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 KØFL (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 / ca | |
