Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

Again, I am not arguing that CW is the most popular mode. Only that it is one of several popular modes. Or, to misquote Oscar Wilde

Member Comments:

This article has expired. No more comments may be added.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Great article Andrew. You make some very good points here as to the usefulness of CW. If we don't require people to learn it, they probably won't in the future, and in 50 years or so there will be no CW operations going on, because no one will know it.

Here is another interesting point to make: Try using Aurora progation on 2 meter and above on SSB, it is next to impossible. Digital modes don't work on aurora either. The only mode that gets through is the horribly outdated and terribly elitist CW.

If people want to have HF privleges bad enough, they will learn. If they don't want to make the effort, let them go find another hobby. I won't miss them.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RFSOAKED on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Sorry about the triple post, dont know what the heck caused that.

73

David

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W5AU on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Excellent Post Andrew! I think the vast majority of
hams feel exactly like you.

Best 73,
Troy

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WB5HZE on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The author's argument is well constructed and his perspective is satisfactorily neutral in my own opinion. While I generally concur with the concept of removing the demonstration of CW proficiency as a barrier to HF operations, I agree that in order to qualify for the highest class of license (unrestricted) applicants should demonstrate profiency and knowledge well above the norm. Retention of the CW requirement for such licenses is entirely reasonable, particularly in light of the fact that the written test for such licenses in the USA may be passed by simple memorization techniques (in lieu of a solid understanding of the study material). This is not said in promotion of an elitist structure but instead is the simple recognition that the unrestricted license should be a reward to those operators of exceptional skill, dedication, and knowledge, who choose to "go the extra mile" and dedicate themselves to the study of the art and science of radio communications.

As a CW operator, I am concerned that hereafter the art may gradually diminish due to the inherent difficulty of developing proficiency as opposed to the use of other modes. That would be a shame, because CW does offer all of the advantages described by the author & more- and even further, I myself find it more enjoyable than the other modes available to me. It was not always that way- as a novice I gritted my teeth against the constraint but was forced to use the mode in order to communicate- and surprise, surprise . . . it was not so very long before CW became as natural as breathing. Perhaps retention of the CW requirement, limited to unrestricted class operators, will serve to keep this useful (and fun) skill alive and vital. At the same time, removal of the requirement for restricted classes of operators will permit more of our fellows to enjoy the magic of HF.

I support the author's comments and believe that such an approach offers a good compromise between the code versus no-code camps, a solution that is in the best interest of all amateurs.

Regards . . . Ron WB5HZE

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by VK3KCG on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

No bloody wonder the Public perceive us as a bunch of old fuddy duddy has beens.

Akin to,

Must drive T model Ford for car licence.
Must handle NitroGlycerine for Explosives licence.
Must Sail a Clipper to pilot an Ocean Liner.
Must drive Steam Loco to drive a diesel Electric.
Must poo in a hole and wipe ass with rock before using the porcelain.

Stop pushing the CW issue, there are more important things.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N6TZ on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Maybe this solution to the "Great CW war of 2003" will help.
Let's keep a CW requirement for a class of license with a new name such as "Extra CW". Make the requirement the same as it was - 20 wpm. Now the reward; give the bottom 25 kHz. to this class only on 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meters. Keep all other allocations as they presently are. There is room for this, and the non-cw types can have at the remainder of the frequencies. (I would like to see maybe the bottom 10 kHz. of 30 meters also be set aside, but could go either way.)
Now how can anyone complain about this? The non-cw types still have all the SSB and plenty of cw frequencies to practice and learn in, so what is the problem? If the non-cw ops want to know what we are talking about, maybe they will learn the code. I really think they are missing out on a lot by not enjoying this true radio language.
Join FISTS and see a whole new side of radio.
Learn about fists at: http://www.fist.org
Hal, N6TZ

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W5UX on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Probably the best article I have ever read in favor of CW. Good for Eham. The magazines will not print things like this. I have been reading magazines for longer than I care to remember. The magazines have been subjecting the young to a one-sided brain-wash for years. The military dropped most of their cw training when they went to satellites. They don't do us any good as we cannot use them. They too expensive for us. Finally all can compare the modes and make an educated choice. A ham friend of mine told me that the army sent him to classes for getting a tech plus license. This was just five years ago. There must have been a good reason.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KC2TX on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

It is interesting to note that the last comment didn't mention that in order to fly a jet, you need to learn on a propellor aircraft.( which in the US is a requirement,) Anyway in my opinion if cw is obsolete. Why is most of the dx being worked on Topband is cw? Or on EME? Or 6m? Or the fact that my city, (Tucson, AZ.)the Police and Fire Departments identify in cw, at least at 20wpm?

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K0EWS on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Great article!
I've only been a ham for 3 years and got my license with the 5wpm test, but lo and behold, it's my favorite mode now! I now run in that 25-30 wpm range, and it wasn't a lot of work to get better, it just took experience (I'm sure the fact I'm a musician helped.)
CW is alive and well. Just listen to the bands, and you will find this out. Look at the QRP movement. Is it the fastest, or most modern mode? Lord no, but for reliability, and the requirements to set up a station, it just cannot be beat. Also, it's fun. As for the licensing requirments, that's up to the FCC. I think folks who refuse to use CW are missing out on a lot of fun. Perhaps the intimidation of that first QSO drives them away, but I've never run into an op that wouldn't slow down. CW ops are, and have been through my experience, some of the most courteous and enjoyable folks on the bands. In a way, no-coders might be a good thing for HF, it may drive more folks to try CW. Lord knows the phone bands are crowded now; some folks may get sick of the QRM, and elect to go to CW. At any rate, good post, and I enjoyed reading it.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W6OJ on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I agree 100% with ZS1AN. A well thought out, logical position.

I recently wrote the ARRL a letter making some of the same points as does ZS1AN!

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AE6IP on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> Andrew Roos, ZS1AN write

[ heavily edited for brevity. please see the original for detail.]

> The principle argument will run along the following lines: CW is a
> useful and popular mode of operation; the education and examination
> syllabus should include the basic abilities needed to use useful and
> popular modes; the ability to send and receive Morse code is necessary
> to operate CW; and therefore the education and examination syllabus
> should include the ability to send and receive Morse code.

> 1) CW is a Useful Mode [...]

> In this section I shall establish that CW is a useful mode. I do not
> claim that it is the "best" or "most useful" mode (whatever that might
> mean), or that it is more useful than other modes like SSB or the
> various digital modes. Indeed, I believe that all these modes have
> their rightful place in amateur radio.

And each should have the same emphasis in testing. No mode is superior
to any other, and none should be singled out for testing.

> 1a) Traffic Volume

> [...] However the requirements and constraints facing amateurs are
> very different, which means that the optimum mode of communication
> is also different, and in many cases it is CW. [...]

it would be interesting to know in which cases, and what function is
being optimized. I can't think of a single way in which CW is
optimal. (Aside: you don't, properly speaking, need Morse to run CW;
there are any number of digital modes that can be represented using
carrier on/off and an accurate time base.)

> 1b) QSO Rate [...]

First it is argued by the author that the inability of Morse to handle
traffic volume should not be held against. Now it is being argued
that, in fact, Morse provides a high rate of traffic volume, and that
this is important. This strikes me as inconsistent.

> [...] To avoid upsetting anyone, let's just agree that CW, phone and
> digital modes all achieve similar QSO rates. That is sufficient for
> my argument.

So which is is Morse, efficient or not efficient? And if it is no
more efficient than other modes, why does it require special testing
that the other modes do not?

> 1c) Bandwidth Efficiency

> One of the areas where CW is clearly superior to most other modes is
> bandwidth efficiency. CW can achieve a similar QSO rate to phone while
> accepting a channel spacing of 250 Hz or less, compared with the 2 500
> Hz minimum required by phone. This means that the QSO rate per Hertz
> of bandwidth occupied is at least ten times greater for CW than it is
> for phone.

The author here is comparing apples to oranges, by neglecting the time
dimension. A narrower signal at a lower bit rate is not necessarily
more efficent than a wider signal at a higher bit rate, since the
narrower signal may, in fact, consume more *time* to communicate the
same information.

> The only other mode that can compete with this remarkable
> efficiency is PSK-31. Bandwidth efficiency is especially important in
> the amateur service given our limited amateur allocations. (Anyone who
> claims that our HF allocations are underutilized has never operated
> during a major contest!)

A good argument for switching to the *higher efficiency* of PSK-31,
but certainly *not* an argument for requiring all hams to be tested in
Morse code. (Perhaps a better requirement would be to have them tested
on Shannon information theory.)

> 1d) Readability under Poor Signal Conditions

> When it comes to weak-signal performance, CW is a clear leader on the
> HF bands.

This may well be true for the amateur service common practice,
although I note that the author made his Morse to digital comparison
against RTTY rather than the psk-31 that he admitted earlier to be
comparable to Morse in efficiency. However, at least in the US, the
amateur service is allowed to use spread spectrum techniques, which
are, if properly applied, the best use of both spectrum and power.

> [...] The best HF digital modes, like PSK-31, still fall short of CW
> in weak signal ability.

This is not consistent with my operating experience. My laptop is
easily able to decode PSK-31 signals much closer to the noise floor
than my own ear (or my laptop) is able to decode Morse.

> 1e) Simplicity and Home Construction

> One of the objectives of amateur radio is to encourage home
> construction. Here CW has a distinct advantage, since CW
> transceivers are inherently less complex, and hence less expensive
> and easier to construct than, phone transceivers. For example, the
> Small Wonder Labs & "Rock Mite" QRP CW transceiver kit retails for
> US $30. I do not know of any comparably priced SSB equivalent.

Actually, in the US, the objective is to encourage
*experimentation*. Building the 5000th copy of a QRP rig from a kit
hardly qualifies as experimentation.

> 1f) Low Power Requirements

> CW transceivers also often have significantly lower power drain than
> multi-mode designs. For example, my Elecraft K1 draws only 55 mA on
> receive. This makes CW transceivers ideal for battery-powered
> "adventure radio" operations, for example for operations from
> mountain summits. Commonly used portable SSB transceivers like the
> Yaesu FT-817 draw as much as 450 mA, making them much less suited to
> sustained battery-powered operation.

This is, indeed, a useful feature, if you happen to be into QRP. Why
does that justify separate testing for Morse?

> 1g) The CW “Lingua Franca”

> The abbreviations and pro-signs used in CW communications make it
> possible for operators who do not speak the same language to
> communicate at least basic information.

*very* basic information. by the way, what *is* the prosign for 'rig
here is'?

> Emergency Communications

> For more widespread emergencies, HF
> communications are important.

How widespread is widespread enough? How often does a widespread
emergency come up that requires HF, but that the propagation condition
are just such that Morse can get through but psk-31 can't? (Hint: I am
unaware of any such event in the US in my lifetime.)

> If the emergency leaves our computer systems operational, and if
> propagation is fairly good, then digital modes might be most
> effective. If computers are unavailable but we can rely on high
> power transmitters and fair propagation, then SSB might be the mode
> of choice. If we lose our computers and have to operate with limited
> power (for example from backup batteries or solar power) or under
> poor propagation conditions, then CW might be the best (and only)
> way to get through.

Using an Icom 706 and my laptop, I can operate psk from batteries
for 20 hours, *before* I get around to kicking the generator in. Sure,
it's possible that there might be, some day, a disaster that breaks the
three day rule, but the odds are that in that case help isn't going to
be coming in from the outside anywa. (For those who don't do
emergency services, the 'three day rule' is that in any significant
widespread disaster, the local community has to count on getting by
without mutual aid for three days.)

> Summary

> [...] For these reasons I believe that no-one can honestly claim
> that CW is no longer a useful, or even an important, mode of
> communications.

But also, those reasons are not sufficient to justify that Morse code
(remember, Morse and CW are *not* necessarily identical.) be given
'pride of place' in the testing regime.

> CW is a Popular Mode

> [...] So if this survey is accurate then it would appear that 44% of
> amateurs spend more time on CW than on all other modes put together.

> CW is also a popular contesting mode. A quick check showed that 3645
> CW logs were submitted for the CQ Worldwide 2002 contest, compared
> to 4050 SSB logs.

The author's second set of numbers disputes the first, and calls into
question validity of arguments of the superiority of Morse over voice
in contesting.

But I was curious, so I went to the ARRL web site's "Contest Results"
section. A quick scan of the contest list showed that the most
comparable contests were the two November 2002 sweepstakes. About the
phone sweepstakes, the ARRL wrote:

total of 1692 entries were received

of the CW sweepstakes the ARRL site says

There were 1,319 official entries submitted

numbers thar are pretty consistent with the CQ worldwide 2002 contest,
and at odds with the ARRL's web-site poll.

In conclusion, let me say that the author has presented a fine case
for Morse code as a useful and fun mode, but, no case at all for
requiring all hf operators pass a morse proficiency test.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W7WIK on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Great article!

Some people still won't "get it" about CW. Stubborn, hard-headed bunch here in America.

Marco, W7WIK

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AE6IP on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> It is interesting to note that the last comment
> didn't mention that in order to fly a jet, you need
> to learn on a propellor aircraft.( which in the US
> is a requirement,)

not according to FAR 61.129.

You can get a commercial single and then multiengine rating flying entirely in jets, if you can afford it and find a qualified flight school that will train you.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by VK3DMN on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I won't go into great detail, most of the ideas around this issue have been aired before. But I will make a couple of points which haven't been mentioned (at least in this thread).

The author of the original post makes several valid points regarding the usefullness of morse, and even makes an attempt at justifying an 'extra' class licence based on testing for morse.

However IMO he neglects to address the issue that all of what he says occurs with morse can still occur if it is no longer tested for!

There is no reason that CW segments of bands need be allocated to SSB or other modes merely because CW ceases to be tested for.

And if CW is as important and fundamental to amateur radio as some seem to think that it is then it should be able to stand by itself, and should not require artificial props requiring people to learn it.

To argue that morse requires this is to try and justify that morse is somehow 'more' special than other modes, and whilst there has been much evidence that morse is useful (and sometimes more useful), nothing I've seen has been able to demonstrate any uniqueness (other than that granted by the length of time it's been in use).

I did pass the Aussie unrestricted leval morse test 20+ years ago, in fact my tester said something along the lines of "nice sending... you've put a lot of work into that". That BTW was the last time I used morse.

I would like for someone to esplain out how my having had to learn morse benefited the hobby in any way... or in fact the learning of morse by other people who had no desire to learn or use it benifited this hobby.

It was merely an hurdle unrelated to my intended hobby (which in my case was computer controlled modes).

I worked at it and passed... others didn't, couldn't see the point of it. Now that drove people away from the hobby or forced then to become VHF/UHF operators.

Not the best outcome IMO.

YMMV

Geoff VK3DMN

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N6AJR on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Why does an Afrikaner care about U.S. code policy. perhaps with more folks on HF the folks will make more $$$ for their qsl cards... what is the point. The fcc makes the rules and we follow them.t given when you apply for your license. you don't get to choose. why argue about it.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by VA2PHL on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I have been trying to use the ham satellites up there for a while. but i have not the right equipement ...No success... But no problems using CW a FT-100D and a simple dipole . It is easy to learn believe me if i did, you can... any of you. but like everything it takes practice. using the koch method and free software it took me 3 weeks 30 min. a night. anyway if the elimination of morse code for accessinf HF band comes, the CW might become a way to use HF since the phone portion of the band might be crowded.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W8LV on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Curiously, I hear that Morse code, once dropped by the US armed forces, is being taught again, at least to the Rangers and Seals.

Personally, I know that I will be continue to use CW, no matter if it is a requirement, or not.

BUT.....

While the premises are valid, however, the conclusion that this must remain a requirement for amateur radio is, I think, invalid.

And because to require proficiency in a MODE (CW) to show competency in other modes (SSB,AM,PACKET)is an invalid conclusion, this requirement should therefore, be taken out of the regulation.

My premises follow: To keep a CW requirement would be akin to the requirement that all amateurs above 30 Mhz should be required to demonstrate proficiency in the Semaphore Flag Signaling System, also under the premise that this line-of site mode is more reliable than even CW, as it does not rely on any RF carrier at all! After all, this works even when all the gear is fried, batteries dead. Banging two trash can lids together is also an effective method of communication, and is really useful when the line-of-site mode is impossible to carry out. But we do not require all stations to maintain Semaphore flags, or trash can lids for backup communications.

The bigger issue here is, I think, that maybe the ENTIRE INCENTIVE LICENSE SYSTEM HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM FOR YEARS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

CW will not, I think, be kept alive by regulation. It will be kept alive by communications necessity, i.e. two hams attempting to communicate through static, or my some more exotic mode, i.e. meteor scatter with all of the resultant flutter making other modes impossible. You can't really MAKE somebody use CW, after they have their license. You CAN exclude them from a portion of the band, just like you can regulate highter classes of hams to their own exclusive bandwidth, in addition to a larger portion. But is this a good thing? I don't know for sure.

I really like CW/QRP. I try to work a guy at 7.040 or so, and then switch to 7.100-7.150, and work a new guy for each one I work lower. I hope that by doing this, The new guys actually have a more experienced and patient ham who will actually slow down, and encourage their communications efforts. Would it be so bad if they could operate lower? or higher? Have you tuned around lately on SSB? Not too many CQ's do you hear. It's all net net net. And, heaven help you if you accidently call CQ EVEN BEFORE A NET IS ANNOUNCED OR HAS STARTED, LEST YOU INCUR THE RATH OF A (USUALLY SELF-APPOINTED) NET-CONTROL 'CHANNEL MASTER'! This isn't really divergent off-topic set of observations or premises. The whole "attitude' that keeping a particular mode as a requirement is what, I think, foments this atmosphere! Now, not even an International requirement, what an attitude to insist that it be kept.

If we weren't dwindling in numbers, then there wouldnt be a problem. But we are. And our voice gets a little weaker and smaller as the roll of silent keys gets larger and larger. Why worry about BPL, and Little LEOS interests? We have been shooting ourselves in the foot with incentive licenseing and argueing about modes for years, even at the expense of our collective unity via ARRL lobby efforts on the hill. The Rotary spark-gap people would also still be agrueing here in this very forum if they werent all dead. Times change.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KC8UIY on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CW requirement ?, No thanks !

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AA4PB on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I agree - CW is useful. Why does that mean we should test for CW? RTTY and PSK31 are also useful but I don't hear anyone asking for a typing test as part of the exam.

I've Heard This Before.........

by WB9GKZ on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Same CW "justification" I have been hearing since I was licensed in 1971. Is CW really that popular as the author has stated?

Do me a favor: Listen to 75M any given non-contest night. CW Subband: a dozen or so QSO's. Endless wasted spectrum. Meanwhile....Phone Subband: Am'ers fighting it out with QRM on one or two channels 3880-3890....SSB'ers forced into "roundtable" mode operation... Net operators fighting for their "space".

When was the last time you heard a Phone "CQ" call on 75M at 8PM local time?

If I wanted to give a CQ on CW at the same time on the same band....acres of space for my call!

Is CW really that popular? I don't think so.
Is CW really needed as a testing requirement? Probably not.

The old Code fight will go on as Ham Radio dies a slow death. Meanwhile, folks like the author of this article will continue his Hiram-Maxim-CW-Think....choking the growth of the hobby.

RE: I've Heard This Before.........

by KI4BCL on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Outstanding article.

Other respondents: Please put all these valid but lesser priority items on hold.

FILE COMMENTS REGARDING BPL... GET HOLD OF YOUR CONGRESSMEN... RAISE T-TOTAL HELL REGARDING BPL.

YES THIS IS OFF TOPIC... BUT BPL IS HIGHER PRIORITY RIGHT NOW.....

RE: I've Heard This Before.........

by VP1MWB on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CW = Continuos Whine.

Kill off the dinosaur once and for all, who needs it?
Not me, thats for sure.

Excuse me while I go and change the electrolyte in my lechanche cell.
The old Farts will know what I mean.

RE: I've Heard This Before.........

by VK3KCG on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KI4BCL is right on the money, BPL is the bigger Demon at the present time. If we do not knock BPL on the head then there will be Zilch HF bands to worry about.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by LB1LF on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

On a sidenote: The Norwegian post and telecom authority abolishes the CW requirement for HF access this week. From now on, only theoretical knowledge will be tested.

I think a practical test of the applicant's operating technique will be more useful - in addition to the theory. After all, whether you operate phone, cw or digital - the procedure is almost the same. [His call, my call, report etc.]

Testing only for cw proficiency, applicants able to work 20WPM CW can get on the air using any mode - without knowing the proper operating procedures. Personally, I would much prefer a world where hams were proficient in procedures rather than only a specific mode of communication.

Then, upon knowing the proper procedure - if you desire to communicate using CW - by all means, learn it. If you prefer digimodes - learn how to communicate using them. But do not make it a requirement that others need to be tested for proficiency in your favorite mode before gaining access to the HF bands...

Just my $ .02.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K5CRB on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I'm new to ham radio, but I think that the CW requirement should be removed for the General Class, but retained for Amateur Extra. In addition to removing the CW requirement they should increase the difficulty of the written exam. CW is no longer a necessary mode for all operators, it is now a preference of the operator to use CW, just as it is the operator's preference weather they use SSB or digital modes. The author has made some good points about CW, but that's just it, they are good points about CW as a mode, and do not really show why it is necessary to test on CW and not on other modes of operation.

K5CRB

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KG5JJ on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

For the sake of argument, let's assume we keep the ridiculously low speed CW requirement as a ham-ticket prerequisite.

Those operators unwilling to make-the-effort will not enter the hobby, those that grudgingly do make the effort will enter the hobby, but have a bad taste in their mouths, and use other modes of communications on the ham bands. There will be a minority who love CW and will hone their skills on this mode.

I like CW. Lots of people don't. The (now token) low-speed requirement will stay, or it won't. The point being ham radio WILL survive, and all the naysayers with the hypothetical "what-if" scenarios need to just let this CW thing play-out; keep it, or not.

Those of us who like CW will keep it alive, until we die!

73 de KG5JJ (Mike)

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by VK3HCG on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I agree with the author here . I recently moved from Australia to the USA and have hit the study materials to get my license here. It would be way easier for me to just pass the General exam and be on my way but i don't think CW should be removed . We should expend a little effort in our want to use some allocated air space and 5wpm CW isn't as bad as it once was . Just learn it and get on with it.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K0BG on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

In reality it makes no difference which side of the CW fence you're sitting on. This whole mess is being driven by economics.

The ARRL benefits because more hams mean more members, and more members mean more money to spend on lobbying.

The manufacturers will benefit too. With no CW requirement, all of those techs (nearly half the ham population) become potential purchasers of HF rigs (where the major profits lie).

Alan, KØBG

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K3UD on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"(I would like to see maybe the bottom 10 kHz. of 30 meters also be set aside, but could go either way.)"

How about reserving 30 meters for any ham who has passed a 13 or 20 WPM code test? This testing element could be handled at VE sessions and the license would have an endorsement. Some way would have to be found to get it into the FCC database.

Maybe reserve to bottom 10 - 15 kHz for hose who pass a 20 WPM test. Anyone who had already passed the code requirement would, by virtue of proof, (old style General, Advanced, or Extra) is exempt.

73
George
K3UD

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KG6AMW on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Kenwood, ICOM and Yaesu don't depend on amateurs for their existence anymore. They’ve moved onto other markets, marine, aviation and government sales. The reality is, most who pursue a ham license do so because they are genuinely interested. The realty is, most people don't even know we exist. Most who are interested in CB wouldn’t want to sit for a license test. Hell that requires a certain amount of study and memorization effort and besides they operate in the ham bands already. Unfortunately, there is not that much interest in ham radio anymore. We are a sideline hobby/technology, which attracts little interest. Whether or not the cw requirement stays or not will matter little. What does matter is what the average ham will bring to this hobby. Operating often, writing articles and comments, supporting the ARRL, elmering, supporting the community, etc. is what matters. What also matters is how we deal with commercial interests who eye our frequencies for their use.

Merrill Stevenson
KG6AMW

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W4AQR on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Good article Andrew.
If we drop the requirement to learn CW then soon most hams will not be able to identify a repeater station, locate a beacon station or copy satellite telemetry.
Oh yes...CW can be displayed on a PC but this necessitates the need for additional station equipment. This could be a problem while operating portable or during an emergency. Familiarity with CW
should be retained for at least the EXTRA class license.

73's George W4AQR

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N1RWC on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Hey pencil necked whinners, drop it.
This is the latest CW vs Non CW Article yet.

Once again, I have this to say...

BORING

Let's try to find something else to talk about.

I noticed an article about a Personal FD type operation.
That's more of what we need, not CW vs Non CW Debates.

As for the contests, I will get on the air during them if they are in my Licensed operating Spectrum, but I give up sending in logs, CQ wants Computerized Formats I don't have, and ARRL doesn't even post your score unless you are in the top 3 for your region. I think you will find a lot of operators do the same because of those 2 factors.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NY7Q on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Good article. Makes a lot of sence. CW TODAY, CW TOMORROW, CW FOREVER....

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K1CJS on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The author makes a good case here--much better than any I've seen recently. However, he brings up a couple of points that haven't been considered fully.

1. He states "(Anyone who claims that our HF allocations are underutilized has never operated during a major contest!)"

Oh, come on. How about during regular day to day communications, not during a 'contest', where almost every operator around is on the bands. That is like claiming a continuous traffic jam on a highway alongside a football stadium when it is only bumper to bumper on the days a football game is played there. The HF bands may be crowded at times, but the author is shoveling it here.

2. The author then tries to say CW is a popular mode by siting a study that asks "what percentage of your operating time is spent using CW?" Better he site a study asking "What is your most used operating mode". Using a study concerned primarily with CW to prove CW is popular is like saying I like ham radio because its ham radio.

Although the author correctly stated the military in both the UK and the US has returned to the limited use of morse, he says "most commercial.....services no longer use CW. The fact of the matter is none of the commercial services use MORSE any longer. One of the precepts of ham radio is to maintain a pool of operators proficient in operating with the current modes in use. Since MORSE is no longer used, it is no longer necessary to maintain a pool of operators who know morse.

The thing is morse code IS useful--for certain types of operating. However, the current requirements for morse testing, even at the low rate they're now set at, are no longer necessary for the reasons they were first put in place. Morse code and CW only exist now for the pleasure and satisfaction of the operators who prefer to use it.

Since I want to upgrade now, I am learning morse. If and when I pass the requirement, I'll probably never use it again, just like most of the other HF operators on the bands now.

73!

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by VK3KCG on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

This one I dont believe...

Good article Andrew.
If we drop the requirement to learn CW then soon most hams will not be able to identify a repeater station,

(Oh you mean those things that go Kerchunk when you press and release the mike button?)

locate a beacon station or copy satellite telemetry.

(What's CW got to do with locating a beacon? maybe tuning to the correct frequency would be a better option)
(Satellite telemetry, you must be good to decipher all that digital data with that fine tuned CW ear of yours)

Oh yes...CW can be displayed on a PC but this necessitates the need for additional station equipment.

(Ever heard of Voice Ident? Oh no the repeaters might be heard in China, better keep CW so the Chinese know what they are.)
(They do no not speaka da English ya know)

This could be a problem while operating portable or during an emergency.

(--. --- -.. / .... .. .-.. .--./ ..- ...)

Familiarity with CW (continuos whine)
should be retained for at least the EXTRA class license. ( Poor Buggers, why make them suffer?)

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KG6JEV on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

AMEN!

73,

Steven/KG6JEV/4

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K7IHC on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Whoever says that Morse code isn't used anymore in amateur radio is incorrect. Many hams do enjoy (from reading all the various messages) using Morse on CW. And many repeaters still use Morse IDs, instead of synthesized voice.

I like the idea of a no-Morse test General class license. To upgrade to Extra, one would be required to take the current Morse test, in addition to the Extra written test. I believe that would give people like me (newer Tech, studying Morse for a General upgrade) *more* incentive to learn Morse and upgrade to Extra, after being able to experience the world of HF ham ops.

I also believe that there should be more questions on all three amateur written exams. Leave all the current basic electronics/radio theory questions in, but add more questions on RF safety, operating procedures, and regulations. An Amateur Radio License from the FCC is really a *learner's permit*, in the real-world of ham radio. Learning to solder a PL-259 or build an antenna can come after the initial licensing.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K3DML on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

After 45 years of using voice and CW, I still find myself preferring CW. It's simply more fun. CW should not be a requirement to get on the HF bands. I believe that some people will discover for themselves that it's a mode worth mastering. Or perhaps they won't. For me, RTTY was more fun with a mechanical WW II teleprinter than it was with a MICROLOG AIR-1. I guess I just couldn't believe that something so old still worked. Or even how they got it to work in the first place.

It's a hobby guys. If it's not different from what you do in everyday life, it's not a real hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be fun and not like work. Now if I could only hook up my keyer to my computer and paddle my e-mails..... that would be more fun.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K1OU on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...oh, am I missing something interesting?

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W3JJH on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I was going through my late father's papers a while ago and I found his 1943 discharge papers as enlisted man that he received when he was commissioned after OCS. One of the items on it reminds me of the "keep Code at all costs" viewpoint.

That item was "Horsemanship." Yes, in 1943, the US Army was still keeping track of whether or not soldiers were qualified as cavalrymen. The machine gun had already broken calvary charges in WW I, and tanks had replaced every horse in every combat unit, but the Army still kept track of whether or not someone could ride.

(BTW, Dad grew up on a farm and knew how to ride, but he was in the Infantry so Horsemanship was marked "No.")

Being able to ride is a useful skill. Some of the Special Ops guys in Afganistan even conducted a cavalry charge a couple of years ago, but is was bureaucratic silliness for the Army to be keeping track of Horsemanship during a WW II.

Knowledge of Morse code and skill as a telegrapher might be handy in some circumstance. Yet, the only remaining users are military special ops folks and some amateur radio operators. Retention of a telegraphy requirement for hams no longer makes sense in the real world.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KI8DJ on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Countries are dropping the requirement one after the other.Lets do the same so we can move on to something more constructive.This issue is a dead horse.

The answer is missing

by HB9VCD on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

ZS1AN describes very nicely how morse is a mode used widely and for a reason by todays HAM's. There are plenty of reasons why morse will still be with us for a long time. Plenty of reason it should retain reserved bandwith in our bandplans.

But I fail to see why it should be required.

There are plenty of other (mostly digital) modes with many of the same benefits, but no mandatory requirement.

I just don't understand ...

Markus

P.S. I suppose to argue is moot anyway, at the moment the discussion is not about fact, but about emotion.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KG4RUL on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

A well written article but, it contains no compelling arguments for the retention of the CW testing requirement. Drop the testing requirements and keep the CW allocations as they currently are.

CW operators will still use their allocations, phone operators will jostle for space in their allocations. If CW is superior, these phone operators will find a compelling need to learn CW.

Now to the real threats to Amateur Radio:

- Spectrum Re-Allocations

- Broadband over Power Lines (BPL)

If you have not already done so, make your voice heard today on these vital issues!!!

73
Dennis - KG4RUL

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K1CJS on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Thank you, Dennis! Exactly how the whole issue should be looked at. Too bad more hams can't see that.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by OLDFART13 on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

A very well written and thought out article indeed. It makes a lot of sense and there are a lot of good operators out there and many new hams that didn’t want to learn CW at all but gave it a try just to pass the very easy 5wpm exam. Many of them soon found that CW is a very enjoyable mode even at slow speeds. Without the requirement of CW at only 5wpm many hams would not have been introduced to CW.

Ham radio is a hobby that requires some amount of dedication to obtain a license. The written exams have been lowered to the point where people just memorize the answers to pass the exams. The worse part is that the vocal groups that want to eliminate the CW requirement are also the vocal groups that want to make easier exams. Furthermore, they are already talking about eliminating the CW portions of the bands. It only takes about 3 months to learn enough CW to pass the element 1 exam. The little amount of dedication required to be introduced to CW is well worth the lifetime of amateur privileges you will get.

I think that it is better for us to rise to the challenge of CW and actually learning the material needed to pass the exams than it is to lower our standards anymore than they already have been.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KD7NNT on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CW is a very good mode. It is available via grayware (what is between your ears) and software now (check out the ARRL site on computer decode, most contester use a encoder now anyway).
However, the question is testing requirements. I will point out the that part 1 code testing is good only for 1 year. Your license is good for 10 year. Hence, when it is time to renew, your part 1 code test is invalid for 9 years!!. If the code test really matter you SHOULD be required to retest to renew your license.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

K1CJS said "Oh, come on. How about during regular day to day communications, not during a 'contest', where almost every operator around is on the bands. That is like claiming a continuous traffic jam on a highway alongside a football stadium when it is only bumper to bumper on the days a football game is played there. The HF bands may be crowded at times, but the author is shoveling it here."

Come on Chris, you are still posting this garbage instead of studying to upgrade ? I am on the HF bands almost every day and YES they are crowded.
Chris, if you would spend half the time studying for the code test as you spend here whining, you would already have a General ticket...

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WC4SKY on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Great arguments for using PSK31.
Great arguments for using CW.
Not sure if I read an argument to keep Morse as a testing requirment.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KT0MM on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I make this comment with the caveat that I rarely ever operate CW...I would *strongly* advocate a minimal morse code requirement (5wpm), particularly for any HF license, solely because of its utility in emergency communications. Not only will CW penetrate the noise threshhold when voice will not, but its technical (gadget-related) requirements are minimal.

Back in 1983, I responded to a late-night SOS from a damaged sailboat in the Gulf of Mexico. When a wave had rolled the boat, the radio had also been damaged. After some crude repairs, the boat's master was still relegated to slow code as his only option.

If I (and the radioman at the Coast Guard Station) had been ignorant of morse code, those folks may have been drifting for quite a while. We don't need speed! However, if our emergency capabilities are to be more than a sad joke, we *do* need the rudimentary knowledge!

de kt0mm

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WV7R on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The CW argument has raged since before I first got into amateur radio... in 1968! After that I was in and out of the hobby until 1988, when I pretty much got back in to stay; starting as a coded-Tech and obtaining my Extra later that year.

To me, CW is a mode. And only a mode. To be consistant, if proficiency in CW is to be a requirement to obtain an amateur license, then proficiency testing in all other current amateur modes should also be tested in order to obtain an amateur license.
And from some of the 'band-pollution' I hear at times, that might not be such a bad idea! CW obviously has not kept out all the bad ops.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WB5HZE on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Some folks seem to have understood the author's point- but most obviously did not. Please review the third sentence in his introduction. The author supports removal of CW testing for all classes other than Extra (unrestricted).
I personally believe that the Extra class license should be awarded as the result of a demonstration of broad knowledge and proficiency rather than an exercise in memorization of the written test material- it should be a reward for those that work a little harder and learn a little more than the norm. Extra class licensees should be able to demonstrate proficiency in ALL modes, including CW- whether they personally prefer any particular mode or not. A decision to retain CW testing for Extra class (only) would NOT block other classes of licensees from the HF bands, except for the (tiny) slices reserved for Extra class only (retained to serve as an incentative for license upgrade).

Ron WB5HZE

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by LU2HLR on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Great article, but:
technical reasons described are OK, but should not become a reason nor argument to grant a provilege to use qrg´s below 30 Mhz., that´s the point.
In my eyes it´s more important where (in this sense I mean qrg) you do your traffic, not how (in this sense I mean the used mode.
73 de Axel - DD8GR / LU2HLR

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WB5HZE on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Excuse me ... that's the third PARAGRAPH in the introduction . . . which states:

"It is important to note that this is not the same as arguing that licensees who have not passed a Morse code should be denied all access to the HF bands. I am in favor of granting some access to the HF bands to those holding restricted licenses. However I believe that this should be done by amending the privileges of the restricted license rather than removing the Morse code requirement of the unrestricted license."

The unrestricted license is obviously the equivalent of the USA's Extra Class- as that is the only class that is awarded unrestricted privileges by the FCC. Restricted licenses would be all other classes, each of which have restrictions depending on the particular class.

Ron WB5HZE

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KC7WVD on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I'm not going to argue any of the technical issues presented in the article. CW is a legitmate means of signalling that will be in use for a long time. That will not change. What I'm going to argue is the political reasons for not retaining a Morse requirement.

I've been in electrical engineering for over 20 years and I can't tell you how many gifted and talented people I have met who might otherwise have gotten interested in amateur radio if it were not for the code requirements. These are people who are fully capable of learning the code, but they simply are NOT interested in learning it for any one of a number of reasons such as: "isn't that a bit outdated?" or "its boring" or "I don't have time or interest". Whatever the reason, a lot of really good people have been deterred from entering the hobby because of the CW requirement.

The bottom line is this: the powers that be have been using code as a way to keep people out of the amateur radio. Unfortunately, they have succeeded, much to the detriment of the hobby itself. For every "low life" operator who is deterred, there are probably thousands of young technical whiz kids who find "dih-dahing" a really boring way to interface to an otherwise high tech world. As I recall, one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of amateur radio in the first place was to encourage advancement of the art in the radio sciences. If we're going to do that, we're going to need all the raw talent we can get and we're going to need young kids who grew up with their hands on computer keyboards, not old guys with a single finger on a straight key!

I believe that the code requirements should be lifted immediately. If that is not done, I propose that we should make mandatory re-examination of all currently licensed amateurs every 2 years so that they are forced to keep up with the rapid pace of technology. The examinations will be kept current to reflect state of the art practice in ALL aspects of the radio hobby, including computers, programming, operating systems, interfaces, digital signals, circuit theory - both analog and digital, semiconductor physics, electromagnetics, antenna theory, propagation physics as well as all applicable federal, state, local and international regulations. Exams will have written, oral, and laboratory components as well as a test of operating skills in simulated disaster scenario. Ok, I'm kidding here, but not that much! What I'm trying to say is that not every one of us knows everything there is to know about amateur radio, yet we can still function as a radio amateur operator. I don't see where having people who don't know CW is any different than having people who don't understand antennas or ionospheric physics.

If amateur radio is going to survive another hundred years, it has to abolish the code requirement now and make a concerted effort to somehow recruit all those whiz kids that we missed while the CW filter was on!

John Ross, Ph.D., P.E., NO CODE TECH!

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by SP5QIP on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Maybe we should also test PSK, SSTV and RTTY folks who want to play digital on HF? I know people who never transmit voice or CW on HF. For me all this discussion is funny. CW on examine will die sooner or later. Who wants operate CW Will use it, others not. I got first class license, I learnt CW only for the exam. Now I forgot it, and I don`t need it. I prefer vioce and digital modes. It was angry that I had to learn something I will never use. I built my first TRX by myself, I know a lot of about homebrewing that`s usefull. For me CW is a waste of time.
Mike

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KW6B on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

In an emergency, Morse code is the most fundamental way to communicate. Although they weren't rescued, look at the situation those poor Russian crewman were in when their submarine sank a few years back. When all else failed, the only mode they could communicate in was Morse code by tapping on the hull of the sub!

Case in point and great article Andrew.

- Bob
KW6B

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KC7WVD said "The bottom line is this: the powers that be have been using code as a way to keep people out of the amateur radio. Unfortunately, they have succeeded, much to the detriment of the hobby itself."

John, I applaud you for your education level. You of all people should know that sometimes you have to do things that may not make sense to reach a goal. There are probably some undergraduate classes you took that really didn't make sense. This has nothing to do with the "powers that be"...it has to do with commitment and dedication...arn't the HF bands worth a few weeks of study to you ?

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AF4WP on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

A little formatting would surely make ths easier to read.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KG4IHJ on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Somebody forgot to tell you that the decision does not Abolish CW!!! CW will live on!! I understand your prospective and point, just remember, if we are so worried about beating this CW issue into the ground, then we'll forget that BPL is sneaking into existance, and then CW will ba a moot issue once BPL becomes widespread. I have not upgraded, and don't really plan to for a while (VHF+ is too much fun) but I may just go learn code; that is after I finish writing my congressperson and letting him/her know how I feel.

73,

Ryan

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AE6IP on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> In an emergency, Morse code is the most fundamental > way to communicate.

In an emergency, the most fundamental way to communicate is 'make a noise, any noise.'

> Although they weren't rescued, look at the situation
> those poor Russian crewman were in when their
> submarine sank a few years back.

They died. So did most of the passengers on the Titanic, which was also using Morse.

> When all else failed, the only mode they could
> communicate in was Morse code by tapping on the hull
> of the sub!

Did Morse get them found? No. Did Morse lead to their rescue? No.

Not a particularly good example of the value of Morse in an emergency.

RE: I've Heard This Before.........

by AE6IP on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> Other respondents: Please put all these valid but
> lesser priority items on hold.

Please don't. Please demonstrate that you can care about more than one problem at a time.

> FILE COMMENTS REGARDING BPL... GET HOLD OF YOUR
> CONGRESSMEN... RAISE T-TOTAL HELL REGARDING BPL.

Takes about 2 hours, total, including time spent writing check to spectrum defense fund.

> YES THIS IS OFF TOPIC... BUT BPL IS HIGHER PRIORITY
> RIGHT NOW.....

BPL is a tempest looking for a teapot.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KB1FLR on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

AE6IP - The survivors of the Titanic, however, were rescued by messages sent by code. It was not the lack of communication that killed the people that did not survive the Titanic disaster, but the fact that there were insufficient life boats (by half) for the number of people on the ship.

Rick, KB1FLR

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N0YVW on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I enjoy CW as much as the next guy. And my four-year-
old enjoys it, too. Not to mention my three-year old
loves listening and asking "what's that, daddy?"

But why maintain it as a requirement? It does nothing
to screen out lids...the biggest lids I hear on the air
are Advanced and Extras, who've held their ratings for
longer than I've been licensed. On the flip side, some
of the people I've run across with the best operating
habits are folks who entered Amateur Radio as no-codes,
some of whom have stayed there for ten years!

And frankly, some of the folks, who are complaining
that we've got to have something to screen for
"dedication" to the Amateur Radio Service, since the
tests are "so easy you can memorize them" should try
to study for *and take* the current exam for Extra
class. I took Element 4 once before 7/1/02 when
the current question pool came out, didn't pass,
didn't have the time to keep studying to pass it
again. So I went ahead and picked up a copy of the
new version of the study materials, in order to
take the exam in September, the next VE session. Oh
my God! Set the two books side by side and compare
them, and there's no comparison. Easy? In a pig's
eye. Maybe if you're an EE, but for Joe Ham, I don't
see that it's easy at all. Memorize the entire pool
of 800 questions? I'm not an idiot by any means, nor
do I have a bad memory, and I know for a fact that
there's no way I could do it. Pull down a copy of
the question pool from online, study it for eight
weeks, and tell me if you can do it. My hat's off to
you, if you can.

If anything, the exams should be structured such as
to get people *into* the hobby. Get people *into*
the hobby, then *mentor* them. That's the way to
up the number of hams and to increase the operating
proficiency of those currently licensed.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by TECH2003 on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CW is dead. I know you want to try and keep it alive
but just let it die it's much deserved death.
The NCVEC, NCI, ARRL all agree with this. The major issues on the table now are:

1. Elimination of CW as a testing requirment for all
license classes.
2. Easier exams with more privilges on HF for new
hams w/out code of course.
3. Elimination of the CW only portions of the band.

I support all of these issues 100% and this is what will save ham radio.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W4VR on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I don't understand why a handful of hams keep posting these justifications for retaining the morse testing requirement. Some countries have already abolished the requirement, and I predict that by the end of next year most countries will have done the same, including the USA and South Africa. This will not mean that you can't continue operating and making contacts on CW...the CW operating privileges will not be abolished. The international regulation pertaining to the morse requirement has been changed for amateurs and the result will be to allow more amateurs to operate in the HF bands, which is good if you don't want administrations to auction off the HF amateur bands to commercial enterprise...they've already done this in some amateur bands above HF. The CW requirement for maritime interests was abolished several years ago and it's then-proposed elimination was fought to the end by radio unions..and they lost the battle as powerful as these unions are(were).

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N9WQ on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

YES! YES! YES! REALITY HAS SPOKEN!! GREAT ARTICLE ANDY :-) N9WQ Dave

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NN6EE on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Gentlemen!!!

One idea that I'd go for having gone thru 13wpm as a licensing requirement and still using CW @ 35wpm I do think that the LOWER classed boys ought to be given a few more privileges on HF without the CW test, BUT not to give them the "WHOLE-SHOOT'N" match aka full HF band privileges as that's not fair to any of US who had to work our way up slowly thru the various classes of tickets!!!

Have a LIMITED amount of space in say the 40m/17m/and 12m with phone privileges and 100w PEP MAX!!!

No CW/No full privileges on phone on any of the other bands, PERIOD!!!

Of course NO-CODERS could also have 10m as their counterparts the Tech-Pluses eventhough they passed their 5wpm and did'nt CRY about it have now!!!

Jim/nn6ee

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

TECH2003 still wants something for nothing...kinda like most of the other whining and complaining no-coders on this thread...

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by TECH2003 on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To Radio123us. Please stop with the personal attacks.
The information that I have posted is not being done by me
but it is being done by the NCVEC, NCI and the ARRL.
All I am saying is that I support them 100% on these
issues. If you don't like it don't blame me. It's
people like you who want to stop progress.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

TECH2003, the ARRL has not taken a position on this issue yet...so once again...you are WRONG....

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

...and who cares what NCI (No Code International) thinks...it's just another organization of lazy unmotivated whiners and complainers....

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by MUNGO on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I can't wait to say goodbye to the code requirement !!!!!! HOORAY !!!

We never needed it in the first place.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by TECH2003 on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To Radio123us, while NCI and NCVEC stated their
opinions and even had a vote with ARRL
representatives present the ARRL just sat on their hands. So you see, silence is consent.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I suspect the ARRL will state their opnion soon..from the information I've seen from my section manager, they will probably support the retention of the code requirement..

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

You sure NCI doesn't really stand for National CB Inc ??? That seems to be about the mentality of those that would support them.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by BORN2TROLL on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I HOPE THE CODE DON'T GO AWAY NOW. I'VE STARTED A NEW ONLINE BUSINESS WHERE OLD FARTS CAN ORDER VIAGRA AND KEYERS AND HAVE THEM DELIVERED IN A PLAIN DISCREET PACKAGE. FOR THE OLD FARTS WHO AIN'T GOT A WOMAN, THEY GET A DISCOUNT AND FREE SECOND HAND ISSUESS OF CQ MAGAZINE.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KZ9G on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Nice article, Andrew.

I agree that CW should remain a requirement for the UNRESTRICTED license, even if it remains at the 5 WPM level. I like CW, and this particular division should remain.

But considering the inroads we've made with other forms of digital technology, it's also high time for the creation of a RESTRICTED, no-code, HF license (in the U.S.). The role that CW plays in today's amateur and commercial communications isn't nearly as significant or important as it used to be. If this fact isn't plainly obvious to everyone involved, your heads have been buried too long.

Here are some reasons why CW should be seriously considered just another mode:

1. In the maritime communications world, monitoring of CW on 500 KHz is long gone, and GMDSS is the standard.

2. At least in the U.S. Air Force, CW is no longer taught to radio operators. In fact, the role of the radio operator has severely changed in recent years. The U.S. military (whose communications technology usually lags current technology by 20 to 30 years) has realized that radio operators can be utilized more effectively if they employ digital systems that support real-time cryptographic translation through various transmission mediums - wireless or wireline.

3. The advancement of digital communications and their integration with radio systems. With recent advancements in DSP technology, I'd have a hard time counting the number of digital modes that will compete with CW.

CW is really just becoming another mode. Granted, it’s a passion for many of us, but let’s begin to allow a modest amount of change to stir the ranks and the airwaves. Let’s also not forget to infect others with our traditions, values and passions – that way CW will never die.

73.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RFSOAKED on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Radio123US:

I mean no disrespect, but your statment about the ARRL is off by a mile.

According to recent information from the ARRL, they still do not intend to make any statements about the CW requirement.

My best guess from a business owners point of view, the ARRL won't get involved in the battle any more than they absolutley have to. And i would be very surprised to see the ARRL take one side or the other and stand their ground.

The reasons are simple:

1. The ARRL is representative of ALL licensed amateurs, including no-codes and those that use CW.

2. The ARRL is still a business venture, it still comes down to the bottom line, and i doubt you can show me a business owner that would support something and make half or more of its customers on the opposite front.

3. Although i am not entirely sure of the numbers, i would estimate that No-Code Technician Class licensees out number other classes of licensees, around my area its at least 2(maybe 3):1 on No-Codes to Generals. IF anyone knows how to obtain the number of licensees in each license class i would love to see them!

73

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KZ9G said "Let’s also not forget to infect others with our traditions, values and passions – that way CW will never die. "

I hope we can infect others with the true traditions , values, and passions of ham radio.... The no-code, 10-4 Good Buddy group is trying to infect us with their traditions, values, and passions (or lack of them..)...the only difference is that their infection is more like a CANCER to ham radio...

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AK7P on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Keep cw as the standard/ the no cw group are generally losers that should try some easier method of hobby release/

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N2WEC on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Have we not beat this subject into the ground? For now if you want to upgrade Morse proficiency IS required. Get used to it. When or if it changes, simply follow the new rules and be happy. To Hell with the opinion of anybody else.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N7TYB on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I just sent a letter to the site administrator, and am in the process of sending a letter to all the advertisors on this site. I think it is about time to get rid of the anonymous jerks who are stirring up the pot and hiding behind anonymous ID's. I would recommend that anyone else that is tired of the BS that the anonymous posters write here do the same. This used to be a great site, but is sinking into the dirt that the anonymous posters have relegated their comments to.

If you don't have the gonads to let everyone know who you are, then you have no friggin business even makin a comment!

This site is for Amatuer Radio Operators to discuss the hobby (or service). Most of us can do so in a reasonable manner. If you have to hide, go to 11 meters and spew your venom anonymously there. Us REAL hams will I.D.

N7TYB

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I guess N7TYB doesn't believe in something called the 1st Ammendment....

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WA2DTW on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CW is the heart and soul of ham radio.
Those who do not do CW are cheating themselves of the best aspects of the hobby.
Other modes will come and go. CW is forever.
Those who do not bother to learn the code will never be full-fledged hams.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N7TYB on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Wrong my anonymous friend...

The 1st amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from making any laws prohibiting the right of free speech. That has no bearing whatsoever on a personal or business site.

Me thinks you need to take a civics or government class instead of being a anonymous coward and posting here!

N7TYB

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by OLDFART13 on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To RF soaked.
Techs and Tech +, and Tech w/Code credit make up
about 47% of all licensed operators. I'm not sure
that you can get the no-code numbers because Techs
w/code credit arn't listed seperately. But it is
nice to see that the amout of Amateurs is increasing.

Better than that is the fact that the amount of
Extras and Generals is growing at a rate faster than
the Techs are. So a lot of hams are rising to the
challenge and upgrading even with CW. So most hams
are not being stopped by CW.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KZ9G on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

RADIO123US:

There will always be a small percentage of any group that will cause trouble, but to blame the no-coder, cb'er types for the troubles or "cancer" in ham radio seems awfully generalized and unfounded. Can you prove this? Please provide just a few factual cases.

Oh, if you're proud of your amateur license and achievements surrounding ham radio, please dignify us with your CALLSIGN - not RADIO123US. Gee, this sounds like some kind of freebander call... I will reassert my position that all posts should identified by VERIFIED callsigns and/or individual full names.

I earned my Extra Class as a teenager studying electronics at Keesler AFB in the eighties, and was issued callsign NT0J. Since then, I have held KL7DC (Eagle River, AK), and the call KZ9G (after moving back to WI in 2000). I'm proud of my callsign(s), achievements and service. You?

73.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

N7TYB, you are correct, but I think your true goal here is the censor those that you personally do not agree with...whether you do it by private or public means, it's the same thing...and you know it...

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K3UD on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To RF soaked

I posted these numbers in another forum, but sinsce you asked...........

Jim, N2EY keeps up with the license numbers and gets info directly from the FCC database and posts them on the rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroup. I have reposted them below.

licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of July 31, 2003:

Novice - 33,409 (decrease of 15,920)
Technician - 257,791 (increase of 52,397)
Technician Plus - 66,704 (decrease of 62,156)
General - 141,381 (increase of 28,704)
Advanced - 83,141 (decrease of 16,641)
Extra - 104,453 (increase of 25,703)
Total - 686,879 (increase of 12,087)

The base period is the time period when the new licensing rules went into effect.

As you can see, in a bit over 3 years the growth has been 1.791% or an average of .597% per year. This trend projects to just under 6% growth for the decade. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s the growth average was close to 30%.

There is another set of numbers developed from the FCC database by anothe ham and being posted on the QRZ.com
forum that shows that the 97% of technician class licensees reaching the end of the grace date are not renewing their license. This is based on a 6 month sample as we are just getting into the end of grace dates of the first technician class licensees.

(I apologize to others for the cross posting)

73
George
K3UD

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KZ9G, you obviously have not read though the posts from the no-coders on this site. Their main goal is to eliminate ALL testing so they can "talk on the radio"...if it doesn't happen they will WHINE and COMPLAIN until it happens....this CANCER affects all parts of our life today, not just ham radio. The CANCER is laziness...the "why work for it when I can get it for free" generation...there are alot of us that hate to see this happening within ham radio, and feel very passionately about it....alot of us are finally saying enough is enough....

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RFSOAKED on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

OLDFART13:

Ah yes, i didnt even think about that problem. It would be an issue of discerning the Techs from Tech + licensees. 47%? Hmmm, so about half. I can understand why the ARRL doesnt want to upset almost half of the hams out there.

73

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RFSOAKED on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

K3UD:

Thanks for the info! I missed your post until i looked back through. Those numbers are interesting. I was wondering about the actual number of licensed hams as well, and see that you totalled it all up.

73

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by OLDFART13 on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Tnx to K3UD for numbers that separated Tech+ from Tech.
Anyway the amount of Technicians is about 37%.
This doesn’t count the Tech +, but it does include
the Techs that have Morse Credit. Anything at this point would be pure
speculation but I would guess that the amount of no-code techs is fewer than 30%.
We can see that it is below 37%.

But honestly thest numbers don't mean that much in the
code debate because there are lots of no-code techs that don't want to have the CW requirement eliminated
and there are lots of Generals and Extras that do want
it eliminated.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KZ9G on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To RADIO123US:

I've read the no-coders posts for quite awhile. I have also posted several times about this general issue. I'm sure a few know that I stand for limited HF access, and also why.

What I am saying is that we should give no-coders RESTRICTED bandwidth within each applicable HF band, and at reduced power levels. Let's wet their appetite, and entice to keep studying and advancing their technical and CW skills. Personally, I don't believe we'll be flooded with the wrong types if we're good stewards or Elmer’s. In fact, I know of several no-code techs who would make excellent HF operators at this juncture. Not only that, I'm tired of conversing with a bunch of "old farts" on CW or Phone. We need new, younger blood - folks that are my age and younger. Otherwise, this hobby will die with its old timers in 10 to 20 years.

Change is inevitable, guys. Let's embrace it. 73.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KZ9G, I understand exactly where you are coming from, and we tried this experiment in 1991 with the no-code VHF license...the idea was to wet their appetite so that they would upgrade. We ended up with a bunch of no-code techs and few upgrades. What will happen if we allow LIMITED no-code HF access ??..the no-coders will use the HF privileges they get and NEVER upgrade...so all we do is give them something for nothing...the carrot DOESN'T work with them...they are too lazy to care...

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W5AU on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

With the written exam all but eliminated, why should
anyone complain about the extremely reduced requirement
for Morse. Some would like to completely destroy Ham
Radio rather than get off of their lazy butt and earn
their license. The morse requirement should not be
dropped.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KB5FLF on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I didn't have to show I could drive a standard transmission to get a driver's license or demonstrate that I could successfully advance the spark to keep the engine running smoothly. And even Harley Davidsons have electric starters today. When my 10 year old daughter asked me what the radios were for, I told her I could talk to people all over the world. She replied, "Why don't you just use your cell phone."

I think to keep the amateur service alive you will have to attract new young people to fill our ranks. Demanding they learn an archaic mode of operation that some will never use again will not accomplish this. And judging by what I hear on the bands it is no guarantee of continued professional operation.

I think morse code should go the way of spinning wheels, butter churns, and hand crank telephones. Nice to remember, fun to play with, but not necessary for everyday life.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KB5FLF, your analogy is flawed...if you were wanting a license to drive a large bus, or a truck-tractor, you would have to take a test in the vehicle. HF communications go worldwide and because of that, they require more responsibility. We have no way to test responsiblity, but we CAN test dedication and commitment though the simple CW test. If a person has to put forth some effort and commitment to get something, there is more of a chance they will be responsible with it..

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KG4OOA on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Great write up.

K7WVD:

Why don't you take your doctorate to the nice school and keep your liberal opinions there where you and the rest of your Marxist cronies can continue trying to screw the mush brain children of this country and leave the real men to their hobby! I'll fight you there.

If you and the no-coders want to stay, STAY ON VHF AND UHF where techs belong. If you want to earn your privleges then you will be welcome with us.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N0KLU on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

RE: RADIO123US on August 18, 2003...Their main goal is to eliminate ALL testing so they can "talk on the radio"...if it doesn't happen they will WHINE and COMPLAIN ...I dont see too many of the No-Coders whining It's you folks that are hanging so tightly on to your dead horse to see anything in reality...
I did not read anywhere that the supposed "No-Coders" are trying to eliminate ALL testing, infact most have said to make the written even harder! and since you don't have an FCC Callsign you don't even have a voice to speak about the issue here.

The only "Whinners" I read whinning are the the ones that are Know-Code. The FCC Will soon drop the Coded as a REQUIREMENT, not as a mode. Get over it. Soon I'll upgrade to General with or without the code requirement depending if it is droped. I can pass the written General and the written Extra, Working on the Code...everyday 30 min in the AM and 30 Min in the PM,
as I have been for the last year!! No elmering/mentoring by any of the OLD Timers in my area (They are too busy whinning to help any one) BTW as a Technician I am the Phelps County Emergency Coordinator because none of the Generals/Extras had "Time" to invest into thier community They are too busy "talking" on HF about loosing the CW bands/requirements but can't even remember how to use a key anymore......what a joke...I've already Elmered 3 in my first year as a ham and 2 have gotten thier Tech ticket, My sister is awaiting the next test session.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KE2IV on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Aww cripes!

Not again.

Q1: Why do the folks at eHam keep putting this stuff on their site?

Q2: Why do the folks at eHam keep asking for donations?

Q3: See Q1

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KE1MB on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Well, this sure has been around the ben a few times. just me, but I think we have a bigger problem on our hands than pushing a cw test. if BPL becomes a reality your dear cw will take quite a ear and narrow filter to pull out. the floodgates need to be opened and the ham bands need to be populated if we want a majority wins, we need to be that majority.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Code Debate for M

by N1RWC on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

When will all of you realize that this is a dead issue.
The FCC has the final say.
Wake up and smell the coffee folks.

Another ....

BORING

Issue.

I have a philosophy, and it is very true.

The Higher the Education and Degree, the stupider they get.

Fact in Point, a business owner with a teaching PHD couldn't find the gas cap on his Caddy. Had to call AAA for someone to show him where it was.

For those of us who can, do. For those who can't, teach.

The standard philosophy for all educators. Can't do it but I can teach you how.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KZ9G on August 18, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

RADIO123US:

As an active Volunteer Examiner covering about 40 sessions with the ARRL and W5YI VECs throughout the early 1990's, I can say that decent percentage upgraded their no-code licenses during that time. You can't deny that the no-code Technician entry exposed many to ham radio (look at the numbers)! I'm sure it exposed far more than the Novice Class license did for many years prior the no-code Technician kickoff. Sadly, many of the no-coders didn't find that hamming was their thing, and they're no longer with us. Therefore, I believe a restricted, no-code, HF license would greatly enhance our chances of hooking newly licensed hams for life. I believe that incentive licensing in regards to HF frequencies does work...the exception would be those stubborn types who never "upgraded" during the original incentive licensing debacle roughly 30 years ago.

Irregardless of the mode, I plainly remember the thrill of conversing with other hams around the country and world with my 15 and 40 meter Novice station in '81 and '82. I remember starting out with a 40 meter inverted vee, and upgrading to a homebrew 2 element quad for the 15 meter band (as a novice). It was a great time for a teenager growing up in the Midwest. The HF mystique and DX bug hits many. Let's give new no-code hams a taste and hook 'em. 73.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K1CJS on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"Come on Chris, you are still posting this garbage instead of studying to upgrade ? I am on the HF bands almost every day and YES they are crowded."

Yea, and your the only one who hears it? You call-less wonder. Or gutless space waster--whatever! Post under your proper identification--if you get spammed, call in law enforcement.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K1CJS on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"Although they weren't rescued, look at the situation those poor Russian crewman were in when their submarine sank a few years back. When all else failed, the only mode they could communicate in was Morse code by tapping on the hull of the sub!"

This is a bad example of why morse is needed for AMATEUR radio. We are not going to be out in a sunken sub or going down to one. So why do we need morse? Some parts of the military still use it but we're not in the military.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by CWSUKS on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

cw is on the way out so give it up, times are and will change for this mode.!!!!!

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N2LEE on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

-.-. .-- ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. -... . .- -.-. .... --- --- ... . -- .- -.. . -... -.-- . .- -.-. .... --- .--. . .-. .- - .. -. --. .-.-.- -- .- -.- .. -. --. .. - .- .-. . --.- ..- .. .-. . -- . -. - -.. --- . ... -. - -- .- -.- . ... . -. ... . .-.-.- -... ..- - .-. . --.- ..- .. .-. .. -. --. -- --- .-. . -.- -. --- .-- .-.. . -.. --. . --- ..-. --- .--. . .-. .- - .. -. --. .--. .-. --- -.-. . -.. ..- .-. . ... .- -. -.. - . -.-. .... -. .. -.-. .- .-.. . -..- .--. . .-. .. ... . .. ... .- -- ..- ... - .-.-.- .-.. . . -. ..--- .-.. . .

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K1CJS on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"Have we not beat this subject into the ground? For now if you want to upgrade Morse proficiency IS required. Get used to it. When or if it changes, simply follow the new rules and be happy. To Hell with the opinion of anybody else."

Even though I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, you've got the right idea. But nobody will listen.
_______________

N7TYB, I'm sending a letter also. I too am tired of those idiots.
_______________

N0KLU wrote: "BTW as a Technician I am the Phelps County Emergency Coordinator because none of the Generals/Extras had "Time" to invest into thier community"

Funny how thats happening. I hold a tech license and am also a southwestern Bristol County emergency co-ordinator because of the same thing. It seems we do have dedication and commitment, somewhat more than the generals and extras in our areas. Cw needed for commitment? Maybe for commitment to the funny farm!

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To KC7WVD:

Your electrical engineering friends do not have to learn Morse Code to get an amateur radio license. The technician license has not required a morse code exam for over 10 years now.

Vote yes on BPL!!

by NE0P on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I am to the point that I hope this BPL issue passes! I would prefer to see the HF bands go down in flames rather than have them handed over to a bunch of unqualified whining no-coders. I will just go and have fun on 2 meters and up instead-something they can't seem to do.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KC9BNY on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

What a bunch of BS!
I am so tired of this stupid debate. Why not talk about abortion or same sex marriages?
To tell you the truth I hope BPL becomes rampant and so should all of you whacko CW fans. If BPL takes off, I guess the ONLY mode able to get through the interference is CW. So keep it, and I am going to vote for BPL and become its biggest advocate because I am not allowed to talk on the 'privileged' HF frequencies anyway. In fact I hope the FCC takes away ALL of your allocations on HF and leave you with only CW portions, maybe 1-2 KHz (that's all you need right?) So HA HA to you old timers who want to go down with the ship (send some SOS) ok! I won’t be listening and neither will 90% of the other hams. You are nothing but pretentious and conceited wishing to impose your ideals on everyone else, are you sure you are not politicians? Since you are OBVIOUSLY unresponsive to needed change and modernization you all should be living out east in the blackouts (you probably believe that the power grid is just fine and should not be modernized either).

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N2YZS on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Since testing of the other modes is not required, why test CW? The loss of the testing requirement doesn't mean the end of Morse code. Maybe testing of other modes is what should be required(I see alot of nasty PSK31 signals, and there are many overdriven, overcompressed SSB signals out there, too!). When the winds of change blow, you can either ride the winds of change, or be left behind. Let's ride the winds of change, put this subject to rest, and get on with more important issues.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To KC9BNY

Ok, increased abortions will decrease the number of same sex marriages.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Also to KC9BNY:

What evidence is there of this "needed change?" What evidence is there that the status quo for licensing isn't still working?

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by DOODAH on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

yada yada.. laziness... something for nothing.. BORING!

What if you received a genuine letter from the tax man tomorrow that said "Congratulations! You've been selected as one of 100 lucky taxpayers who have been awarded the chance to pay no tax this year! It is entirely optional - either pay your tax as normal this year or pay nothing, the choice is yours!"

Only a fool would pay, I'm fairly sure you wouldn't. So, getting something for nothing is something YOU'D NEVER DO is it? Hypocrites!

Get over it. CW will survive because it's a great mode and plenty of people love telegraphy over radio. Heck, they'd use it over wires (1800s style) if they could, and enjoy it just as much. Maybe, just perhaps, it's the MODE they enjoy more than the radio aspects? Not exactly 'real' amateurs then, if it's the bleeping and hitting keys that gives them the biggest thrill.

Voice modes are for real amateurs!

Anyway, you can shove all your "30MHz boundary" bigotry. If you need to bounce radio off the sky it's not REAL radio, you're cheating.. you're NOTHING without an ionosphere to play with. REAL amateur radio get's there DIRECT! UHF and microwaves is the real thing, baby! However, we don't say "you aint welcome up here unless you cast your own solid dish from molten metal"! Real amateurs are friendly and don't discriminate based upon one chose mode out of many. What a bunch of whining fools there are in this HOBBY!!

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

K1CJS said " Funny how thats happening. I hold a tech license and am also a southwestern Bristol County emergency co-ordinator because of the same thing. It seems we do have dedication and commitment, somewhat more than the generals and extras in our areas. Cw needed for commitment? Maybe for commitment to the funny farm! "

I'm an ARES emergency coordinator too...that doesn't make me better than anyone else...so why should it make you any better ??? It amazes me that you and N0KLU will brag about that fact... you think that should somehow exempt you from taking the test that everyone else has to take to get on HF....what arrogance !!! Why don't you just admit that your too lazy to do it...

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KG4RUL on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To state my point again:

A well written article but, it contains no compelling arguments for the retention of the CW testing requirement. Drop the testing requirements and keep the CW allocations as they currently are.

CW operators will still use their allocations, phone operators will jostle for space in their allocations. If CW is superior, these phone operators will find a compelling need to learn CW.

Now to the real threats to Amateur Radio:

- Spectrum Re-Allocations

- Broadband over Power Lines (BPL)

If you have not already done so, make your voice heard today on these vital issues!!!

73
Dennis - KG4RUL

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KG4RUL said "CW operators will still use their allocations, phone operators will jostle for space in their allocations."

Why should we have to jostle for space with people who didn't EARN the privilege to be there in the first place ? The phone bands are crowded enough already.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KC8WCW on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Sounds like a broken LP to me. No not a CD, an LP.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N8AU on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I am primarily a cw operator, and while I agree that CW is a popular mode, this is not a legitimate argument for singling out CW for testing. Would you require identifying the correct data formats for PSK, packet, amtor, and/or RTTY in order to qualify for an amateur license? If an applicant cannot speak and/or hear, would you disqualify him because he can't operate voice modes? If a person is blind, would you disqualify him because he can't operate ATV?

Let's face it, CW is merely one of many operating modes that hams use. To require that a person who demonstrates he/she knows how his/her radio works, what his/her signal does after it leaves the antenna, and proper procedures for operating, makes as much sense as making someone tear down and rebuild their car, just to get a driver's license.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K1CJS on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"I'm an ARES emergency coordinator too...that doesn't make me better than anyone else..."

In the first place, I never said I was better than anyone else, you're the one with that complex. I made a simple observation about 'dedication and commitment'.

It seems that you think you're better than everyone, while you hide behind your silly nickname. If you had any sense or self worth at all, you'd post under your real name like most everyone else. So you're a subscriber? You sent in a little money so you think YOU'RE better than anyone--you don't have to post your name?

The truth here is you're a gutless coward who doesn't have a license or any real clue to what you really represent here. Now you claim to be a volunteer co-ordinator? Are you sure you're not the emperor of France, too? A vice-president of the ARRL? Maybe a district representative of the FCC?

You are NOTHING until you identify yourself, and I will not acknowledge or answer YOU anymore until you do so.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

K1CJS, you have said the same thing to me before...you can't stand to hear the TRUTH..can you ??? Everytime someone shows you where you are wrong, you lash out at them....why don't you face the fact that you and all the other no-code HF wannabes are WRONG !!! If you want to get on HF...pass the CW test...it's alot easier than trying to argue your losing ideas here...

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

N0KLU, do you have to resort to cussing when you know good and well you are WRONG...!!!

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by CWORDIE on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

SO if you have a callsign for your ID it makes you better than those who don't? Sure sounds like elitism to me.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W2RXB on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Your presentation is well thought out and presented.

You present an excellent reason why CW bands should be
retained.

Unfortunately the logic is poor for requiring all to
demonstrate the ability to send and copy CW

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Why do we require people to know electronics and electical theory? Most people don't modify, build, or repair equipment today. I am sure that the technical aspects of the written test drive away many potential hams who would otherwise make good operators. Seems like a very outdated testing requirement to me. Time to get into the 21st century and eliminate the written test also.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by LU2HLR on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Knock it off guys, CW will be history worldwide soon as an access tool to HF. PERIOD.
Take care of way more important things, OK?
It´s sad to see people here that hurt each other with words about a subject they do not even decide upon.
Look at the facts, the US, 600K hams, wordlwide, what, 1,6 millions?
That number has not changed in years, but what about the world population? Make it in %, it´s a terrible decreasing number! face it!
Let´s do it and as someone has written very well, let´s ride the wave or it will be gone, F O R E W E R.

Axel - LU2HLR, with HF privileges since about 15 years, living in Germany now, with DD8GR CEPT-2 (no HF) license since over 12 years, now I can work HF in Germany as CEPT-2 licenses have become CEPT-1 licences.
I´ve never touched a CW key in my life.
Let´s rag chew on 80, 40, 30, 20 or any other band before the industry finds a better use for it!

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W6OJ on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To N0KLU:

Your eloquence is remarkable.

Whether you are a coder or a no-coder is irrelevant. Your language is a disgrace to all hams and to all mankind.

Have a nice day.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K8LQ on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To N0KLU:

So... are you for the Code or....Not?? Kinda sounded like maybe code is a bad idea huh?

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

N0KLU, if the FCC were to ever remove the code requirement, are you going to revert to the filthy language you used on this site anytime you might get upset with someone on the air ? If you have no self control here, why would anyone think you would have any self control on the air ? Think about it....

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W9TM on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To: NE0P

You're exactly correct. The technical portion of the written test is a filter to all of ham radio, not just hf, and should be eliminated. The basics of the rules and regs should be quizzed, but that's it. Hams who wish to operate complicated modes, homebrew their rigs or accessories or repair/modify commercial equipment will learn what they need to know regardless of a technical entry test. The majority of new entrants, ssb yakity-yakers, only need to know to tune up the Alpha or Henry and spray saliva on the microphone. I don't think the VE's want to test for that!

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 19, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To W9TM:

I agree. Of course you have to be careful how you ask about rules and regs. If you ask what are the allocated frequencies in the 2 meter band, and I never intend to operate 2 meters, then it is an unfair question, because you are forcing me to learn something that I will never use. I guess the only fair way to test is that you would have to specify to the VE team ahead of time exactly what bands and modes you intend to use, and then they would have to make up a special test which covers only those band and modes. Seems like it would be easier to do away with the written test altogether. Even if we dropped both the written and the code test and just handed out licenses, there would be some who would complain that it is too difficult and unfair.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KD6WD on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Except for those with a physical disability, Morse code should be a mandatory requirement. I have a close friend who is is over 70 years old, has dyslexia and passed five words a minute. It took him about 3 months at 20 minutes a day. If you muliply it out it took him about 30 hours to learn the code. I also have to visually impaired friends who learned their code from tapes and are now advanced class hams. Any individual who is not willing to learn code at five words per minute speed does not deserve a license. All you have to do is listen to 11 meters (no license required) to see what lowering the standards will do. There is a tendency in today's society to say everyone is entitled to everything without earning it. I look at Morse code as another item that clearly makes us different from the people on 11 meters. Does anyone really think that someone who has gotten HF priveleges with out paying his dues is going to be a courteous operator? A little sweat equity in getting your General or Extra class license is a good thing. One final thought. I have worked a lot of third world stations on cw. To these stations, a cw only rig was a major investment and was usually homebrewed. Five, Ten, or Fifteen watts was QRO to these hams. Leaving them out of ham radio because no one would then work them seems to me positively obscene. Yes, I like to ragchew just like anyone else on SSB. I can also say, my some of my most memorable contacts in ham radio have been on cw. Pitcairn Island (qrp) when I first got my license. Then the Queen Mary and the Lane Victory prior to its planned departure to Normandy.

Just some thoughts,
kd6wd

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The idea that we test people's ability for receiving only one mode is just plain wrong. Not only do we test CW ability, but we also test voice and digital mode abilities, and we do it for every class of license.

When you show up at the testing site, you have to use voice to tell the VEs why you are there, etc, and you have to understand the instructions they speak to you. So, you have to pass both a sending and receiving test for voice. For CW you only need to pass a receiving test. If you speak in gibberish, they won't understand you and you won't get a license because you flunked to voice sending test. If you suffer from Wernicke's aphasia, and are unable to comprehend spoken language, you will flunk the voice receiving test and not get a license.

At the testing site, you have to read a FCC 605 form well enough to fill it out, and you have to read the written material on the written test. This is essentially a receiving test for the digital modes. How do you copy a digital signal? You read the text on the screen. If you cannot read well enough, then you would flunk the test, unless you can talk the VEs into reading it for you, but then we are back to a voice mode test.

The only mode being excluded is amateur television, both Slow Scan and Fast Scan, unless there are also pictures on the test.

So, the premise that morse code is somehow singled out for testing over all the other modes is wrong. This means, then, that there is no fair reason to eliminate morse testing unless you also eliminate the voice and digital testing.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KD7KGX on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Someone posited that learning Morse for HF access was akin to learning semaphone for VHF access. With all due respect to the poster, that was a stupid comparison.

How could anyone possibly use semaphore via radio? Would you insist that Tech-wannabees demonstrate their semaphore expertise by using SSTV to send each flag?

What makes CW uniquely valuable is that it is the ONLY digital mode that can be decoded and encoded ENTIRELY by a human brain without any extra hardware and with the most basic of transceivers. PSK31 needs a computer, as does RTTY, MFSK, packet, etc.

Any literate ham can buy the hardware and download the software to send any other digital mode without having to develop any expertise in its encoding and decoding. The software does it all. If a basis for demonstrating proficiency in any other HF digital mode is needed, then three or four questions that test computer literacy will suffice. Similarly, conversational skills neccessary for SSB can easily be assessed at the time the aspirant signs up for the test.

How else can CW proficiency be tested except by having the testee demonstrate it by decoding a stream of Morse?

As another poster said, give no-code Techs access to the General HF SSB subbands ONLY. The crowded band conditions should cause many Techs to upgrade to General... and Generals to upgrade to Extra!

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W5UX on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The sunspot numbers are falling. Soon, 20 meters will be a busy place with over 600,000 hams operating there with their very wide and inefficent SSB signals.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by CWORDIE on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To W5UX:

Not me! Should they remove the CW requirement for HF, I will probably go to straight CW operating on HF, and spend alot more time on 30 meters. I suppose that W5YI and the NCVEC wants to eliminate that band completely.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by VE3OSY on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Here is my two cents,

We need new blood in this hobby to keep it alive in the future. The agurement the CW helped weed out the HAM community is lame.

The New Generation growing up today is computer based and learning in a ever changing High Tech environment.
CW is only one of many modes we can enjoy, and who knows what we'll see in the future. If we are to follow our own creed and be a group that developes, and expands new technology then we must realize that times and things change, so must we.

If the rules are amended and CW is dropped as a requirement for license, let the HAM decide for themselves if CW is one of the many aspects of the hobby they wish to pursue.

I still belive for the time being that the CW portions of the bands remain in effect.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by VE2DC on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Good arguments for why we might continue to use CW... I like it becuase it's just plain fun... and is a common bond most amateurs share...

However, I don't think it's a very good case for making it a requirement. If anything, it may be hurting us by making Amateur Radio appear quaint instead of the High-Tech hobby it is.

_ _ ... ... _ _

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by CWORDIE on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

If we need more hams, then lets drop the written requirement as well. Most people who want to get into radio want to communicate, not learn a bunch of useless (to them) electronic theory. Times have changed, we are now appliance operators. We need to change with the times.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AC7GO on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Whether or not CW is retained as a test criterion, effective testing is needed to keep the number of poor operators small.

Poor operators could be defined as: (1) those who do not know enough about the law to operate legally, (2) those who don't know enough about the technology of radio, antennas, and propagation to operate effectively and without interference, and (3) those who operate illegally or who interfere out of a lack of common sense and courtesy.

The third category are the ones who have ruined CB, and who have the potential to ruin ham radio. People of common sense and courtesy will eventually gain the technical and legal understanding to operate well. People lacking common sense and courtesy don't.

No amount of testing can weed out all discourteous and illegal operators - we still hear a few of them on the ham bands. But a good stiff exam of any form does weed out most of them. And the study required to pass a good stiff exam helps educate people about the law and about the technology. Morse or no Morse, just make the exams meaningful.

We probably need to make the exams more meaningful. My suggestion is to close the question pool and give open book exams. Each person taking the exam would be allowed any books or materials he or she wants, including a calculator, a copy of FCC regulations pertaining to ham radio, technical text books, a band plan, etc. This would encourage people to become truly knowledgeable, rather than simply memorizing answers. The current question pool has too many questions that deal with trivial pieces of information. You just have to memorize the answers to such questions. With an open book exam, applicants would have to come to enough understanding of the law to know where the legal information is found, and they would have to gain an understanding of the technical principles.

Currently BPL is threatening HF communications for all services. Very few ham operators are well enough educated in the law and in the technology to effectively comment to the FCC. Most of our comments to the FCC lack substance, and that may hurt us. If exams were administered in such a way as to promote real understanding of the law and the technology we would be in a much better position to preserve the utility of HF communication in the battle over BPL.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W3DCG on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

And 5 wpm required hurts us how again?
5 year olds have learned 5 words per minute and beyond.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W5UX on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I am for compromise. Why not make the code test one word per minute? Let us not badmouth CBers and no-coders. I am sure they are doing the best they can.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The no-coders would complain if it was 1 character per minute. They just do not want to have to EARN their license. They are better than that...they think the FCC should just give it to them for free...

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KC5NYJ on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Just throwing this in the pile....

Interesting to note this concept of allowing small HF segments for no-code ops to use phone and CW has been run up the flagpole many times in the past and met with mostly derisive remarks, akin to the previous two replies. This time, however, I see many who understand the idea that "weeding out" hams by means of CW is shortsighted. Imagine if we simply kept our children locked in their rooms until which point they mastered the English language on their own. My point is, for some ops, having access to some limited HF slots would give an opportunity to have somebody to practice with. Sure, the first rattle out of the box will be something along the lines of either:

a. LEARN IT ON YOUR OWN THE WAY I DID.
or
b. YOU'LL JUST MUCK UP THE BAND FOR THE REST OF US. GO FIND SOMEBODY ON 2m TO PRACTICE WITH.

I don't believe either is valid. Personally, I would welcome the opportunity to hone my skills with a real person, rather than a PC program or by listening to endless strings of characters. In addition, this would open an opportunity for Real Elmering by Real Hams, you know, the ones who are really concerned about novice ops running out of kilter or out of band. Have you heard 2m or anything above 6m lately? The majority of folks there are not going to sit down and practice with each other either for lack of equipment or lack of interest. I admit, personally, I have a lack of interest in sitting alone with the Koch method. I'd rather find somebody on the band to work with.

There are lots of smart folks out here who have plenty of experience with rules, regulations (ever kept a commercial broadcast station in compliance with the FCC? How about 6? There's much more to it than changing patterns on time and keeping an EAS log) and RF equipment operation. Almost anybody with a professional occupation has dealt with procedures and protocol. Almost anybody with half a lick of sense has dealt with some level of mandatory compliance in their life. Too bad so many hams don't want us around for lack of a "common ground". Too bad the only "common ground" espoused by so many has nothing to do with learning regulations, transmitter operation, antenna theory, HF courtesy, etc. I'd venture to say the average newly licensed 5wpm General or above has as good a chance of screwing up the band as does anyone else. Why? Because there has been NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE on the band and sometimes no practical experience with SSB. You can't learn to drive flawlessly by reading a book and listening to tapes. You can't learn to ride dirtbikes by riding a street bike. At some point, you have to jump on the dirtbike, take off and probably go head over heels a few times to get the hang of it. How quickly would you learn to ride that dirtbike if the track is only open at widely spaced random times and dates, with little forewarning, as is our (tech) "track" on 6&2m?

Jumping from repeaters to 20 meters is the same leap in procedure and protocol for a new CW op as it would be for a purely phone and digital VHF/UHF op and no amount of CW testing will ensure a person can or will follow proper radio etiquette.

JMHO and I don't really care one way or the other. If I have to learn CW, so be it. It's the principle, reasoning and argument behind it that seem totally incongruous to me.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W5HTW on August 20, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Not one person here is aware the decision is already made. This is a total waste of everyone's time. It does, however, give eHam a whole bunch of hits for their advertisers. And that is the ONLY entity getting any benefit at all out of this - or any other CW/no-CW - thread on any forum.

What does the FCC think of ham radio?

1. They stopped dedicating their resources to ham radio testing.

2. They stopped requiring license modification (new call sign) when moving from one district to another, as it was a burden to them to keep up with that. (We actually should dispense with call areas entirely, but that's another story.)

3. They combined the Tech and Tech Plus tickets in their database, for simplification.

4. They simplified the licensing restructure, and standardized Morse testing at 5 WPM. No longer necessary to maintain records of three different code levels.

5. They shifted the vanity call program to ARRL responsibility.

6. They shifted "local interference" for CB to local authorities.

7. They do not dedicate their HF DF facility to use on the ham bands (though it is hard to figure out what that facility IS used for!)

There is practically zero possibility they will not take the first possible opportunity to further simplify (read: lighten) their burden as it concerns ham radio.

We do not contribute any funding to the FCC's operation, certainly nothing at all in compared to business radio systems and local government systems. We are, to put it bluntly, a headache, and we are a rapidly growing one. We tend only to bitch and complain and we give little in return. Sure it is said that we perform emergency and public service. The figures show that a bit differently, as under 5,000 hams per year (out of over 600,000!) are ever involved in any aspect of public service. About, according to a report from the ARRL, 1700 per year participate in emergency operations. Clearly we do not "justify" our existence by public service!

Likewise we do not provide that pool of experienced electronics experts specified in Part 97. We haven't for years. By "expert" we believe zooming through a very basic test makes us equivalent to a professional with formal training. Too many of us seem to think ham radio is a shortcut to a Bachelor's Degree in Electronics! Another "quick and easy" route to real authority. A very large percentage of our so-called "experts" can't even read an ohmmeter! Seriously! We are no more experts than the person who just passed his driver's license test is a qualified professional driver.

Besides that, we aren't even needed in that capacity! The military no longer needs to have a pool of ham reserves ready for call up in national emergency. They specialize. A keyboardist never touches a radio. A radio repairman never touches a key, or a keyboard. They no longer need, and they don't want, the Jack of all trades the ham was when the FCC rules were written. The days when a ham could put a radio on the air, and keep it there, and operate it too, in military situations, are long gone. They prefer to get their own people and train them from scratch. A ham license is NOT a qualification for anything at all, except to operate a ham radio.

It is not a good job qualifying factor, either. Yes, there was a time a ham ticket would at least be considered as one of the possible qualifying factors for a technical job. But today hams are known as tinkerers, who would rather play than do the job they are required to do in a professional atmosphere. And they are known as people who, by great amounts, over-value their importance and their knowledge. Few companies, except those directly involved in ham radio, are interested in hiring a ham.

Our amateur radio experts are actually LAN experts. They know how to program a computer, maintain a network, plug in a sound card, set up a router. And they are probably good at that. But they have no idea how to work on a "radio."

Sure, there are exceptions, and I know I'll hear about them. But look around you before you start with the opposition. Check out your ham friends and ask yourself how much they really know about 'electronics' and 'radio' - the technical side of it - before you decide they really are radio experts.

And besides, who needs a 'radio expert?! We buy it, plug it in, turn it on, and we talk. Nothing special about all that.

We need a reality check. We need to learn what it takes to be a 'professional' and not an 'amateur' and then compare the two. We need to evaluate the hobby, and realize it IS a hobby. It no longer has to justify itself as a "service" anymore than the Citizen's Radio Service has to justify itself as a "service." Or the "Family Radio Service."

The FCC needs to look at Part 97 and compare it to what ham radio really is today, and what is expected of it. Then it needs to be revised accordingly. It doesn't come close to reality.

If that means getting rid of Morse, I'm sure they will do that. If it means getting rid of technical testing, I would not be in the slightest bit surprised to see that go as well. If it means going to the old CB way of filling out a 'certification I have read the rules and will comply' that honestly would not surprise me, either.

No matter what, though, the decision is already made, and has long been made. The FCC has openly admitted in the past that, as a matter of policy, they require Morse testing "because international law requires it." That alone is justification for it to be removed, in their eyes. The other reasons (we are a pain in the butt, for example!) will be just gravy on the plate.

Then, when they authorize BPL, they can happily say goodby to this amateur thorn, as well as CB and the Freebanders.

Well, just one man's opinion, of course. Enjoy!

And a Good night to all!

73
ed

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AE6IP on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

[I sure hope the author has his tongue in his cheek, but I think I'll answer as if he didn't.]

> When you show up at the testing site, you have to
> use voice to tell the VEs why you are there, etc,
> and you have to understand the instructions they
> speak to you.

Nice try, but you're wrong. We VEs are required to accomodate handicapped individuals. If someone who is deaf and dumb comes in with there ASL interpretter, we'll accomodate them, and they'll be tested entirely, from their view point, in silence.

> At the testing site, you have to read a FCC 605 form
> well enough to fill it out, and you have to read the
> written material on the written test.

Sorry, wrong again. We VEs are required to accomodate handicapped individuals. If someone who is blind comes in, we'll even read them the test. I suppose if Helen Keller showed up with her "Teacher", we'd let her test even though she was blind, dumb and deaf.

see 97.509(i)

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by VE2QNC on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Within a few years Americans will be alone speaking "CW" if they retain that outdated opinion. "Franca lingua" will become a near dead language only spoken between dynosaure on a specific spot on the earth! That is as nice as was black and white TV. But don't try to make it mandatory to everyone's house NOW! Don't try to force the reintroduction of the Commodore 64 or the petroleum lamp. It's done!!!

The vast majority of the countries will drop the requirement very shortly : Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Norway have done it already. Let's see who will remain a year from now! Next...

MORSE IS HISTORY.

by KQ6XA on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

.
MORSE IS HISTORY
.
AMATEUR RADIO'S CHOICE: FUTURE OR HISTORY?
The time has come for the Amateur Radio Service to either graduate into the 21st century or get expelled from it.

SPECTRUM: USE IT OR LOSE IT
Listen to the vacuum of space on the lower half of 80 meters, 17 meters, 15 meters, 12 meters or 10 meters. It is ripe for the taking by BPL!
It is no coincidence that the BPL threat and the move to eliminate morse testing for HF are happening simultaneously.

LOST: 30% OF ALL HIGHLY QUALIFIED OPERATORS
We have lost too many highly qualified radio operators and radio experimenters as a result of the morse testing requirement barring them from HF.
Who knows, maybe we lost the person who would have invented a technology for amateur HF voice in a 500Hz bandwidth!

EXPERIENCE OF A MORSE TEACHER
I have personally taught morse code to 50 operators. Some of them mastered it easily. Only 2 of them are currently "CW ops" (myself and one other). 15 intelligent, motivated people out 50 could not learn morse. They knew they wanted to operate HF. We lost 30% of them. Is 30% important? Well, if you are one of those 30%, it is.

CLINGING TO THE SPARK GAP PAST?
Although my personal code speed has diminished over the years from 45WPM to about 35WPM copy, I still enjoy operating CW with a straight key, a bug, or a keyer... QRP and QRO. Perhaps, after our generation is gone, there will be even fewer hams operating CW on the air. There are very few hams these days operating spark gap. Does that make me sad? No. Time marches on, change happens. Morse, like the spark gap, is part of radio's history. There is nothing wrong with that!

URGENT AND COMPELLING NEED
There is no compelling need any more for morse testing. In fact, we have a compelling need to end it as soon as possible.

MORSE IS HISTORY

Bonnie KQ6XA

RE: MORSE IS HISTORY.

by OLDFART13 on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

>>>>>>"MORSE IS HISTORY"
Bonnie KQ6XA<<<<<<<

You keep posting the same comment on every thread on eham.
I guess if you keep posting you may even start to believe it.
I realize that your brains are turning into crystals
because you have been down in the caves too long.

There are some hams that may actually still want to earn their license and
not have one just giving to them for memorizing some answers. The CW
exam is the only thing we have left to show that a ham has some dedication
and will work for the privilege of ham radio. I know that there are others that
just want it given out to them like foodstamps. Perhaps they can get their
license the same time they pick up their welfare checks.

RE: MORSE IS HISTORY.

by RADIO123US on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KQ6XA said "LOST: 30% OF ALL HIGHLY QUALIFIED OPERATORS "

Define qualified...you definition is probably different than alot of other people's definition. It seems that most of the no-coders only want to require the person is breathing... Just because a person has a desire to get on the HF bands doesn't automatically qualify them for a license...

KQ6XA said "SPECTRUM: USE IT OR LOSE IT "

Another one of the no-code lies (and there's alot of them)..the bands we need to worry about losing are in the VHF/UHF bands , and not on HF. If the no-coders are so worried about losing frequencies, then why arn't they recruiting more no-coders for the VHF/UHF bands.....it's because they don't care about saving the bands, they just want to get on HF, and will tell any lie to get it approved.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KN4LF on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

For all you low coders and no coders, hate to tell you this but some insider friends of mine at the FCC tell me that the ssslllooowww 5 wpm code test will be retained for at least another 5-7 years.

By the looks of the dumb questions that the new low code Amateur Extra's ask on the various e-lists, the no coders in 5-7 years will be a nightmare.

RE: MORSE IS HISTORY.

by OLDFART13 on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

>>>>>KQ6XA said "LOST: 30% OF ALL HIGHLY QUALIFIED OPERATORS "
Define qualified...you definition is probably different than alot of other people's definition. It seems
that most of the no-coders only want to require the person is breathing... Just because a person
has a desire to get on the HF bands doesn't automatically qualify them for a license...

KQ6XA said "SPECTRUM: USE IT OR LOSE IT "

Another one of the no-code lies (and there's alot of them)..the bands we need to worry about
losing are in the VHF/UHF bands , and not on HF. If the no-coders are so worried about losing
frequencies, then why arn't they recruiting more no-coders for the VHF/UHF bands.....it's because
they don't care about saving the bands, they just want to get on HF, and will tell any lie to get it
approved. <<<<<<<<<

The highly qualified applicants were here CB good buddies who read her book “The
World of CB Radio.” The last chapter was about whining about the hard exams to
become a ham and that if you whined long enough they would just give you a Ham (CB)
license without putting forth any effort.

Also, there is no threat of us loosing any HF portion of the bands. In fact, if she would
get off of her CB every once in a while she would realize that we have a new HF band. It
is called 60 meters. Our only threat is BPL and more hams is not going to change that!

KQ6XA is a troll who posted this same misinformation on numerous threads here on
eHam. My guess is that it posted it’s propaganda on QRZ but I don’t even go there.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N2NZJ on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

While CW is an old and historic mode of operation since 1844 to the present time many HAM'S across the world enjoy that mode. however it is now time to put it aside as a test requirement. as specified at WRC-03. WE SHOULD KEEP THE CW/ DATA SUB-BANDS AS THEY ARE NOW ALLOCATED. we should respect each other and at least try to get along after all we are a fraternity and unity does MATTER. LET US ALL BASH ON THE BPL MATTER.not each other. BTW this is a very good article about THE CW MODE. BEST 73'S TO ALL DE N2NZJ TOM.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W8VOM on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Why not just let the "Majority" decide this issue? Who cares what the rest of the world does! If a majority of amateurs in the USA support the retention of Morse Code Testing,then keep it! We are a democracy,I will accept whatever decision is made. However...I do not see any organization petitioning for the *retention* of code testing.Not even FISTS or the ARRL.Other groups are already petitioning for an end to testing. Perhaps the majority IS calling for an end to testing!!! Where are all the code supporters and where is their petition to retain code testing? Granted..they give their opinions in forums but not where it counts. People who support the retention of code testing have been preempted by the opposition. If we fail to retain code testing in the USA it will be because nobody really cared enough to do anything to retain it. What is FISTS waiting for? What are YOU waiting for? If we care to retain Morse testing in the USA,we better unite fast or conngratulate the worthy competition on their victory.
This is a Victory they worked for and earned.They were well organized while we threw it all away.

RE: Why We Should NOT Retain a Morse Requirement

by YEPSURE on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

So KN4LF is chummy with the FCC, eh? Wow, your our hero! We really appreciate you telling us your "in" with the FCC.

That said, CW is a losing mode that has it's days numbered, plain and simple. And we'll see about the 5-7 years thing.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KD6JLS on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I was amused by this:

"If we don't require people to learn it, they probably won't in the future, and in 50 years or so there will be no CW operations going on, because no one will know it."

By this you must mean that Morse Code really isn't all that useful after all. If it was, people would still use Morse Code by choice and interest 50 years from now, not just because they are required to learn it.

Are you suggesting that we test the code simply for reasons of nostalgia? That would seem to be what you imply.

All the points cited in the article make a great case for chosing to use CW as a hobby if you are interested in it. None of the arguments justify testing for it. There are a lot of technologies I hope are on the trash heap of history 50 years from now, replaced by something better. There's no reason Morse shouldn't be one of them.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KD6JLS on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Another point of interest:

"some insider friends of mine at the FCC tell me that the ssslllooowww 5 wpm code test will be retained for at least another 5-7 years."

Interesting. This, of course, indicates that the FCC is thinking about *when* to drop the code, not *if*. The end is in sight. It's just a matter of time, and even the FCC knows it.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K5OO on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

It is obvious that keeping the fundamental code testing outweighs getting rid of it. Learning code is not popular with everyone and never has been, but might be beneficial someday. Very good points made by the author. We don't need more numbers as bad as we need better operators to keep ham radio around for the future. I would much rather be communicating with a ham that knows the code than one that does not.....just in case we have "something" go wrong and an emergency arises.

RE: MORSE IS HISTORY.

by N3EVL on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"...There are some hams that may actually still want to earn their license and
not have one just giving to them for memorizing some answers..."

Of course there are - I would hope the majority of prospective hams want a licence that represents something earned - but why must we perpetuate the cw test as the _only_ means of demonstrating this aptitude? You imply something is wrong or broken but instead of offering a long-term solution you propose a band-aid. Maybe having candidates walk over hot coals would prove their mettle to you! This hair shirt stuff is not a valid argument.

"...The CW exam is the only thing we have left to show that a ham has some dedication and will work for the privilege of ham radio..."

I disagree that is is the only thing but even if it is, that in itself doesn't justify its continuation. Testing for cw proficiency will not make up for deficiences in the technical/operating side. Again, you suggest there is a problem buf don't offer a relevant solution.

"...I know that there are others that
just want it given out to them like foodstamps. Perhaps they can get their
license the same time they pick up their welfare checks..."

I just don't buy into this theory that someone who doesn't believe in a cw proficiency test's relevance is automatically a lazy good-for-nothing. Yes, there are some who post here who present that aspect but IMHO, they are a small minority and do not represent the majority of potential HF users. Many who post here in favor of removal of the testing requirement are long-time cw users - where do they fit into this perverted view of things? They presumably put in this effort you value so highly. If you can't find a more convincing argument than this for the retention of cw proficency testing then I suspect your cause is already lost.

WRT the original posting - mostly good comments on the validity of cw - the mode, but nothing in the way of an argument that convinces me that testing should be retained for access to HF.

73, Pete

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WA4DOU on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

As far as I'm concerned, I don't give a rats ass if the wannabees never get a license, or any particular license. Furthermore, let the public record indicate that I said, let them eat cake. If you want a ham license bad enough, you'll comply with whatever requirements are in place at the time. But to continually agitate for the elimination of a simple requirement that requires little personal effort to achieve has done more to permanently fracture amateur radio and create a gulf than anything else that has ever transpired in the past few decades in amateur radio.
You will find little sympathy among those of us that would have risen to any level necessary to achieve obtaining an amateur license. I will personally put my money where my mouth is and only support organizations that support a retention of the code. I implore my fellow amateurs to do likewise.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W8VOM on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To: WA4DOU I agree but I cant find a "single" organization that will go on "record" as supporting
the *retention* of Morse code testing! I just cant find them..FISTS has not gone on record as far as supporting the retention of testing,at least not that I am aware of. That is the whole problem,no organization wants to go on record as supporting the retention of Morse code testing.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N3EVL on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"...As far as I'm concerned, I don't give a rats ass
if the wannabees never get a license, or any
particular license..."

Then it is to be hoped that you are in the minority department otherwise you represent the death knell of the hobby.

"...Furthermore, let the public record indicate that I said, let them eat cake. If you want a ham license bad enough, you'll comply with whatever requirements are in place at the time..."

Whereas I would prefer to embrace change when it inevitably comes along and accept that what once was relevant is no longer.

"...But to continually agitate for the elimination of a simple requirement that requires little personal effort to achieve has done more to permanently fracture amateur radio and create a gulf than anything else that has ever transpired in the past few decades in amateur radio..."

Change for change's sake is, of course not to be applauded but continuation of the status-quo based on a misperception that those suggesting change are automatically doing so out of the motive of laziness is worse, and in this case in error.

"...You will find little sympathy among those of us that would have risen to any level necessary to achieve obtaining an amateur license..."

If you imply that all who have already tackled and overcome the cw obstacle automatically believe in its continuation, then you are sadly misinformed.

73, Pete

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N3EVL on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I just visited the FISTS web site and folllowed the link http://www.fists.org/what-is.html which states their objectives, which are:

1)To further the use of CW on the amateur bands
2)To encourage newcomers to the CW mode
3)To engender friendship within the membership

These are all goals which I support without hesitation - I may even join them!

I see no mention of cw-as-filter or cw-as-right-of-passage or cw-means-real-ham or any of the other rhetoric so often put forward as an argument for retention of cw testing.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N0KLU on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

W8VOM and WA4DOU Isn't it amazing? no organization wants to suport "retention" of the Code requirement?
Does this tell you something??? scratch your heads now and think....duhhh....more people want it NOT to be a requirement!

If you want an organization to "supportt the Code" then create one!!! and see if you get any members! then throw your weight around.

So either shut up and sit down or stand up and create one....either way quit complaining!

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

N0KLU, don't be surprised when the ARRL says it supports keeping the code requirement....

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by TECH2003 on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

N0KLU, you make a very good point here. The fact is that most people don't want CW exams and they want easier exams. The time for hard exams and CW to be eliminated is now. We are moving forward with progress. I don't see why some of the old hams can't see this.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W8VOM on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To N0KLU, I already have what you and so many other unmotivated "excuse" makers want! I took the time and got my 13 wpm code.Yes..I was willing to do the work!

I am not complaining,I just pointed out a *fact* that nobody else "noticed" in this forum!!! Not a *single* organization has gone on record in support of *retaining* Morse code "testing". The ARRL and FISTS may support it in the 11th hour but by then it will be far too late.One would think that FISTS would be right on top of this issue but not a word so far.All I am saying is that in my opinion, an 11th hour rally to retain testing will not work.

Since an organization who promotes Morse code already exists,that organization should take a stand on the issue.Perhaps they are "sure" that the requirement will stand without their input. If that is their position, they are taking great risk by waiting till the 11th hour to take a stand!

Other petitions now have momentum,I do not look for the ARRL or FISTS to chime in any time soon.That is a huge mistake!!! NOW is the time for them to make a stand not 6 months from now.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 22, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

If the code requirement is eliminated I will cancel all of my VE accreditations. I urge any self respecting VE who actually cares about ham radio to do the same. I would rather seem amateur radio die out than to turn into another 11 meter band.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N3EVL on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"...Since an organization who promotes Morse code
already exists,that organization should take a stand
on the issue.Perhaps they are "sure" that the
requirement will stand without their input. If that
is their position, they are taking great risk by
waiting till the 11th hour to take a stand!..."

No, they understand that promotion of morse code and
support of continued morse code testing for an HF
permit are _not_ the same thing and that the code will
survive (on its own merits) regardless.

"...If the code requirement is eliminated I will
cancel all of my VE accreditations..."

Ok, take your ball home and don't play any more. This VE will redouble his efforts to bring people into the service.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

N3EVL wrote: Ok, take your ball home and don't play any more. This VE will redouble his efforts to bring people into the service.

And this VE believes in the importance of standing on principle. I believe that amateur radio operators should demonstrate a knowledge of morse code, and am not going to cave in on those beliefs just so everyone likes me, or thinks I am a great guy. Part of the problem with America today is that far too many people compromise their principles for popularity.

I also can't believe the hypocritacy which occurs over this issue-people state thinks like "Eliminate the CW test but make the written test harder." How in the world is that fair? Say one form of knowledge is more important that another? Isn't that the argument you use against retaining the CW requirement. If we need more hams, is making the written test harder going to do it? NO! That seems like a no-brainer.

Or how about KQ6XY's statement (to summarize) "30% of the people I know can't pass the CW test, so it should be eliminated." At the last test session I attended, 75% of the people couldn't pass the written test. Doesn't that mean it should be eliminated? I am sure that there are many potentially good operators out there who want to become hams, but who don't want to learn about electronic theory, sky wave propagation, or operating procedures for bands they will never operate on. Why discriminate against them? Why tell people who can't pass a written test that you are not true hams, and that you are not as good as us? Listen to the bands today (especially 75 meters), the written test has done nothing to screen out bad operators, as many of the worst ones have passed the highest written test. Since it doesn't work, instead of making it tougher, we need to eliminate it. That is the argument that we hear made against CW all of the time.

I at least am consistent-keep them both, or eliminate them both.

Also, no one has petitioned the FCC to keep the code test because you don't petition agencies to keep current policy. You only petition agencies to change policy, so it looks like the CW crowd is loosing. FISTS is like many other organizations today-they have sold out their principles for the buck. They will take any sort of wishy washy stand if it will mean more dues paying members. I don't know much about FISTS, but I wouldn't join them now if it were free.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N3EVL on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"...And this VE believes in the importance of standing
on principle. I believe that amateur radio operators
should demonstrate a knowledge of morse code, and am
not going to cave in on those beliefs just so everyone
likes me, or thinks I am a great guy. Part of the
problem with America today is that far too many people
compromise their principles for popularity..."

And this VE believes in having a sane, well
thought out examination/licensing policy that is
balanced. By all means test people to ensure they know
enough to qualify but recognize that the learning
process begins in earnest once they are "in," not before.

"...I also can't believe the hypocritacy [sic] which
occurs over this issue-people state thinks
like "Eliminate the CW test but make the written test
harder." How in the world is that fair? Say one form
of knowledge is more important that another? Isn't
that the argument you use against retaining the CW
requirement. If we need more hams, is making the
written test harder going to do it? NO! That seems
like a no-brainer..."

The challenge is to make the testing requirements
balanced and relevant. I would substitute "harder"
with "better." Retention of the cw test for its own
sake is just burying our heads in the sand.

"...I at least am consistent-keep them both, or
eliminate them both..."

Then your consistency ignores rather than fixes any
of the known problems.

"...I don't know much about FISTS, but I wouldn't join
them now if it were free..."

That of course, is your decision. I cannot speak
for them (FISTS) but I suspect they know that the CW
mode is vibrant enought to stand on its own feet
without the need for testing as an artificial prop and
will, with their good efforts, continue to attract
operators.

73, Pete

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

So what is the current problem with the licensing requirements that need to be fixed? They seem to work pretty good right now.

73s John NE0P

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W8VOM on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"I cannot speak
for them (FISTS) but I suspect they know that the CW
mode is vibrant enough to stand on its own feet
without the need for testing as an artificial prop and
will, with their good efforts, continue to attract
operators."

Sure CW will stand on it's own feet for awhile but how long
will it stand when it is no longer *required*. Are you saying
that people will be even "more" motivated to learn the code
when it is *not* required? I think you are selling out on your
principles so that you can be "Popular" with the new crowd.
I see the same thing in my area. I do not believe that ending
Morse code testing will add to our numbers. CW is not keeping
people out of the hobby! As for FISTS,I believe they should
make a stand on this issue NOW not in the 11th hour. FISTS
would be the first to complain about any loss of the sub-bands.
If they take no stand on retaining Morse code as a requirement
they do themselves and their members an injustice.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N3EVL on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"...So what is the current problem with the licensing
requirements that need to be fixed?..."

I just feel we're overdue for a look at the big picture
that would includue part 97 rules and where we fit in
as a service, what technologies should we know or have
some familiarity with up front, how we structure ourselves
as a service, what does all of this mean for
license structure, incentives etc. Maybe after looking
at all of this we say we're just fine, maybe not. The
recent focus on HF that has arisen from the BPL issue
has made me wonder about many aspects of what HR is all
about in the 21st Century. Are we too biased toward HF
in terms of our license structure etc? Many posters on
the cw issuse (both sides) have suggested that the
current exam scheme is too easy, can be memorized etc.
I do not necessarilly agree with this opinion but am
in favor of ensuring that a HR license is earned as
opposed to given away. That goal can best be achieved
only in the context of a comprehensive review.

73, Pete

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N3EVL on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"...Are you saying
that people will be even "more" motivated to learn the code
when it is *not* required? I think you are selling out on your
principles so that you can be "Popular" with the new crowd..."

No, I am saying that if the CW mode is all of the
things it is purported to be (most of which I agree
with) then its continued existence is not in doubt. If
it is not, then preservation of the testing requirement
will not save it. I use cw because I enjoy it, not
because I was made to take a test in it. When I
started to use it, I practically had to learn it all
over again since taking the test was quite a while ago.

I do not categorize hams in new or old crowds as you
comment suggests. They are all people with an interest
in radio communication who may either benefit from my
experience or from whom I may learn something new. I
have compromised nothing.

73, Pete

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W8VOM on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"Also, no one has petitioned the FCC to keep the code test because you don't petition agencies to keep current policy. You only petition agencies to change policy, so it looks like the CW crowd is loosing. FISTS is like many other organizations today-they have sold out their principles for the buck. They will take any sort of wishy washy stand if it will mean more dues paying members. I don't know much about FISTS, but I wouldn't join them now if it were free. "

You most certainly can petition the FCC to keep the code test IF and only IF someone else has
petitioned them for a rules change! As of this writing..No CW or Morse code supporting organization is taking a stand on this issue! We do NOT have to let these *other* petitions go unchallenged without comment.

To let these *new* petitions go through unchallenged till the 11th hour will ensure the death of code
*testing* in the USA. Now this is not a concern if that is what we really want! However...if we want to
retain Morse testing and the requirement in this country,waiting till the 11th hour is poor strategy.

One would think that FISTS would see this and act now to preserve the requirement.

If FISTS waits too long on this issue, the code will be dropped in the USA.I will not renew my membership with FISTS unless they take a TIMELY stand on this issue. If they do not defend the Morse code requirement,they should have "no complaint" when the sub bands are challenged! If they think the two issues are not related..we are in Big Trouble!... W8VOM

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WA4DOU on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

An eham.net survey question appeared on Feb. 11,2002 asking "Should the FCC/IARU remove the morse code component of a Ham license for access to the Amateur bands below 30 mhz?"

There were 2653 votes and 145 comments. 776 respondees comprised 29% of the vote and supported removing the code. 1877 votes (71%)were cast in opposition to removal of the code.

On the ARRL website, dated March 10th, 2003, a poll was conducted that asked the question, "What percentage of your operating time is spent using cw?"

There were 3073 respondees. 1002 of them answered that they do not operate cw at all. They comprised 32.6% of the poll takers. 17.1% (525) responded that they operated cw less than 25%. 6.2% (192) responded that they operated cw 26-50% of the time. 8.6% (265) poll takers asnwered that they operated cw 51-75% of the time and 35.4% (1089) answered that they operated cw 76-100% of the time.

There are a few posts here on eham.net that would suggest that there is overwhelming support for the elimination of cw as a testing requirement for a license. As of a year ago, I took the liberty of examining all the polls up to that time to see how large the responses were and found none were as large or larger. Therefore, I concluded that this topic is the number one hot button in amateur radio today.

Those that want the requirement eliminated, zealously exagerate the numbers that support their position. They are now being joined by those who advocate elimination of all technical testing and of the cw subbands.

Those of you who do not favor abolishing cw as a testing requirement, don't be fooled. The FCC has gone on record as having stated that they hold no position on the issue and will let amateur radio licensees themselves decide the issue. There are many more of us than "them." Abolishment of cw is the last barrier to throwing open the floodgates to the "new wonderful world" of "the communicator ham " who has no interest in radio as a science & art but wishes to communicate only. 45 years of CB radio should serve as due notice where amateur radio is headed if they have their way.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W8VOM on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

WA4DOU post shows that there is a clear "majority" that favors retention of Morse code as a requirement!
We are a Democracy,the majority has spoken on this issue. What each country chooses to do is up to them,USA amateurs favor retainig the Morse requirement.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WK3C on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KC7WVD wrote a great response! My experience as an RF engineer over the past 33 years is exactly the same as his. LOTs of very technically qualified people who would have become very good hams had it not been for the "Morse filter," which as he points out has been used to keep the numbers of hams down.

That's why I've been so involved with NCI over the past several years. We need those people and can't afford to turn them away any longer.

Carl - wk3c
Executive Director, No Code International
http://www.nocode.org

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WK3C on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Dan, N7YTB, said "I think it is about time to get rid of the anonymous jerks who are stirring up the pot and hiding behind anonymous ID's."

While I don't know Dan's views on the Morse testing issue, I agree with him 100% on the anonymous trolls who are stirring the pot with misinformation about everybody from NCI to the NCVECs to the ARRL.

I also encourage the management of the site to get rid of those who aren't willing or don't have the courage to use their callsigns and let folks know who they really are ...

Carl - wk3c

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WK3C on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

NE0P said," If the code requirement is eliminated I will cancel all of my VE accreditations. I urge any self respecting VE who actually cares about ham radio to do the same."

As well you should with that sort of attitude ... your unwillingness to welcome and accept newcomers does NOT make you a very good "ambassador of goodwill" for the Amateur Radio Service.

Not to worry, there will be plenty of recently-minted Extras to take your place ... folks who WILL welcome newcomers without the prejudice that you exude.

Someone should take a Wouff Hong to you!

Carl - wk3c

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by OLDFART13 on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Yes carl, it will be the new No-Code CB extras that
we will be getting a lot of. You know the type that
get their extra in one day that don't know didly squat.
Free license no brain or work required. Thanks to
NCCI: No Cranial Capacity International. The NCI board
members should be hung to death.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To NCI and those others who want HF access without having to learn CW. The FCC has already set up HF privleges that don't require a CW test-it is called the citizen's band. Now when you suggest this, many no-code defenders will slip into the same attitude they accuse the pro-coders of: they will state that they are better than CBers and deserve a better place to operate. Well they aren't. None of us are. A radio operator is a radio operator whether they do it on 15 meters, 11 meters, or 1750 meters. There is nothing wrong with VHF-it is a very fun part of the spectrum. I wish the no-code group would quit acting like having to operate on VHF is like being damned to hell or something.

To WK3C-there are plenty of people who would make great amateur operators who cannot pass the written test. I have met some at our recent VE testing sessions. Is this fair to them? Should we exclude them? We need these people! Why have a test on technical knowledge when many of us never intend to modify our gear, repair our gear, or build something from scratch. Those days are over. We need to move into the 21st century, and stop being held back by the unfair written tests.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Also To WK3C:

How do you know that I am prejudiced against newcomers in radio? I do as much as anyone else to welcome them. When I hear a new call on the repeater, I will talk to them, welcome them to ham radio, etc. I have taught licensing classes to help people get interested in radio. I don't look down on anyone who is a technician, general, CBers, or whatever. I am happy whenever anyone gets a license, and will go out of my way to Elmer them, and help they get active, upgrade, or whatever they want to do.

Just because I believe that CW should be required for HF operation doesn't mean that I look down on those who choose not to learn CW. That is their choice, and I support it. I just feel that they need to understand the limitation of that choice. I chose to go into a line of work which doesnt allow me the luxery of buying a top of the line rig and affording to put up large towers and monster antennas. Does that limit me? Absolutely! I cannot compete with stations that have such antennas. I learn to make do with what I do have, and enjoy what I can work. If I wanted, I could probably find a different job, make more money, and be able to afford more equipment. At this point in life, I have chosen not to, and am willing to accept the limitations that come with that choice.

It is the same for someone who chooses not to learn CW. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a technician and staying on the VHF/UHF bands. We need more people there. Those are the frequencies we are going to lose. I have been spending more and more time on VHF and less time on HF, and am having a blast doing it.

I feel that there is no credible reason to remove the CW requirement. No one has yet been able to offer empirical evidence that the current licensing requirements are broken. Instead, they rely on emotion-based arguments. What kind of evidence is needed? Well how about showing that the number of licenses being issued is greatly declining. Or how about showing that the HF bands are very underpopulated compared to years before. How about showing that radio sales are down compared to years before. If you can offer such evidence, then you will have built a case demonstrating that we need to change the licensing requirements.

Statements like "CW is not 21st century technology" is not backed up by any evidence. The US Constitution was written in 1789. I guess we should scrap that also because it is holding us back from moving into the 21st century. Al Gore invented the internet in the 1990s-better get rid of it, it is not 21st Century. ALso, the fact that other countries are removing their CW requirements is not evidence that there is anything wrong with the licensing requirements in the US. Germany stuck people in concentration camps and executed them. So did the USSR, China, Viet Nam, and South Africa. Does that mean that the US should also? Well other countries did it.

So, show me the evidence.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N0YVW on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I've said this before and I'll say it again...a morse
requirement isn't an effective filter against what NE0P
is characterizing as the "CB" crowd.

The worst lids I've heard in ten years as a ham are
General-, Advanced-, and Extra-class hams who've held
their rating for longer than I've had my ticket, people
who think they own a particular frequency, just because
they have a QSO there now and again, or folks who operate
a kilowatt out for a cross-town QSO, because they don't
think operating VHF is truly being a ham...as if the
foul language they're broadcasting while they talk about
it is (I'm not making this up...this was a QSO I heard
between two guys in FL living 6 miles apart on my first
Field Day back in '94).

Yet again...meet new people at their level of interest
and nurture them. Some won't want to get into CW, but
many will. Find out what brought them into ham radio,
learn something about what holds their interest, and
then invite them to see *your* shack and talk to them
about *your* interests. Show them *your* preferred
mode. There's a good chance that you'll have a chance
to Elmer them, and you might learn something too.

BTW...for those of you who haven't gotten it...I'm in
favor of eliminating the CW requirement, even as I'm
relearning it to start operating CW after nearly a
ten-year hiatus.

Also...NE0P...if you think it's so easy to memorize the
current Extra-class question pool, go ahead and try.
I dare you. I double-dare you. Now, you may be an EE
to whom some of this stuff is second-nature, but in
that case...you're not really memorizing it, are you?
You're drawing upon your professional experience...and
there's nothing wrong with that either.

73 DE DOUG N0YVW

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Doug,

I have never believed that CW is a successful filter against the CB crowd. I do believe that it is a successful filter against the "I want everything without having to work for it crowd." I also believe that CW is the most effective mode for getting through under less than optimal conditions, and since amateurs justify their existance by providing emergency communications, among other things, we need a pool of operators who can communicate by as many different modes as possible. If people want to use 10 signals, run kilowatts to talk across town, and say "My handle is" that is fine with me. As long as they are not breaking any rules, they can say whatever they want. If you don't like the profanity that you hear, blame the supreme court who has basically allowed profanity on all airwaves under the free speech clause.

I am by no means an EE, and my soldering skills end with putting on a PL259, and even that can be comical at times. As you point out, there is already terrible operating practices on the bands, and the written test did not filter out these people, so maybe we should eliminate it also. I am for either keeping both the CW test and the written test, or for eliminating both of them. What I am not for is making the written test more important than the CW test by retaining it and eliminating the code test.

Also, for those technical people who want to get into amateur radio but don't want to learn code-what is holding you back? Morse code has not been required for the technician class license for 12 years now. Does NCI make that knowledge known to these individuals, or do they just rant and rave about how unfair the licensing procedure is because some of them don't want to take the time to learn morse code?

RE: MORSE IS HISTORY.

by N5GLR on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Let me first say ... opinions are like elbows ... everyone has at least two. However; it helps to remember that some elbows are crustier than others.

KQ6XA said ...
(as edited by me. You can read the entire post elsewhere on this thread)

"MORSE IS HISTORY"
.
"AMATEUR RADIO'S CHOICE: FUTURE OR HISTORY?"

Rebuttal: Amateur radio has managed to remain a vibrant hobby well into the "modern" age of the computer and digital communications. History is on the side of it remaining so well into the future. Whether CW testing stays or goes will not affect it. This attempted scare tactic fails.

"SPECTRUM: USE IT OR LOSE IT"

Rebuttal: Another scare tactic. This statement contradicts those who are for the elimination of CW testing because we're loosing bands/space and need to increase our numbers. Which is it? Both arguments can’t be right.

"LOST: 30% OF ALL HIGHLY QUALIFIED OPERATORS"

Rebuttal: A 30% failure rate is unacceptable. (See next topic ) However, I fail to see how Amateur Radio has suffered from this loss. If CW testing prevented these folks from getting a license, did it also discourage or prevent them from pursuing a professional career in radio communications or other areas of electronics? Amateur Radio is neither the only nor, by far, the largest group that develops communications experts. In fact, there are many folks who are electronics professionals who became hams because it is closely related to their profession. Were these people so important to the hobby that Amateur Radio has been permanently and irreparably damaged because they couldn’t pass a 5-WPM Morse test?

"EXPERIENCE OF A MORSE TEACHER"

Rebuttal: My profession is training adults. I’ve been doing it for 35 years. I can tell you this fact .... if the student didn't learn, look to the teacher! (see last topic)

"CLINGING TO THE SPARK GAP PAST?"

Rebuttal: Another opinion. CW is the second most popular mode on the bands and is no more related to spark gap today than is phone. A specious attempt to disparage CW.

"URGENT AND COMPELLING NEED"

Rebuttal: Another irrational opinion. There is no "urgent and compelling need" for ham radio either. It's a hobby. I doubt there was an “urgent and compelling need” for Amateur Radio when it was created.

"MORSE IS HISTORY"

Rebuttal: Finally, something I can agree with ... partially. Morse (CW) is a LARGE part of the history of Amateur Radio, and another good reason why it should remain as a testing requirement.

Garry
N5GLR

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AE6IP on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

WA4DOU writes

> An eham.net survey [...]

> On the ARRL website [...]

> There were 3073 respondees.

Neither of those qualify as actual surveys of the amateur radio community, and neither of them has a sample size large enough to compensate for the built-in non-random pool of responders. The ARRL poll doesn't even ask about the testing requirement. "Do you use Morse" is a far different question than "Do you want Morse tested for.

> Those that want the requirement eliminated,
> zealously exagerate the numbers that support their
> position.

We must read different articles. The few times that I've noticed anyone comment on how much support they had, it was always a pro-coder.

I know that I've never once made a statement about the number of people who support my position against the testing requirement.

> Abolishment of cw is the last barrier to throwing
> open the floodgates to the "new wonderful world"
> of "the communicator ham " who has no interest in
> radio as a science & art but wishes to communicate
> only.

I understand the morse is art, but what's the science in it?

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WA4DOU on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Both surveys do a very good job of outlining the substantial facts surrounding the composite prevailing opinion within amateur radio about the know code/no code issue.

As for the continued claim that code is archaiec, outdated,etc. it doesn't wash. It continues to be the premier weak signal mode in amateur radio that doesn't require a computer. Using good hardware and bandwidth limiting techniques, it is possible to place up to 100 or more cw signals within the bandwidth of one ssb signal. When a cw operator encodes and decodes his own communications, he is in control of and an active participant in the communications process. It is variously claimed and believed that cw enjoys a 6-12 db advantage over ssb and cw remains the most popular mode below 30 mhz., second only to ssb.

The issue of entry into amateur radio without having to learn or pass a code test was solved when the no code technician license was created. It is only an issue again because the "communicator" class wants our coveted under 30 mhz. spectrum, again without work. Their agenda is to take this baloney one slice at a time. Personally I'd be ashamed to look any intelligent person in the eyes and tell them that I can master the technical side of radio but I can't learn code. What I'd really be saying is that I don't want to learn it. As far as the written test goes, when a 6 year old child can obtain an Extra Class license, it tells you that the necessity for understanding the material is not there because a 6 year old is not capable of the multi-dimensional and abstract thinking process required for understanding. We're not talking IQ levels in the stratosphere here folks. We're talking normal range IQ for average folks.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WA4DOU on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Actually a pretty good arguement could and should be made that to use ssb or any other mode of phone transmissions and at the necessarily higher power levels of 4 to 16 times higher than cw requires is not efficient use of spectrum or energy. That arguement, although technically sound, would fall on deaf ears among the "communicator class" because to have to do anything other than talk, (something requiring no skill whatsoever since almost all of us have been doing so since before we were developing conscious memories)would require some effort to develop other skills.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N0YVW on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

WA4DOU wrote:
>
> Actually a pretty good arguement could and should be made that
> to use ssb or any other mode of phone transmissions and at the
> necessarily higher power levels of 4 to 16 times higher than cw
> requires is not efficient use of spectrum or energy. That arguement,
> although technically sound, would fall on deaf ears among the
> "communicator class" because to have to do anything other than talk,
> (something requiring no skill whatsoever since almost all of us have
> been doing so since before we were developing conscious memories)
> would require some effort to develop other skills.
>
This is actually the most cogent argument in favor of retaining the
CW requirement that I have yet heard. Most other arguments seem to
go along the lines of "My dad had to do it, I had to do it, therefore
you have to do it...it's a rite of passage." Well, so is female
circumcision in some African nations, but we don't allow the practice
in the United States.

This is the first argument I've seen that is making me seriously review
my position on the matter (eliminate the code requirement, but Elmer the
heck out of new hams & bring them into code anyway).

However, the one flaw in this argument (and please...this is not
intended to be a flame) is that, taken to its logical conclusion, we
should eliminate *all* non-CW modes (or any modes, which are wider in
bandwidth) because they represent inefficient use of available spectrum.

73 DE DOUG N0YVW

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by WA4DOU on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Actually Doug, I'm not so sure that mode of thinking is flawed at all.There should be spectrum available to all modes, as there is now. But an entirely new and previously unheard of faction now wants to propose that the cw sub bands be eliminated for the enhanced voice bands of the new "communicator class."
Of course, that could be illogically applied to eliminate all of the amateur spectrum since cw has 100% privileges throughout the spectrum. It is only by voluntary agreement that most cw operation takes place in the "cw sub bands."
If cw is removed as a requirement to become licensed, guess where all the pressure on spectrum use will occur? You guessed it! The phone bands. Then they'll start clamoring for more space for the phone bands. Guess where they'll start looking for the additional space at? The cw bands. Of course the cw ops will just resort to narrower filters but the phone ops can only exploit that so much. Then an entirely new set of tensions will develop between phone and cw ops. I won't hesitate to state that in my opinion, cw is a superior mode of communications compared to phone and if limited to only one mode, I'd choose cw.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N3EVL on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

WA4DOU said:

"...blah blah blah communicator class blah blah blah..."

Attitudes like this that are divisive and attempt
to classify those with an interest in communication
that does not happen to coincide with one particular
aspect of the hobby are beyond reproach.

I use my radio equipment to communicate and commend
anyone with enough interest in doing the same who has
made the effort to get any kind of ham radio license
- period.

This whole class thing bites and I reject it utterly.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AE6IP on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement Reply
N0YVW wrote:

>> WA4DOU wrote:
>> Actually a pretty good arguement could and should be made that to
>> use ssb or any other mode of phone transmissions and at the
>> necessarily higher power levels of 4 to 16 times higher than cw
>> requires is not efficient use of spectrum or energy. That
>> arguement, although technically sound, would fall on deaf ears
>> among the "communicator class" because to have to do anything other
>> than talk, (something requiring no skill whatsoever since almost
>> all of us have been doing so since before we were developing
>> conscious memories) would require some effort to develop other
>> skills. This is actually the most cogent argument in favor of
>> retaining the CW requirement that I have yet heard. Most other
>> arguments seem to go along the lines of "My dad had to do it, I had
>> to do it, therefore you have to do it...it's a rite of passage."
>> Well, so is female circumcision in some African nations, but we
>> don't allow the practice in the United States.

> This is the first argument I've seen that is making me seriously
> review my position on the matter (eliminate the code requirement,
> but Elmer the heck out of new hams & bring them into code anyway).

It's a terribly flawed argument because it confuses bandwidth with
efficiency.

> However, the one flaw in this argument (and please...this is not
> intended to be a flame) is that, taken to its logical conclusion, we
> should eliminate *all* non-CW modes (or any modes, which are wider
> in bandwidth) because they represent inefficient use of available
> spectrum.

A reasonable definition of efficiency would be the ratio between
amount of data transfered in a period of time to the theoretic maximum
amount of data transferable over that period of time *not* bandwidth
consumed by mode. (A more complicated one would take into account
power consumed while transfering, but let's stay simple for now.)

Compared to psk, CW is terrible inefficent, even when it uses somewhat
less bandwidth and somewhat less power, because it is terribly slow.

An argument based on efficient use of spectrum would lead one to
dropping all modes but the most efficient digital modes and
concentrating on developing even more efficient digital modes.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by AE6IP on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> Both surveys do a very good job of outlining the substantial facts
> surrounding the composite prevailing opinion within amateur radio
> about the know code/no code issue.

Translation: they appear to agree with your point of view. Talk to
someone who does polling for a living and ask them about the validity
of self-selected sample sets of less than .5% of the population as an
indicator of the actual population.

> As for the continued claim that code is archaiec, outdated,etc. it
> doesn't wash. It continues to be the premier weak signal mode in
> amateur radio that doesn't require a computer.

But if you remove the arbitary "doesn't require a computer" than
psk-31 is rapidly replacing code as the premier weak signal mode.

> Using good hardware and bandwidth limiting techniques, it is
> possible to place up to 100 or more cw signals within the bandwidth
> of one ssb signal.

Bandwidth isn't the only consideration. How efficiently is that
bandwidth being used? PSK-31 beats morse

> When a cw operator encodes and decodes his own communications, he is
> in control of and an active participant in the communications
> process. It is variously claimed and believed that cw enjoys a 6-12
> db advantage over ssb and cw remains the most popular mode below 30
> mhz., second only to ssb.

But it does not maintain such an advantage over PSK.

> The issue of entry into amateur radio without having to learn or
> pass a code test was solved when the no code technician license was
> created. It is only an issue again because the "communicator" class
> wants our coveted under 30 mhz. spectrum, again without work. Their
> agenda is to take this baloney one slice at a time.

Not true. First, it's not your spectrum, it's the public's, of whom
you are but one part. Second, some of us who have 'done the work' are
opposed to continuing separate testing for just one mode, but would
rather see testing test for technique and practice. Third, not
everyone who wants code testing to stop wants code to stop -- I happen
to enjoy the mode. I just don't think anyone has made a compelling
case for it as a gating test.

> Personally I'd be ashamed to look any intelligent person in the eyes
> and tell them that I can master the technical side of radio but I
> can't learn code.

This whole shame thing is rather overdrawn. People have different
skills and weaknesses, and what's easy for some is impossible for
others -- with no shame to either. I found the guitar very easy to
learn, and I can't play a note on a flute to save my soul.

> What I'd really be saying is that I don't want to learn it.

So? There are always going to be a lot more things to learn in this
world than we're going to have time to learn. Someone who doesn't want
to learn code because they'd rather concentrate on antenna design, has
nothing to be ashamed of.

> As far as the written test goes, when a 6 year old child can obtain
> an Extra Class license, it tells you that the necessity for
> understanding the material is not there because a 6 year old is not
> capable of the multi-dimensional and abstract thinking process
> required for understanding. We're not talking IQ levels in the
> stratosphere here folks. We're talking normal range IQ for average
> folks.

Educational psychology would say that a 6 year old isn't capable of
memorizing the entire question pool for the extra exam either. So how
did the 6 year old pass? Were they a prodigy? Did they get lucky on
the exam?

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K0RGR on August 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

My apologies to those I've already bored with my opinions on this subject, but here I go again.

As all government agencies do, FCC must be responsive
to the population as a whole, not just its licensees.
The Commission already has before it a number of
petitions to eliminate Element 1 from the amateur
tests. One of those makes a fairly compelling
argument that the Commission is empowered to make this change without allowing for public comment -
there are precedents. So, we may not even get a 'vote'.

I'm hoping for much more than just an elimination of
some code requirement. I think that the 5 WPM should
be required for Extra, so that there is still some
incentive for people to learn the code. I'd like to see the ARRL proposal to give existing Techs all
CW priveleges on HF resurrected, and encourage them
to use computers to send and receive CW. This is a win-win situation for everybody - more priveleges for
the Techs, and more CW activity. I'll probably enjoy
reading the machine-sent code more than some of the
slop that is on the bands now.

But, I suspect that we'll see complete elimination
of the code tests, because so many European countries
are doing it now. Again, FCC has to show that its
requirements are realistic. If England, Germany,
Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Austria, and others no longer require the code, FCC will have
a tough time justifying the retention of that
requirement in this country.

Of course, we are the only industrialized nation that
still practices capital punishement, too.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N2NZJ on August 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

THE RETENTION OF THE MORSE REQUIREMENT HERE IN THE 21ST CENTURY IS MOST REDUNDANT. I WILL MAKE MYSELF CLEAR I AM NOT OPPOSED TO CW AS A MODE. QUOTE ALL MODES ARE GOOD!!!. IT IS HIGH TIME THAT IT RESTS AS A TEST REQUIREMENT. one person stated in his thread that it will be 5-7 years before they make a final decision on element 1 removal!!!!.if this is true we the U.S.A. MIGHT BE THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD WITH A MORSE CODE REQUIREMENT!!!.whatever will be will be. best 73's to all DE N2NZJ TOM P.S. I HOPE ALL WILL TURN OUT A-OK.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Russia has stated for the past couple of years now that they will retain CW as a requirement for HF licenses. Why don't we hear anything about that? And here is a compelling argument for keeping the CW test as a "gate"-it has worked pretty good for 80 years so far.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by ZS1AN on August 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Unfortunately my article seems to have been truncated on the eham.net website, perhaps due to the volume of replies that have been received. I've asked the articles manager to look at this. In the meantime, the full text of the article can be found at "http://www.qsl.net/zs1an/morse.htm". Adobe PDF and MS Word versions are also available from my website.

73,
Andrew ZS1AN

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KD6JLS on August 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"people state things like "Eliminate the CW test but make the written test harder." How in the world is that fair? Say one form of knowledge is more important that another?"

Of course some forms of knowledge are more important than others. For example, CW supporters always claim that knowing the code is important for emergency operations. Well, even MORE important, in an age where most emergency traffic is handled on VHF and UHF, is knowing how to operate in emergencies, how to run a net, how to communicate clearly, how to priorotize traffic, etc. But we don't test any of those skills. Training and testing those skills would be serving the public good far more than testing for code, and would by neccesity create better operators. Everybody would win.

Unfortunately, people who support the code for emotional reasons only never seem to see that there could be alternatives that would prevent the ham bands from becoming another CB. That some skills really are more important than the code. It's too bad, because we could see the loss of code testing as an opportunity to presssure the FCC to make a positive change in the hobby by creating new ways to test for more important things.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N0KLU on August 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The question I have for all those "Know-Code" folks:

1. How will letting "No-Code" share the HF frequencies Be a detriment or be harmful to the Ham Community? Aside from having more people talking on the different bands.

2. I have for the last 4 days listened to the HF frequencies and noticed that it was sparcly used, I realize that 4 days is not a big sample, I realize that there is no "Contesting" going on, I realize that the midwest heat may have something to do with the lack of use, I realize that many "Work" and can't play radio all day, ect,ect. but for a small sample out of the bands available, the number of QSO's are rather few.
I guess I'm trrying to understand the real underling reason for the dispute. It's not that the 'no-code" people are Lazy or ignorant or CB'ish (although here everyone has been that way at one time or other). I think it must be the "You gotta do it My Way" syndrome, I had to walk 10 miles to school uphill both ways so you gotta also, kind of talk.

3. What is the big deal? Are you going to quantify those countries that have "no-Code" Generals/Extras and refuse to talk to them? I doubt it. Are you going to hide away in the CW portions of the bands? I think not. If you can accept those people who are now operating HF as "No-Code" is there room for those in the U.S. to join that group as well?

4. Please educate me (in a civil way please) so I (and those reading as well) can understand the problem. Please try not using words like Lazy or "you CB'ers" and such deerogitory remarks. be an ELMER and educate us.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by N3AE on August 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

After reading all these posts, I really like N6TZ's idea. Keep a CW a requirement for Extra at the original 20 wpm and offer the reward of exclusive use of the bottom 25 kHz on 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10. No code requirement for any other class of license. SSB folks will not care since they can't use that spectrum anyway, and it would ensure at least a few competent CW "dinosaurs" will be around should a situation arise where every other means of comm is trashed.

OBTW, the code or no-code issue doesn't really bug me as much as seeing licensed operators that have never soldered a wire or looked inside their black boxes.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by CURMUDGEON on August 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The problem is simply one that for decades we didn't grumble about meeting the requirements, we just went about meeting them and enjoying the satisfaction of having arrived. Then we began to hear from those who condemned our testing process and bitterly criticized having any requirements to meet. Now we have a two tier amateur radio, us and them. They are no part of us. And never will be again.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

N0KLU, I'll answer your questions...

1. The detriment to ham radio is your attitude...and those hams like you...ham radio is about striving to learn new things and ACCEPTING CHALLENGES. Learning code doesn't make you a better ham, but the willingness to learn it proves you have the minimal amount of the "right stuff" in the attitude department.

2. You need a better antenna, or a better radio...

3. It doesn't make any difference what other countries do...we currently have a code requirement...live with it...refer to question #1 on the attitude...

4. I'll ask you the same question you ask on #3...what's the big deal ??...5wpm CW can be passed by a 5 year old...since you for whatever reason refuse to accept the current CW requirement, and you have a really rotten attitude towards those that have accepted the challenge, you have basically kept yourself off of the HF bands....and missed alot of fun....

Lets see, I didn't use LAZY or CBers at all in this post...

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

N0KLU, I have a question for you .... in your profile you state...When I'm not on the radio you can normally find me...STUDYING THE BIBLE...

Then you make the following statement to me
"I continue to study the code in hopes to one day master it.....I'm proud of you A******* that can learn it overnight and then think your some kind of HOT SH** or something.
Well smear SH** on your own Da** face."

I think you can guess what my question is...these 2 statements from you don't quite line up ??? What is going on here ???? I'm just curious, and I am in no way judging you, because I think everyone of us has said things that we regret later....

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KC8WCW on August 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Ya know Marty, you're just too arrogant to remain anonymous for long. Your personality would stand out like a sore thumb in a crowd of thousands. For a guy who thinks he knows so much, you can't see beyond the end of your nose.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by CURMUDGEON on August 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Robert, the same could be said for you. If you spent more time studying and less time posting, you'd have that General ticket in no time.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by CURMUDGEON on August 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

You know Robert, the same could be said for you. If you spent more time studying and less time posting, you'd have that General ticket in no time, but no, you feel you have to tell us over and over how ham radio should be when you have no time in grade or experience.

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K9PO on August 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I like Morse code and use it about 33% of the time I am on the radio but the one thing that really bothers me is when people say that during bad conditions it is the only mode to get through. What a bunch of horse putooey.

There are some really cool digital modes that you could not even begin to detect with your ear and need a computer to to assemble the avergae increases in the noise floor to detect. One of these is WSJT JT44. If you ever get a chance to use it, you will see what a limit Morse code really has against the digital world.

The question of whether to get rid of the code test for US hams is moot. It is already gone (Techs need not take element 1 for a license) so I do not see what all the bitching is about. The only question is do you need the code for HF access? The answer is no, anybody can talk on a mic or type on a keyboard. What we really are talking about is tradition.

Perhaps it is time for ham radio to grow up and develop a new tradition. That is is tough for many people to deal with, but it is a fact that around the globe there will be no-code hams on HF. The issue now is how do we in the US deal with that fact. Perhaps we require additional testing before HF is granted to ensure an operator is familiar with the good practices to not cause undue interference and to the global spectral resource.

Scott

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by CURMUDGEON on August 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

You can bet that I won't have to work "no code" hams. Have it your way; I'm going to have it mine.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by W8VOM on August 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Posted by CURMUDGEON on August 28, 2003
"You can bet that I won't have to work "no code" hams. Have it your way; I'm going to have it mine."

The interesting thing about dumping the Morse code requirement is that No Coders will be able to Send and Receive Morse code! True..they will not "Know" the code but with their "Keyboards" and "CW Get software" they will be very active! Sadly..you no longer need to *Know* code to use it. I think automated CW will be a big hit with the Morse challenged! The times are changing but not for the better. When the Skill is gone the Thrill is gone!

I am willing to bet that at least 20% of the CW you hear out there today is fully automated. Lord what will they do when their computers die? We are teaching people to rely on Machines and not their Skills.

Yes.. a brave new world of communications as long as their computers hold out! W8VOM

RE: Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by RADIO123US on August 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I'd be willing to compromise on this issue...let's give the no-coders access to the HF bands from 26.965mhz - 27.405mhz. I'm sure there will be many others there that will make them feel right at home....

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by NE0P on August 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

TO N0KLU:

If the HF bands are so underpopulated, then why do so many technicians want on them? Seems to me no one would worry about not having HF privileges if no one is there. I dont worry about not having equipment for 24 GHZ because no one is on that band in my area.

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by KD7KCP on December 12, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

My fellow Hams, now lets be honest about this whole "keep the code get rid of the code " thing. A lot has been written about the prose and cons of keeping the code some on both sides rather well written, and some not. I myself have been rather sharp tongued on the subject, and I have received a few interesting responses because of it. One ham KB9YVG in a obscene response writes "You think like an old timer.. I learned CW in a three hour seesion when I was around 12. I have no particular in interest in HF. You seem like on of those operators who like to have their daughter (obscene response) when they hit that key. I thought '73 met "please don't do my kid", whoops that must be CB talk." and another response by KG4YJR writes "What a moron". It is obvious to all that the defensive vitriolic responses of the "get rid of the code test "crowd is due to the fact that their argument ,no matter how will crafted, is intellectually dishonest. The truth is (and every one knows this ,both pro and con camps) that some are willing to earn their goal and others are not. You see some think that just because they want something they should get it even if it means cheating (changing the rules). Some of these lazy slothful types will argue in an intellectually dishonest manner that their concern is "saving Ham radio" when in fact they simply lack the desire to spend the energy to pass element one. To these lazy slothful types I ask: Why not be honest? And just say the truth ,come on and repeat after me: "I just don’t want to take the five words a minute CW test, so change the rules just for me!". Sincerely;
slow code general,
KD7KCP
73

Why We Should Retain a Morse Requirement

by K1CJS on December 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Y..............o..............u.............'...........v..............e...........................g...........o...........t..........................t..........o....................b..............e....................k.............i.............d.............d...........i.............n.............g..................!