of simplex action too.
All you do is pay the FCC $75. That is simple!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH,
Geeesssh!!!
I had NO idea that it was that easy to get on GMRS!!!
The "NO-CODE" license was a give-away by we HAMS who thought something easier was needed to get new blood into the HOBBY and give them a break!!!
We're SUCKERS!!!
KEEP THE "CODE", and those that don't like it can go to GMRS or somewhere else!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes Jim, it is that easy. However only 22 channels. 7 of which are shared with FRS(family radio service), you
have to keep power restricted to .5W on those 7 channels.
The H-T's are dirt chesp. All have 38 PL, and scanning.
Some of the H-T's have 3Watts out.
Sorry to say, some are more drop proof than your average ham dual band H-T.
One can QSO or even conduct business activity!
73 MIKE
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE0P,
My friend, there's a big difference between learning code and being proficient in technical theory when setting up a ham station. If you don't think so, I would not want to be your neighbor when you set up your shack, in fact I wouldn't want to be anywhere near your neighborhood!
I personally know a ham, I'll call him Fred, who memorized his way through the code and all three element tests for an extra license. Him, his supposed knowledge, and his "golden screwdriver" has cost hams their radio sets and a lot of headaches. His favorite reply: "Oh, I have my extra license, I know what I'm doing." He finally got the message when the club presented him with a golden screwdriver award during a meeting. We haven't heard from him since. Yes, that is only one example, but don't try to tell me he's the only one.
Yep, he knows code, so he knows it all.
Now, NE0P, I'll ask one. Why is code NEEDED these days? And, please, I said NEEDED, not WANTED. The ham service is the ONLY service that still requires demonstrated proficiency. Any other service hams are called on to help (eg. military services such as MARS) have PROHIBITED the use of CW on their frequencies. Also, the argument about having a pool of operators to draw from who are proficient in CW is just a little hard to believe--when nobody else uses code. I repeat, I get on the HF receiver to try to copy code and get proficient, and aside from a few intermittant signals, the only one I hear is W1AW! Where are all the code operators??? They are certainly not on the CW parts of the bands!
The current situation is this: Technical proficiency should be required but is not, while total code proficiency is required. That situation should be reversed. That is why I support tougher theory testing instead of code testing. As far as not wanting to learn theory, if you don't, get on a radio service that does not allow you to do your own modifications on your radio sets--such as GMRS. One of the reasons people are attracted to ham radio is the ability to experiment and build. To do that you need technical proficiency, you certainly do not NEED code proficiency.
Sir, when you can tell me how showing proficiency in only one mode of operating is a better "filter" than showing technical proficiency is, I'll swallow my words. I don't think I'll be eating a letter sandwich any time soon.
73, Chris J. Smith K1CJS
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, yes! I forgot all about the popular fall-backs and their soapbubbles:
1. "Code is the only mode that will get through during bad band conditions."
2. "You don't need any more fancy equipment to use code."
3. "Code keys don't require any extra power."
So, in answer:
1. When was the last time band conditions were that bad? Not for a while. So you want everyone to learn code when they'll probably need to use it once a decade? POP!
2. Code key pricing is about the same as a good used laptop for utilizing the other digital modes. POP!
3. Any ham who wants anything to do with emergency service should have several forms of backup power available for all his equipment, including computers and auxiliary equipment. POP!
Sorry to burst your bubbles. 73!
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you don't hear CW on the bands, then you aren't listening. I have no problem finding a CW QSO at any time of the day or night.
I would agree with you that technical proficiency is needed by hams... but I would also say that the type of arrogance that says "You can't make ME learn code, so I'll wait until the code requirement goes away!" is the same type of arrogance that makes people who are smart enough to earn their Extra screw up other peoples' radios... they know it all and can't be told anything.
So... the WILLINGNESS to learn CW shows a lack of arrogance... and the REFUSAL to learn CW shows exactly the kind of arrogance that gives amateur radio a bad name. That's one more reason why I favor keeping the code requirement.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS wrote:
My friend, there's a big difference between learning code and being proficient in technical theory when setting up a ham station. If you don't think so, I would not want to be your neighbor when you set up your shack, in fact I wouldn't want to be anywhere near your neighborhood
My Response: So knowing a little electronic theory is going to insure that you know enough about RF grounding, proper rig operation, and filtering to insure that you will not cause RFI? Also, knowing electronic theory is going to insure that you know enough about proper engineering techniques to insure that your antenna installiation is structurally sound, and will not pose a threat to your property or others' property? How does knowing Ohm's Law and Boolean Algegra insure either? (Both of these were on a written test I have taken)
K1CJS also wrote:
Now, NE0P, I'll ask one. Why is code NEEDED these days? And, please, I said NEEDED, not WANTED. The ham service is the ONLY service that still requires demonstrated proficiency.
My Response: So we have to do what all other services require? Almost all other services require special type acceptance for their radios, and modifications to this equipment is not allowed. Does this mean that the amateur service must fall in line and also prohibit modification of their equipment? ALso, many other radio services are channelized, and do not allow you to operate between the channels. Must we follow suit?
K1CJS further wrote:
Technical proficiency should be required but is not, while total code proficiency is required. That situation should be reversed. That is why I support tougher theory testing instead of code testing. As far as not wanting to learn theory, if you don't, get on a radio service that does not allow you to do your own modifications on your radio sets--such as GMRS. One of the reasons people are attracted to ham radio is the ability to experiment and build. To do that you need technical proficiency, you certainly do not NEED code proficiency.
My response: If you don't want to learn code, get on GMRS or something. How does that argument hold water for theory but not code. Many hams are not attracted to because they want to experiment and build. I wasn't. I wanted to communicate. Many others are the same. Is it fair to exclude these people, include some very good CW ops, because they cannot pass a written test about outdated ideas like electronic theory and equipment modification?
Which band and modes do you use besides 2 meter FM? Have you ever been on 6 meter, 2 meter or 70cm SSB? Any good SSB VHF/UHF op will tell you the value of CW when using Aurora propagation, or when signals are barely readable. If happens much more than you think. 2 weeks ago I was working a ham a couple of grid squares away on 2 meter SSB with a tropo enhancement. We QSYed to 6 meters because I needed his grid square there. I was able to tell he was there on SSB, but could not copy him. We switched to CW, and completed a QSO ok. I have done the same on 70cm. I have also run CW on the satellites, which helps when you have a weak downlink. This is not something that occurs 1 year out of 11 in the sunspot cycle, it occurs quite often on VHF/UHF operating, and also on HF as the higher bands suffer high D layer absorption during the summer months, making long haul DX very difficult.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KD5YDC on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Even when I was a kid, I wanted to be a Ham. Alas! I spent almost an entire life being too busy.
Now, however, I have been medically retired, and have lots of time.
A friend recently needed money, and, as a favor, I purchased an Icom 2m radio from him. Another friend needed money, so I purchased a Kenwood HF unit from him. I also added a Radio Shack htx-10 from yet another friend. I figured it was about time to realize my dream, and become a Ham radio operator.
True: I heard that a Morse Code exam was no longer necessary for a license, but I knew that this would severely limit me.After all, how would I talk to all those people who do not speak English?
That is what Morse Code is for, these days. It's not only something to learn, it's a necessary form of communication. Even more than sign language.
I passed my Tech exam and Morse Code exam three weeks ago. I was able to do 10 words per minute after studying for a whopping 4 days. I can do 25, now, and yesterday, I became a General licensee.
What's all the griping about? I haven't studied anything in 40 years, and I didn't have any problems.
Maybe some people are just lazy.
Or, maybe they believe in silver platters.
73 DE Jim KD5YDC/AG
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""What's all the griping about? I haven't studied anything in 40 years, and I didn't have any problems.
Maybe some people are just lazy. Or, maybe they believe in silver platters.""
Or maybe, just maybe they are having a hard time learning it. Have you ever heard of alternate ways of code testing? Those ways were devised because some people have hearing deficiencies and have trouble hear certain ranges of tones, or maybe the tones all run together and mix then up. You say everybody can learn code with no problem? And if they can't they're lazy and don't deserve a higher class license? OK. If thats what you want to say, fine. Please remember there are two sides to EVERY argument, don't think yours is the only one.
Just remember that everybody is different. I'm partially deaf in the middle frequencies, which is one of the reasons I'm having a hard time. BUT I'M STILL TRYING, and I'll get it sooner or later. As for others, some just can't learn it as fast as others can.
So do us all a favor. Everybody that says 5 WPM is easy and everybody who can't do it is just plain lazy--quit your preaching and try to remember there are some things you probably can't learn as fast or do as well either.
_________________
And, NE0P, you still haven't answered the question "Why is code NEEDED these days?" For the rest, you gave your opinion as I gave mine. Thanks for your views, as now I have them to consider.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by KF4URJ on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS:
How long have you been active on the radio? I would expect someone that has been on (or an SWL) for a while to know that the sunspots that make VHF so nice right now run on a 11 year cycle, of which we are just about at the high point of. Current cycle started in 1997, I do believe. Sunspots go away, we're down to occasional openings, and 20m.
Others:
I never mentioned CW with regard any other emergency service. I refer to the National Traffic System. Electricity goes out in, say, 5-6 counties in NC and all you have to keep you on the air is batteries and/or generators. 500mW (which is plenty to get a CW signal out of your reigon at a bare MINIMUM) will draw much less power off your battery or generator than 50-100W on SSB or FM. Sure, FM is fun and can occasionally be used for fairly long distance comms (like the opening Saturday afternoon) but CW is still much more reliable and efficient in terms of power consumption and bandwidth.
Here's another thought:
What we are looking at before the Morse test can be done away with:
-US Senate must ratify the new treaty. This entails it going through commitee hearings in Foreign Relations, and a 2/3 vote on the floor of the Senate. (6 months-1 year) Then, the FCC would have to open it up for comment (4-5 more months) and they would have to ignore the firestorm of comments (mine included) in opposition to eliminating this requirement. Here's another thought:
-.. --- -. - --.- -.- -..- ....- - .... . .-.- .-- - . ... - ..--- . -. -.. --..-- --- -- .-.-.-
(Dont QRX 4 the CW test 2 end, OM.)
It's not hard to learn, and you never know, you might just find that you like being able to get on the radio without a computer and without speaking a word. My $5 J38 key and my $250 Drake TR-4 and the station essentials like an antenna, transmatch, power/wattmeter, etc. are all I need to be on the air. And the 300W input into the finals the TR-4 has is PLENTY of power for just about anything you might want to do on CW.
|
| |
|
Purpose of code
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Morse code proficiency is necessary to demonstrate the ability to communicate in as many different ways as possible in an emergenc situation. Morse code may not have been used in the 9-11 attacks, but that doesn't mean that it won't be the best way to communicate in the future. The special ops branches of the armed forces still require morse code knowledge, so it is used in other services.
So what is the purpose of knowing Ohms Law, Boolean Algebra, or Satellite operating procedures, especially when most amateurs will never program logic chips or operate on a satellite.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE0P,
In answer to you, if you want to equate the two, consider them equally. No, a "little" theory doesn't insure sufficient knowledge. Knowing enough theory to enable you to properly set up a station includes knowing what you don't know and asking for help. Does knowing a "little" code enable you to "converse" with another station? Certainly not. And if a non-code operator asked for help, from the tone of some people on this thread (I didn't say you) the answer would be "Learn it."
Now, I asked why is code NEEDED these days, and you neatly sidestepped the question. Which makes me believe you don't have an answer. Am I right?
Technical proficiency was next. Technical proficiency is required to be able to experiment and work on/adjust our own radios. HAM RADIO WAS AND IS A SERVICE TASKED TO PROMOTE AND EXPAND RADIO THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION AND RESEARCH BY CIVILIAN RADIO OPERATORS. Although code is a useful art in doing so, it is not required for experimentation and research. You don't want to experiment and discover better ways to communicate? Nobody forces you to. But you want to force everyone to learn code. Who's being unreasonable now? And please don't say "You don't have to, just keep your tech license." Thats like telling you "Just use your code key and tuna tin."
People are looking to get into ham radio until they find out code is still required. I'm not talking technician licensees, I'm talking people who are not hams but would enjoy the technical side of ham radio or maybe just the ability to communicate. MAYBE THOSE PEOPLE WOULD FIND CODE TO BE ENJOYABLE ONCE EXPOSED TO IT, MAYBE NOT. But, just as you don't want to experiment and work on your radios, those people don't want to learn code just to have access to HF bands.
Please don't spew those dreaded words "Thats the way it was" and "What was good in the past is good now", that baloney just won't win any arguments anymore. Morse code was used in the past--the only way to communicate from one coast to the other by wire. You would have us to go back to that form of communication instead of modern telephone? No, of course not. Why REQUIRE it on ham radio? Just for the satisfaction of a few CW operators?
We do have to and should find a compromise. Keep code allocations on the bands but prohibit those who don't pass the code test to use those allocations is one way. Instead of arguing and demanding, lets find that compromise.
Thanks and 73.
|
| |
|
RE: Purpose of code
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In this thread I keep hearing a question. Why have the code?
OK, here's an answer but you may not like it but here it is! It is the way we want it! That is those of us who were licensed before you! Don't say we weren't nice because we endowed you with the no code tech. The FCC would have kept as before but ARRL petitioned for it.
There are a few who have been around that are with the liberal crowd that will give away anything for political correctness. There are also some who don't want to rock the boat. Gee, I feel sorry for them. How do they stand up with no spine.
Those of you who entered the hobby of ham radio knew or were taught the requirements. I don't believe in changing the rules in the middle of the game. Now, there are a lot of us who don't want to change the rules.
What are your choices?
1. You can stay where you are on VHF and a slice of ten meters.
2. You can go on CB.
3. You can go on GMRS.
4. You can learn the code; all 5 WPM.
Code has never stopped anyone. Lazy has stopped many. Methods have been developed specialized methods of CW testing the hard of hearing, the blind, and all other types of problems.
Ham Radio is the big league of hobby radio. If you want to run with the big dogs you have to be a big dog. If not go play with the kids.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As far as finding enough new hams. We will get enough. Maybe all you thin trim young punks need to do something you're good at like begging.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe this will shut the whiners up. I doubt it.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why do some people insist that the senate and the rest of the govenrment have to get involved and OK a new treaty? There is no NEW treaty, just a revision of an existing one, which was universally agreed to. Does the revision involve national security? No. Does it involve relations with another country? In a round about way, yes. But practically, no.
The US remains a signatory to the treaty concerning radio communications, so the only thing remaining is the responce by the FCC to the requests for rule making which are being filed even now, both pro and con.
Whichever way it goes now, I just pray the answer comes soon. It can't come soon enough to get rid of this embarrassing and useless argument about what the FCC should do.
|
| |
|
RE: Purpose of code
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4OOA:
You are just as bad as the whiners who want both no code testing AND no theory testing. You're attitude is an embarrassment to the whole amateur radio community. "I want........."
I feel sorry for you.
|
| |
|
RE: Purpose of code
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No! I just have the guts to stand up and say what I believe. If that is embarssing ... tough! I believe that's what this country is about? Or is it that hams have to be nice guys that cow to everything?
Like I said they knew the requirements when they started. If they don't like it, go somewhere else. If they are not in ham radio now, there are other places to go!
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS wrote:
Technical proficiency was next. Technical proficiency is required to be able to experiment and work on/adjust our own radios. HAM RADIO WAS AND IS A SERVICE TASKED TO PROMOTE AND EXPAND RADIO THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION AND RESEARCH BY CIVILIAN RADIO OPERATORS.
I respond: Where in part 97 does it say that this is the definition of amateur radio? I thought that our main purpose/focus was to provide emergency communications and public service. Guess my club should quit doing those things and have project design and building nights instead. Screw the WX spotting, walk a thon communication, and disaster communication. Lets all build a tuna tin two instead! Most hams I know do not want to modify their equipment or build new equipment. Why force people to learn technical theory if they don't want to do this? I have no real desire to do this. I tried to built a QRP 20 meter transmitter once. Got it almost completed, then realized that they had sent me the wrong couple of parts. Went to radio shack to find the correct parts. They didn't have them. I gave up on the project, mainly because it didn't interest me anymore. I even repaired a modified CB to 10 meter FM rig which I purchased at a hamfest. Read the schematic and got it going again. last month I modified my FT100D to transmit on the new 60 meter band. I have done these things, but they are not my main interest in ham radio. Hats off to those who love to build stuff. I don't have the patience for it. Still, I learned the electronic theory so I could get my Novice, General, Advanced, and Extra license. Anyone who has taken the Advanced written test will tell you it was a bear. It was full of stuff that no ham needs to know, but it was there anyway. After that one, the extra written was a breeze, boolean algebra and all.
I am not saying that we shouldn't have a written test. I am just saying that in its current format, it is just as fair or unfair as having a CW test. You are allowed an amateur license without knowing CW. You are not allowed an amateur license without knowing mostly useless electronic theory.
|
| |
|
RE: K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE0P,
That description is not in Part 97, it is one of the reasons ham radio was originally conceived--not under the FCC but under the Dept. of Commerce.
No, you don't have to scrap everything just to experiment, there is room enough for everybody, communicators and experimenters. Also, pro-coders and no-coders!
Lets just say our opinions differ and we can't see much of anything from the other guy's point of view. This discussion by proxy isn't serving any purpose except taking up space. I admit you brought a couple of things to my attention I hadn't considered, but I still think requiring code is trying to keep the hobby in the past. I do respect your opinions too, but not enough to change my mind.
It has been good having a discussion with another ham instead of an argument. Thanks and 73.
|
| |
|
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
by NE0P on July 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS,
Yes it has been nice having a discussion over this. The funny thing is that the FCC will probably never read this, so neither of our opinions will reach where it really counts. It will be interesting to see what the final outcome is, and how it affects ham radio in the future. I think most of us really want the outcome that will benefit amateur radio the most, whatever that may be.
|
| |
|
