Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
Douglas J. Renze (N0YVW)
on
September 5, 2003
View comments about this article!
With the recent repeal of the international requirements for CW to operate on the Amateur HF bands and the subsequent petition filed with the FCC to repeal the Element 1 requirement in the U.S., I'm sure we've all noticed an upsurge in the code v. no-code debate here on eHam.net, as well as anyplace else we might happen to visit to talk about our favorite hobby.
As a businessman, I've got a little bit of a different point of view to interject into the whole debate, and I'm sure that I'll hear a lot about this point of view...
I was first licensed back in 1993 as a Tech Plus. As you may remember, this was only a year or two after the creation of the No-Code Tech ticket, which allowed people into U.S. Amateur Radio without passing a CW test for the very first time.
Do you remember what was being said about the No-Code Tech license at the time? "It's the end of ham radio!" "Give it five years and we'll just be CB'ers with a ticket!"
In 1997 I got married and drifted away from the hobby for about four years. When I finally had time to come back to it in 2001, do you know what I found? Amateur Radio was still there. With the exception of the 13 & 20 WPM CW requirement being dropped, and the addition of a few new digital modes, it was pretty much unchanged.
But it was still the same old song; just with a new verse..."5 WPM Code will be the death of Amateur Radio! Give it five years and we'll just be CB'ers with a ticket!" And now, with the probable end of the CW requirement coming down the pike in the U.S., we're hearing it even louder.
I would like to respectfully submit a principle to this debate that I've learned through owning my own business. It's called, "Meeting people at their level of need."
If you're in business to succeed long-term rather than just make a quick buck, you learn this principle rather quickly. When you sell a product or a service to a new client, you don't ram the most expensive item or service in your inventory down his throat. Instead, if you want to develop a long-term relationship with that client, you assess his needs. You give him what he needs at a fair price and build a relationship with him. He'll come back to you every time, and in the long run, he will be a much more valuable stream of revenue to your business.
Let's apply this principle to the code v. no-code debate. Do you want to totally alienate new people coming into Amateur Radio? Go ahead and make them feel like second-class hams. Make them feel like they're General-Lite or Extra-Lite hams just because they came in after the elimination of the 13 or 20 WPM CW requirement, or even after the elimination of the CW requirement altogether. Go ahead. Do it. See what happens.
Or would you rather bring people into what is truly a fascinating mode of communication? Yes? Want to know the secret?
Don't stress over the code requirement.
Welcome each and every new ham into the hobby with open arms -- after all, he's a brother (or she's a sister) who has taken the time to study for and pass the written test, even if he doesn't have the code.
Find out what unique qualities he brings into the hobby, and what drew him into the wonderfully multifaceted world of Amateur Radio. Develop a genuine interest in what excites him about being a ham -- whether it's just running around talking on the repeater and being a part of the weekly net, or whether it's a digital mode, or whether it's HF SSB, or...or...or whatever.
And then, finally, some day down the road, invite him over to your shack. Show him your favorite mode. There's something about CW that gets under the skin and into the blood. Odds are, he'll indicate an interest in it. If he does, offer to Elmer him. If he doesn't, still offer to Elmer him in something else...or ask him to Elmer you.
And if he doesn't become totally fascinated with code, don't sweat it. More important even than whether you've gotten him to sit down and learn code, you've made a friend.
And isn't that what being a ham is all about anyway?
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AE4X on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Good article. Good points. I agree. Thanks! 73.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N8VB on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Excellent points. It seems the sky is always falling in Ham Radio!
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KE2IV on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Damn it all!
I've been a ham for almost 40 years and have had to sweat through the loss and reclamation of privileges through testing including CW exams... so there!
I, too am a business person who understands the need to build relationships through identification of client needs etc.
And I have only one thing to say about this posting...
RIGHT ON!
Kill CW as a licensing requirement and it will be preserved as an operating mode for as long as those who want it practice it!
73,
George
P.S. ARRL Life Member too ...
|
| |
|
Well Stated : )
|
|
|
by K4III on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Right On! You wouldn't believe how many clubs, associations, and groups could benefit from this view...
(And I'm NOT ONLY thinking AMATEUR/HAM either!)
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by DOODAH on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said.
Let's not get things out of perspective, though. The vast majority of amateurs are fine good friendly folks, encouraging and welcoming. The code v. no code arguments are largely limited to online forums and the worst postings are from a tiny minority who don't really represent the true picture.
Reading about amateur radio from web discussions can
get you entirely the wrong impression, and could
easily put off newcomers. It's a shame some have to
bring the hobby into disrepute like this.
Thank you for balancing things out a bit!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KZ9G on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE2IV:
As Rush would say, "Mega Dittos!"
Even though I love it dearly, the CW requirement is outdated, outmoded, and antiquated. But, it'll still be around for dozens of years because of the infectious enthusiasm of today's CW buffs.
You know, I've got some great CW operating stories, and I'm sure most CW operators do. In fact, most years you'd have a difficult time pulling me away from the 40M CW Field Day tents. I'd operate that position all weekend long if I could. Not long ago, I fondly remember operating the 40M CW tent of the Ozaukee Radio Club's 2001 Field Day with a great bunch of CW ops. I think we made over 750 Q's on Forty CW that year, which put the club well on its way to a 4th or 5th place finish for 5A category. It was a great time of fellowship and camaraderie.
Despite my love of the mode, I cannot in good conscience come up with a valid technical reason to keep it as a licensing requirement, hence my favoring a limited no-code HF license.
73.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KG4WHJ on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
ALL I CAN SAY! IS " A GREAT READ! A TRUE HAM'S VIEW! OR SHOULD BE !".
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by CASPER669 on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said... I think that the basic thoughts, suggestions and ideas represent exactly the kind of points that some of us here have been trying to voice.
Great read and thank you for spelling it out for us as well as you have!
Chris KC2KFW
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Definately well said. As most business people (especially sales) know, it's a lot
easier to keep customers then to get new ones.
Regardless of when you got into Amateur Radio or what type of license you have,
or even the modes of operation you use, without RESPECT for the other
person(s) online (or customer), why bother ?!?
George ...
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KQ6YF on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At last, a touch of sanity in this code vs. no-code debate! As much as I enjoy the occasional CW contact, the code is out. It is no longer a requirement for HF privileges in many countries. Let's welcome the new comers (and gently Elmer them along the way). This will help to ensure the survival of amateur radio as the hobby we know now.
B
.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K7FD on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The original post said:
"Do you remember what was being said about the No-Code Tech license at the time? "It's the end of ham radio!" "Give it five years and we'll just be CB'ers with a ticket!"
It's undeniable that we have seen an large influx of licensees that have given credence to the above quote.
73 John K7FD
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I personally feel that anything we do isn't going to have the effect that we want it to.
Over the last 15 years, license restructuring has done little to change the scope of the ham population. The average age of the ham operator continues to climb, and the number of non-renewals continues to skyrocket.
We may in fact issue more licenses in 2003 or 2004 due to the removal of the CW requirement. But I'll also wager the number of licenses not being renewed will skyrocket in 2013 and 2014.
Instead of pumping all this energy into changing the rules, we need to be promoting *radio* and the *art of wireless* to those people interested.
Sometimes the best and most successful way to sell a product is find a target audience...not monkey with the product.
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W1DLS on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think that what many cw operators fear is that ultimately the cw portion of the bands will be reduced in order to expand the voice segments. That would seem to be the logical next step if cw is no longer a requirement.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K7FD on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All this catering to the 'new' customers needs is all fine n' dandy but the old customers are looking for a new place to shop. Nothing fits anymore and the quality has gone downhill.
73 John K7FD
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
YEEEE-HAAAWWW!!!!
Get some mo' gasoline boys, and lets git this code argument a burnin' real good agin!!!!!
Eeenie you-un's got a rope???
Sheeeeet fire!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC7MM on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A breath of fresh air! Probably more like the eye of the storm; a short period of quiet rationality in a sea of innuendos.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K7FD on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The original post said:
"Let's apply this principle to the code v. no-code debate. Do you want to totally alienate new people coming into Amateur Radio? Go ahead and make them feel like second-class hams."
Or do you alienate the old people that have been around a while...by reducing standards to an all-time low?
73 John K7FD
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K7FD on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The original post said:
"I was first licensed back in 1993 as a Tech Plus."
10 years is not long enough for a clear perspective; the radio river been around a long time and it used to be a lot cleaner.
73 John K7FD
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N8VB on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K7FD: Do you think the sky is falling?
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N8VB on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"All this catering to the 'new' customers needs is all fine n' dandy but the old customers are looking for a new place to shop."
No they are just going SK!
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by BANDM on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doug, nice view and a good read. I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it seems some folks just can't get deal with life's changes.
73's
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AB0OX on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doug,
Well said. As another in business, I'd like to point out that the logic of using a code test to regulate phone access doesn't have many precedents outside of amateur radio. In general, using "apples" to regulate "oranges" isn't the most Generally Accepted Principle.
Death of the hobby? Major influx of CB'ers? I think not. If movies like "Frequency" or "The Anderson Tapes" (remember?) can't provide sufficient interest, then the elimination of Element 1 as a testing criteria is certain to be under the radar.
We should perhaps anticipate a shift of the existing ham pool from Technician into General, but actual operating activity will (at least for some time) be tempered by the financial restraint of the equipment in place.
We may see some additional market swing toward all-mode all-band radios under $1,200 , but in reality all bets are off.
HF Pack is hot right now, but who's to say that ARDF won't be the big ticket in another 5 years?
73,
Jack
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WR8D on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ah god...been there and done that. These were guys that were 25 year veterans of cb. They are smart asses...i tried to elmer them...they wouldnt listen. They get on the area 2 meter repeaters and use their cb handles and 10 codes. Most of them are extra class to make matters worse. They have run all the older hams off the 2 meter band here in wv and east ky. But yes like a fool i welcomed them into my home. Went to the classes and talked about ham radio to them. But they are still just hardcore cbers. Its not like this everywhere in the country but there is enough of this scattered through the country to give most of us a sign of things to come. No ham radio will not die or come to an end because of these types...but this is really what the code-nocode fuss is about. There's thousands of us that have got a taste of these fools and dont want any more of them. I dont want to be in the extra portion of any band and hear 10-4. I dont want some idiot that just came off cb tuning on top of me and whistling into his mic...but its happening and has been for the last 2 years since the code was dropped to 5wpm. Pretty soon the grand daddys of these idiots are going to come off cb and be on hf with us. Now you can scream about elmering and all that...but like i said i tried...and these fools are unelmerable. When they looked at my full wave loop they laughed and said their cb antennas would work better. One looked at my 2 element 5 band quad at 65 feet and said his moonraker was a better antenna. Most of them think they know more about radio than a ham thats been on the air for 35 years. But i guess most you folks are'nt having to deal with these types and think the rest of us are crazy. Soon we'll all have to pay the price for most of you wanting to do away with the code. Thats it in a nutshell.
73
John WR8D:
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4DG on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ham radio IS vastly undermarketed, and you don't even need experience in sales or marketing to realize this.
For most of my life, I did NOT know about ham radio, DESPITE the fact that the next-door neighbor of where I grew up was a ham. I earned my Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering at a Top 3 program, and I was unaware of ham radio during most of this period. I only discovered ham radio because I was a weather weenie, and I first found out about storm spotting and ham radio during my senior year of college while surfing the storm chaser web pages.
Ham radio lacks visibility, and Morse Code TESTING gives ham radio a fuddy-duddy image. To an outsider, Morse Code is a relic of the 19th century, and the code TESTING requirement is a turn-off. Remember: Most outsiders have NEVER heard of ham radio, much less contesting, QRP, moonbounce, or other subsets of the hobby in which the use of CW is popular because of the advantage it conveys.
The licensing system of ham radio is one of the first things newcomers learn about. The UNILATERAL authority of the Morse Code TESTING requirement convinces the prospective hams the perception that this is a hobby stuck in the 19th century. After all, the implication is that Morse Code is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else. No other topic in the testing has such unilateral power. You can even ignore all the RF safety questions and still pass if you correctly answer enough of the remaining questions. But if you don't know Morse Code, you can't advance beyond the Codeless Technician license.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N5GLR on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You fail to recognize the first rule in attracting new customers. You must know what they want.
It is grossly arrogant to assume what your customers want. You won't be in business long if you decide for them.
I'm refering to "new" customers, not current customers who are demanding "lower prices" or products at "give-away prices".
How long do you think you'll keep those customers when
they discover you've sold them an inferior product?
I have only seen speculation from current license holders about the wants of potential hams. I have seen very few comments from potential hams on the topic of CW testing. This site, and others, are inundated with comments from currently licensed folks who want an easier way to upgrade but, there are few, if any, comments from our potential "customers".
Where is the data to support the claim that potential hams want CW testing removed? If it exists, why has it not been posted?
N5GLR
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W0OOW on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have to go against the grain on this one! LEAVE THE CODE REQUIREMENT IN! Why in the world does it seem so difficult that some persons don't want it in? What's next - perhaps no driver's test? Perhaps some persons do have difficulty with 20WPM, but 5WPM? Come on! To simply memorize code via flash cards for instance should yield 5WPM _if_ a person gives themselves to it. All hobbies, sports, even jobs have requirements. Why should these requirements be dropped? In today's world, it is easy for a person to get on the internet, push a button, and go to another country. Perhaps ham radio has given some of its appeal to the internet - for certain persons that is. However, to drop the code just to keep a hobby alive....where is your self pride? Maybe it is just that certain persons feel the need for "easy" and "comfortable" and do not wish to challange themselves. CHALLANGE YOURSELVES!!! Come on folks 5WPM is simply not that hard!!! Now for the flack to come in :)
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N4GI on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4DG writes:
<<Ham radio lacks visibility, and Morse Code TESTING gives ham radio a fuddy-duddy image. >>
And storm-spotting is a regular barrel of monkeys party????
Yep, I think you may need to re-examine "fuddy-duddy" big guy.
Give me a break....
Blake N4GI
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC7YRN on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Qualifying" the customer is another thing businesses do. If you build koi ponds and someone calls you wanting a skyscraper, you courteously steer them elsewhere. There are customers who are right for you, and there are customers who will be unprofitable.
Who are the best "customers" for ham radio to have?
If the answer is the more-or-less obsessive tinkerers who take things apart to see how they work, then what attracts them is the chance to learn new and useful things. People like that will pull all-nighters to get something new working, but passionately hate unnecessary or boring work.
You can't "sell" to everybody, even if you're selling clothes or soap. Ham radio is a specialized "product". Let's pay more attention to the question, "what's the person like whom we're trying to attract?".
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by VE7SQL on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If they lower the standard to get on HF, then it will sound like 11 meters, and take some of the joy out DXing.
Echo Mic's, Roger BEEPS, everything to drive one crazy.
Just think, all those 2M users talking as if they were still on the CB Radio, being able to roam HF. "That's a big 10-4 there good buddy..."
Well anyway, 73's
hehe
|
| |
|
Humor Warning
|
|
|
by AB0OX on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doug,
I have some pictures of the cats in the shack on the cube wall here at work and often find myself explaining ham radio to my coworkers. With that in mind, I offer the following simple explanations:
HAM RADIO: I always start by explaining HF DX, which is similar to picking up the telephone and telling the operator "I'd like a miserably poor connection to anywhere at random. I'd like to arrange to exchange post cards with someone I've never met. If possible, I'd like a connection to someplace where people don't really live, and there are no phones or electricity. Never mind why."
TECHNICIAN: Go buy a walkie talkie. Talk to the same people (your friends, I hope) over and over and tell them where you are as you're driving. Can you hear me now? Be mindful of your operating technique and practices as making a mistake on a repeater differs little from being unable to do that math problem at the blackboard all those years ago.
GENERAL: Buy a real radio. You can use at least part of every band, and you can use every mode. The ARRL used to sell a "Frequency Wheel" band chart and YOU are the target customer for this little gizmo. Buy the Operating Manual as well. Get more subscriptions. Go to the Post Office and get 101 (just in case) IRCs for that DXCC. Use your Technician manual to put up your dipole. Now that you've spent another $2,000 on radios, books, IRCs, Custom QSLs etc., aren't you glad you upgraded?
EXTRA: Roll up that Frequency Wheel and smoke it. Wait! Put it out! You forgot your Q-Signals and the location in the band plan of the latest digital mode, didn't you? Use your Technician manual to design another wire antenna, perhaps one that'll get those last 5 states and country number 38. Use your Extra manual to try to decipher a QST transceiver review. Admit to yourself that "$$$ per band/watt" and the E-Ham reviews are in fact what you'd use to buy that next piece of equipment if you hadn't blown all your money when you became a General.
CONTESTING: Shout "59! [ARRL Section]! No Copy! Please repeat the exchange!" at the top of your lungs until the family goes to the mall. Better yet, program a machine to do your shouting for you. People understand you. They admire your accomplishments. And they're truly happy for you that you got your Extra and have all of 15 meters to work with on a Saturday afternoon.
FIELD DAY: As above, except that the kids will prepare your lunch. NOTE: by a tradition known as "Sadie Hawkins' Dietary Corollary Wouff Hong" phone operators are traditionally fed peanut butter sandwiches and potato chips on field day. CW operators are fed fried chicken and barbecued ribs (no towelettes). Digital operators' sodas arrive after being thoroughly shaken, and Novices are fed a strict diet of black coffee and prunes.
SKYWARN: Introduce a small EME installation to the roof of the truck. Be careful of wind loading to your rotator when cornering at highway speeds. Use stainless steel wire to attach little angels and cherubs to the grill of the truck. Get a separate set of QSLs (K9XYZ/Tornadic Mobile) printed up. When you see a funnel cloud, head straight for it.
PARADES & BICYCLE RACES: Take your walkie-talkie and an orange vest to the event. Wear the orange vest and stand on edge of the street. This is somewhat akin to wearing red to a bullfight. Why the Spanish aren't wearing the orange vests in the streets of Pamplona is anybody's guess. It's not as if their special event doesn't have traffic issues.
Well, I hope this clears things up.
73,
Jack
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W3NRL on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I too have been in business many years and yes i use the same policy for all my customers. Your point is right on. code or no-code enjoy the hobby, i am a tech studying for my general ( including my code as well ),bring in new blood to the hobby ( just like getting more customers and keep them coming back) why scare them off!! we are are equal as humans no matter if your a tech or general or extra, we should support each other. Lets move on and if code goes well so be it keeping up with times is progress. just like those new radios coming out every year that we buy and are fasinated by the bells and whistles. Lets move and have fun at it.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NEW-HAM on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4MOB wrote:
Instead of pumping all this energy into changing the rules, we need to be promoting *radio* and the *art of wireless* to those people interested.
Sometimes the best and most successful way to sell a product is find a target audience...not monkey with the product.
Sometimes you have to change with the market. If no one is buying your product, you have two choices-- change the product or get killed by the competition. As for promoting amateur radio, I would agree. The ARRL should do Public Service Announcements (PSA) on television and broadcast radio explaining the benefits of amateur radio. Furthermore, ham clubs should work with youth groups such as the Boy Scouts, and do demostrations of ham radio for them.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W5BDY on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"""
Do you remember what was being said about the No-Code Tech license at the time? "It's the end of ham radio!" "Give it five years and we'll just be CB'ers with a ticket!" """"
.................................................
It sure happened here. Our wide area 2m systems
have been taken over by truckers who tie it
up all day and night gumming their mics
with droning reports about mile markers.
The real hams have largely been run off.
The codeless license sure had a negative effect
on VHF and I fully expect the same for HF.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K7FD on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone asked me:
"K7FD: Do you think the sky is falling?"
No. But some shouldn't swim at the deep end of the pool before they're ready. Or worse, pee in the pool, which appears to be happening quite frequently!
And I agree completely with WR8D's view...
73 John K7FD
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N7XB on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doug:
Great article, good points. However, you must know that if your position prevails and the ranks of ham radio swells with no-code Extra's, then before long we will see:
Profanity on 75 meters
Broadband "Hi-Fi" SSB splattering on 20 meters
Overdriven digital signals
On-air tune-ups on top of ongoing QSO's
Operators unable to work split or handle DX pileups
FCC Warnings and Notices for malicious interference, operating out-of-band, selling or using illegal equipment, and cheating on license exams.
Yep, all of the above and more will appear once the code requirement is droppped. . . :)
|
| |
|
VHF (Business View)
|
|
|
by AB0OX on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lawrence,
Just a guess here, but the attraction to the truckers may be that FM quality sound and the central (with boost) location of a repeater (let alone a network of repeaters) simply provides a more competitive product to the CB / Truckers than 11m simplex?
In returning to the business perspective (where the thread began) this is not then a question of 1) finding the right audience/market 2) providing qualification/restriction to the market (weeding out LIDs) but instead 3) unintentionally delivering an overly competitive/superior product to an unintended market.
HF phone simplex below 10 meters might not be a very attractive alternative for someone (i.e., truckers) looking for high quality voice communications for local work, compared to your network of 2 meter repeaters.
That said, you're still left with what I feel you may perceive as bit of an "infestation." A bit of aggressive "OO" work on the part of the control operators might encourage these operators to set up their own repeaters and network.
But that's really up to the control operators isn't it?
But haven't we heard enough ;) from the small businessfolk and MBAs? Where are the engineers who can whip together a commercially viable CB/ 220 mhz 1 watt rig.
We've got the marketing and finance people right here right now.
HI HI
Jack
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N6PUO on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To N7XB:
Sorry, I fat fingered that last one. Meant to say, "Good One"!
Greg.....N6PUO
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W1DLS on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The real issue here is that the testing standards are being continously watered down. Each year the bar gets lowered another inch.
The biggest lowering of the bar to date was in releasing the complete test question pool to the public. This made it possible to memorize the answers to difficult questions.
For my Advanced and Extra, I highlighted only the correct answers, and memorized them. For the math problems I learned how to work them by rote using the W5YI guide. The W5YI guide is an excellent book for teaching you just enough to pass the exam. Although the testing material was more advanced, having a published test question pool made these tests MUCH easier than the general I took years ago at the FCC field office.
The reality is that today's ham exams do NOT test radio/electronic knowledge. They merely test one's memory. I have an excellent memory, so that makes me an extra.
Does this make any sense?
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K2IY on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1) I wonder if VE program abuses are more responsible for putting alot of the present LIDS on the air.
2) Because of so much low priced used gear and new gear, HR is a relatively cheap hobby nowadays which attracts alot of lower echelon or casual ops. After they try golf, tennis, fishing etc. they give HR a whirl.
3) The OT's in the 50's & 60's resented the new op's who bought commercial equipment. The advent of "appliance operators" also brought the explosion in dx'ing, awards, contesting and alot of the things we love about hr today.
4) As we grow older we get cranky. Also hate that new house they built on the corner, closed my favorite diner, can't tune my carburator, can't change the plugs, water tastes lousy, have to go to an HMO, Bush is not like his father, Sadam taught his people discipline, players used to be white, didn't need viagra, don't need these 5.25 floppies...I can't copy this damn code anymore !!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7XB writes in response to Doug:
Great article, good points. However, you must know that if your position prevails and the ranks of ham radio swells with no-code Extra's, then before long we will see:
Profanity on 75 meters
Broadband "Hi-Fi" SSB splattering on 20 meters
Overdriven digital signals
On-air tune-ups on top of ongoing QSO's
Operators unable to work split or handle DX pileups
FCC Warnings and Notices for malicious interference, operating out-of-band, selling or using illegal equipment, and cheating on license exams.
==============
All of these are occurring right now with General and Extra Class operators! They all passed a code test. They all took a written test.
Obviously, code has not made them better phone operators. Maybe what we need is more emphasis on operating skills as part of the written tests?
Dennis
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W2BSA on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doug, makes alot of sense. CW isn't going away just because we don't test for it. And. the alienation of others will happen if the old-timers treat the newcomers like dirt. All of us should drop this arguement about the merits of testing for CW because there is no merit to either arguement. What's done is done. As far as I'm concerned the ham bands don't sound like CB. In fact they are far quieter than the 11 meter band. I hear with some now rare exception very polite and friendly conversation.
Why??? It has nothing to do with testing. It has everything to do with the increased enforcement of the rules by the FCC and our assisting them in their enforcement of the rules.
If folks know that there will be consequences for rules infractions then the infractions will decrease.
Those who gripe about the loss of CW testing should use their energy to show others why they like CW. Maybe some of us will decide to learn CW as well.
73,
Bill, W2BSA
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to KE4MOB:
“Instead of pumping all this energy into changing the rules, we need to be promoting *radio* and the *art of wireless* to those people interested.
Sometimes the best and most successful way to sell a product is find a target audience...not monkey with the product.”
I fully agree.
AG4DG said:
“Ham radio lacks visibility, and Morse Code TESTING gives ham radio a fuddy-duddy image. To an outsider, Morse Code is a relic of the 19th century, and the code TESTING requirement is a turn-off. Remember: Most outsiders have NEVER heard of ham radio, much less contesting, QRP, moonbounce, or other subsets of the hobby in which the use of CW is popular because of the advantage it conveys.”
I disagree. It takes a special type of person to be a ham.
KC7YRN said:
“Who are the best "customers" for ham radio to have?
If the answer is the more-or-less obsessive tinkerers who take things apart to see how they work, then what attracts them is the chance to learn new and useful things. People like that will pull all-nighters to get something new working, but passionately hate unnecessary or boring work.
You can't "sell" to everybody, even if you're selling clothes or soap. Ham radio is a specialized "product". Let's pay more attention to the question, "what's the person like whom we're trying to attract?"
I totally agree.
NEW-HAM said:
“Sometimes you have to change with the market. If no one is buying your product, you have two choices-- change the product or get killed by the competition.”
Ham radio is not in business to attract “customers”. It takes a special type of person to be a ham. We don’t need everyone in the hobby just because they are living and breathing.
NEW-HAM goes on to say:
”As for promoting amateur radio, I would agree. The ARRL should do Public Service Announcements (PSA) on television and broadcast radio explaining the benefits of amateur radio. Furthermore, ham clubs should work with youth groups such as the Boy Scouts, and do demostrations of ham radio for them.”
I totally agree. There are many people who would be a “natural” for ham radio that know nothing about us, and may not know that ham radio even exists. For those that do know that ham radio exists, many think we’re no different than CB.
Ham radio is not a popularity contest. It is a big mistake to try to attract new people just to increase our numbers. We don’t need a flood of those who have the CB mentality, who want to bring their CB habits into the amateur realm. The current “Speakout” on eHam asks, "What do you see for the future of Amateur Radio? In 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc...." My reply was that ham radio would be less technically-oriented, more plug and play, would take on the characteristic of what CB used to be like before deregulation caused its anacharistic collapse, less radio-related QSOs and more non-ham related type talk.
Ham radio needs to continue to attract the technically-minded tinkering types who want to learn and experiment, and who want this hobby bad enough to do whatever is required to earn the operating privileges. Morse proficiency has traditionally been required of those seeking a license, and I don’t see any reason to change this. Fact is, the requirements have been watered down too much already.
There is nothing wrong with Cbers wanting to become hams. The problem lies with Cbers wanting to take their CB habits into ham radio with them and turn ham radio into the CB of yesteryear – clean and by the rules, but CB nonetheless.
There have been plenty of Cbers who have become hams. I am one of them. However, when I decided I wanted amateur radio, I realized that this was an established institution. I knew that there were certain rules, requirements and protocol that I would have to adhere to if I wanted to enter this established institution. One was that I would have to deposit my CB habits in the circular file at the gate before entering. Another is that I would have to meet the requirements that were in place in order to enter. Complaining and fighting to get those rules changed to make things easy for me were not an option. Never did any such nonsense even enter my mind. If I was going to enter their institution, I would have to do it their way, not make them bend for me.
It was CB that sparked my interest in becoming a ham. I became a Cber in 1977 during the height of the big CB craze. It took me only one year to realize that I was outgrowing CB. I had a love for radio, an interest to learn all about radio and electronics, and a desire to tinker and experiment; none of which I could pursue as a Cber. All I wanted to talk about on the air was radio and electronics. I no longer fit in with the rest of the masses that were on CB.
After completing electronics school in 1982 and obtaining an FCC Second Class Radiotelephone License with Radar Endorsement, I had enough technical knowledge to pass any written amateur radio exam. Since 1978, I wanted an amateur radio license of at least General. What was deterring me was the code. To obtain a General, I knew I’d have to learn 13 WPM code. I didn’t think I’d be able to do it. So, the years went by. There would be no amateur radio license for me. Never once did I complain that it was the code that was keeping me from getting a license. Back in 1982, you needed a minimum of 5 WPM for any class of license (namely the Novice and the Technician).
It wasn’t until 1995 that I finally got my no-code Technician license. My real desire was to get the General so I could operate on HF. I knew what I would have to do. When I took the Tech exam, after acing it, the VE handed me the General exam and said “Take a stab at it. It won’t cost you anything.” Without studying for the General, I passed it and received a CSCE for element 3A. I knew that I had one year to learn 13 WPM code, otherwise the CSCE would expire. After buying the Gordon West code tapes, and trying to learn CW at two separate times in 1995, I threw in the towel unable to advance past learning less than half the characters. Needless to say, the CSCE expired. Afterward, I tried with computer software in 1997 and 1998. Those attempts yielded the same results.
It wasn’t until restructuring in 2000 that I finally passed the CW test and became a General. Once the code requirement was lowered to 5 WPM, I knew that if I tried hard enough, I could learn 5 WPM CW.
Looking back, I realize that the barrier wasn’t CW. The barrier was me! Biting off more than I could chew, I wanted to go from 0 to 13 WPM because I wanted a General. The Tech Plus was not enough incentive for me to learn 5 WPM CW. I wanted more than just the Novice sub band of 10m available to me, as I had no intention of ever using CW once I would obtain the General. I used to think that if I could get the General, I would just go for the Advanced. I didn’t even want to think about tangling with 20 WPM for the Extra.
Since August 1st of this year, I have been re-learning CW because I want to become proficient enough to use it on the air. I am now at the point where I finished all the character lessons. I am currently doing daily drills at 5 WPM (Farnsworth 18) to burn the character patterns into my brain so that I don’t have to hesitate and think about what character I heard. Once it all becomes reflex, I will start increasing my speed. My goal is to be able to hold a CW QSO at a minimum of at least 35-40 WPM. I realize that it wall take a lot of work, and a lot of practice. I’m in no hurry. When I get there, I’ll get there. I am an Extra. There are no more amateur radio tests for me to take; no more upgrades for me to pursue. I am doing this whole CW thing for myself because I want it.
Looking back, I realize that I made a lot of mistakes. Fear and procrastination are my two worst enemies. If not for fear and procrastination, I could have been where I want to be years ago. I should have taken things one step at a time. When I decided that I wanted a ham license in 1978, I should have done something about it back then. I realize that even before going to electronics school, I could have learned 5 WPM code and taken the Novice exam. Then, as a Novice, I could have developed my code skills. By the time I graduated electronics school in 1982, I might have been ready for at least a General, maybe even an Extra. Then, I wouldn’t be practicing CW today. I’d be one of the CW speed demons in the Extra CW sub bands.
Getting back to my original point, we shouldn’t look to bring in the numbers at the expense of quality. We need to be attracting the natural ham operators; the people who are technically-oriented, those who want to learn and experiment and those who are willing to meet the challenge, and do whatever is required of them to enter the institution of ham radio. CW is one of those requirements, and shouldn’t be dropped just to accommodate those who either think they can’t learn CW, or just don’t want to learn CW. If learning CW wasn’t required of me for the General, I most likely wouldn’t be re-learning it today. I would have just gone on thinking that I “can’t” do this. Having already done it, I know I can do it again.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KD6TQE on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What would you rather have, repeater use by licensed truckers or silence and the loss of spectrum.This elitest attitude by all these "real hams" is what is going to kill the hobby. Before you break a sweat to upgrade listen to the hf bands for awhile.I have a 706 mk2G for 6 meters and up.Bad operators are everywhere,dont blame the new blood!If you want an exclusive conversation use your cell phone.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NEWHAM said:
“Sometimes you have to change with the market. If no one is buying your product, you have two choices-- change the product or get killed by the competition.”
But my point is that we have been changing the product:
We went to a VEC instead of FCC testing system.
Published the question pool.
Multiple choice replaced short (and long) answers on tests.
Code speeds dropped from 20 to 5 WPM for Extra.
Created a No-Code license.
All that in the last 15 years...and we're still complaining that the average age of hams are increasing, no new hams are being recruited, etc.
Maybe when it takes *nothing* to get a ticket, and the total number of hams is *zero*, we'll understand where we went wrong.
I can just see it now--"Ham radio...what's that?"
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC2KXV on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thank N0YVW for the identifying the key issue -- Great article !! Nothing will stop change, and code will be eliminated from testing -- the writing is on the wall. But even if it doesn't, the point is the same. Creating two classes of HAMs makes no sense in the face of larger issues (BPL)and the plunder of over-the-air bandwidth by those willing to pay for it, and the government willing to sell it. If we don't use it, we lose it.
KC2KXV
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N3EVL on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ said:
"...It wasn’t until restructuring in 2000 that I finally passed the CW test "
It seems to me that all those years during which you had trouble learning CW were years that the HR community could have benefitted from your other skills. Keeping you out was a net loss to the service. What a waste and disservice to the hobby that an arbitrary obstacle should exist. Would we keep out potential hams because they don't 'know' PSK or Satellite skills or Traffic Handling? No, of course not, we assume that at sometime, if interested, they'll go down that road voluntarilly. Yet for some inexplicable reason, CW is placed on the high altar of ham radio. This is nuts.
73, Pete
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3EVL said:
“It seems to me that all those years during which you had trouble learning CW were years that the HR community could have benefitted from your other skills. Keeping you out was a net loss to the service. What a waste and disservice to the hobby that an arbitrary obstacle should exist. Would we keep out potential hams because they don't 'know' PSK or Satellite skills or Traffic Handling? No, of course not, we assume that at sometime, if interested, they'll go down that road voluntarilly. Yet for some inexplicable reason, CW is placed on the high altar of ham radio. This is nuts.”
My whole point through my long-winded post is that you didn’t see me complaining. What I did and when I did it was my own decision. I could have been a ham as early as 1978 and maybe an Extra by 1982 or 1983. The fact that it took me all these years is entirely my own fault. I made some bad choices and some bad mistakes. I have nobody to blame but myself. I’m not looking for any scapegoats by saying “If only I could have done this without having to learn CW”. I just want people to read what I posted and learn from my mistakes. All you no-coders who want HF, quit waiting for code proficiency to be dropped. Now is the time. Learn your 5 WPM code and get your upgrade. CW doesn’t come easy to me. But, if I can do it, anyone can. Maybe if you try it, you might just like it. You will never know unless you try it. That’s another of my points. Those who don’t have to learn CW may never try it. I myself admit that I wouldn’t be looking to become proficient at it today, if I didn’t have to learn it as a licensing requirement a few years ago.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What are YOU doing to elmer new hams? What do YOU plan to do to help train the great influx of newbies that will supposedly hit the bands when the code requirement is dropped?
Our local club runs classes to train new hams and help get them licensed, but that's not the end of the support we give them. We get them involved in community service through ARES/RACES. We invite them have fun by participating Field Day and in multi/multi contest operations. We take every opportunity to provide the ham radio equivalent of on-the-job training.
We actively support Scouting. The club hosts the Jamboree-on-the-Air for the local Boy Scout District. Club members are active as Radio Merit Badge counselors and as leaders in a Venture Crew for scouts interested in ham radio.
As a result, the average age of hams in our county is dropping, but the quality of hams is not.
Even though most of our recent growth has come from converting CBers to hams, there are no "good buddies" on our repeater. If any thing is changing, it's the local CB net on channel 36 USB--it's starting to sound more like a good amateur net.
Youngsters learn by imitating the adults around them. Bums don't congregate where they don't fit in. If we act as ladies and gentlemen on the air, if we maintain our standards of good manners, then the newbies will pick it up. And maybe, just maybe, the lids and bums will go and find another part of the spectrum to wallow in.
You can spend your time bitching and moaning about falling standards, or you can get off your backside and work to improve them.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N3EVL on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ said:
"...My whole point through my long-winded post is that you didn’t see me complaining..."
Yes, I realize that you're not complaining - your tolerance of such an absurd system is either commedable or foolish - I don't know which! How many others have we lost who weren't quite as tolerant and persevering?
"...Those who don’t have to learn CW may never try it..."
And I reiterate that not learning PSK or Satellite theory may mean I never try it but that doesn't prevent me from getting my feet wet with other aspects of the hobby so, again, why the elevated position for CW?
73, Pete
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by VE2DC on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We do have to be careful not to overdo the business analogy here... Bar exams are not designed to maximize the number of lawyers... medical exams primary purpose isn't to churn out the maximum number of MDs... amateur exams have to maintain minimum standards.
However, CW is going... if not now... soon. I can't imagine it remaining a requirement for long in the USA if it's not a requirement in most of the world. It seems to me we should simply accept the inevitable change, and if there is an issue with the licence requirements becoming too lax, that should be addressed as a problem in it's own right. Better to apply pressure to the FCC to resolve that issue than tilting at windmills.
I would also add that many of the problems I've seen in 35 years of Ham radio are caused by bad-attitude, substance abuse or even mental health problems... not lack of technical knowlege or CW ability.
As for "truckers" taking over 2M... which someone mentioned... if they don't even have a licence, I don't see the relevance...
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3EVL said:
“Yes, I realize that you're not complaining - your tolerance of such an absurd system is either commedable or foolish - I don't know which! How many others have we lost who weren't quite as tolerant and persevering?”
Those who were “lost” didn’t want it bad enough. They most likely weren’t worth having in the first place.
N3EVL went on to say:
“And I reiterate that not learning PSK or Satellite theory may mean I never try it but that doesn't prevent me from getting my feet wet with other aspects of the hobby so, again, why the elevated position for CW?”
With the present licensing system, CW is the only thing that anyone has to work for, to achieve. The written exams are a joke. All the written exams test is one’s ability to memorize some text. Why not have prospective hams memorize and recite the US Constitution or the Gettysburg Address instead? You want CW testing abolished. What do you propose to put in its place, so that an amateur license doesn’t take on the characteristics of a roll of toilet paper?
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How about this ??? Allow credit for element 1 if the licensee finds a sponsor (elmer) that is at least an Advanced class operator. If the sponsor agrees, then the person is on probation for 2 years and the sponsor is responsible for any violations committed by the no-code ham. If no violations occur within the 2 years then the licensee is permanently given credit for element 1, upon the signoff from his sponsor. If the sponsor decides that there is a continuing problem, then he can pull his sponsorship at any time during the probation, and the licensee would revert back to VHF/UHF Tech privileges. This way you could keep the current license system and give an opportunity to have no-code HF. This seems like a very fair compromise to me.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NK7J on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bravo on the good article.
I for the most part have kept silent on the debate, it is pointless to try and convince the pro-code or no-code crowds to change thier minds. They both have points, some good, some just absurd.
I dont like CW, never have but did it to pass my tests. Made a few CW contacts when I was first got my ticket (KB7JSV) and can say it was "fun" but lost it glamor rather quickly. I have heard it said that the code requirment brought about a camaraderie amongst hams. I really dont think so, I feel no different towards a no-code ham than I do the old timer who took his test from the FCC. If they are good people and are not wierdos then hey there OK. Who cares whether they know CW?
As far as attracting a bunch of CB idiots (not that all of them are) I think this is a little judgmental. I have tried to get CB folks interested in ham radio but most just do not care! If someone has a interest in learning radio just for fun then you have a chance to get them hooked, otherwise forget it CB or no CB.
Yes by lowering the CW requirment (and dropping it) we let in some (in the terms of kemit the frog) "weirdos" or downright lids. But I can truthfully say most of the lids I have ran into have passed the CW test long ago and are just crotchity (sp), grumbly nasty people. You will get them either way.
What we need is new blood that is excited, willing to learn and then to teach. We need elmers!!! Here locally we got lots of people thier tickets but then dropped the ball BIG time, they floundered around aimlessly without any teaching and most lost interest and faded away. I am as guilty as anyone and now that I look back I can see the error in our ways. It is not about CW or NO cw, It is about attracting new blood and keeping them interested by teaching them how much fun Ham radio can be, without that yeah it might just be glorified CB.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC2FTT on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Business view,how many radios,tuners,and antennas
new and used would be sold if HF opens to the no code population with Xmas coming?
It makes me wonder why the radio equipment manufactures and dealers are not pushing for the CW requirement in the US. to be dropped ASAP.?
|
| |
|
RE: WR8D
|
|
|
by WB4M on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good post! I went to our local radio club after years of dropping out it, due to lack of enthusiasm by older members. What I found was the club is now basically a CB club with members just as you described.. they think they all are MSEE's. I heard talk of "only a fool would buy a K2 QRP rig - you have to PUT IT TOGETHER!" Well no hock, Sherlock!! Also heard was "I have 242 countries confirmed on 11 meters!". Duh, of coure he did this illegal accomplishment using illegal frequencies running illegal power. This is what is REALLY going on folks! Like WR8D says, some of these guys are beyond elmering.. they go right back to their hardcore CB roots. I really do not see why they have to bring their CB crap with them to ham radio.. leave it at the door, new hams!
I swear, if ham radio has to be reduced to CB, maybe its not worth saving after all. Let it die a natural death. I will never understand taking such a great hobby and deliberately ruining it.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC2FTT on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"most of the lids I have ran into have passed the CW test"
I agree! now if we had a means to prove it!!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RADIO123US said:
“How about this ??? Allow credit for element 1 if the licensee finds a sponsor (elmer) that is at least an Advanced class operator. If the sponsor agrees, then the person is on probation for 2 years and the sponsor is responsible for any violations committed by the no-code ham. If no violations occur within the 2 years then the licensee is permanently given credit for element 1, upon the signoff from his sponsor. If the sponsor decides that there is a continuing problem, then he can pull his sponsorship at any time during the probation, and the licensee would revert back to VHF/UHF Tech privileges. This way you could keep the current license system and give an opportunity to have no-code HF. This seems like a very fair compromise to me.”
What you are proposing is still lowering the standards and will only lead to toilet paper licenses that one doesn’t have to work for. It will not attract any competent people into the hobby. Then for sure will my prediction come true about ham radio becoming less technically-oriented and more like the way CB used to be when it was still an orderly service. We don’t need to treat no-coders like criminals, placing them on probation or parole. The bottom line is that hams need to work for their licenses. No free lunches. You don’t drop a requirement unless you replace it with something—something of substance. If the code test is eliminated, the written tests need to become more intense and more comprehensive, with no published question pools, or question pools that are so vast that they would be impossible to memorize. Make the applicants learn the material. Make a ham license something to be proud of again. Don’t turn the license into a piece of toilet paper.
NK7J said:
“We need elmers!!!”
Bingo! Give that man a cigar! I am one of those orphans who had to pick myself up by my own bootstraps with no elmer. Maybe if I could have had an elmer when I first expressed an interest in amateur radio in 1978, things would have been different for me. I didn’t know any hams in 1978, just other Cbers.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N0YVW on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll be frank. I've read and participated in other debates over this issue over the past few weeks since I submitted this article, and I've had the opportunity to see good arguments on both sides of the code debate.
I've somewhat amended my position on the issue, and am even debating the possibility of submitting a petition to the FCC on the issue, with the following points, which reflect my revised position:
1. Allow all holders of the Technician-class license access to the Novice HF bands, regardless of code status...i.e., if you've passed Element 2, you're on the air in HF effective immediately.
2. Allow all hams with Element 1 credit access to the current General-class portions of the band (i.e., Novice and Tech+).
3. Allow all hams with Element 3 credit access to the current Advanced-class portions of the HF bands (i.e., General-class hams).
4. Since Advanced-class hams (as I recall) already have credit for the old Element 4A, issue credit for Element 4B and renew all Advanced-class licenses as Extra-class licenses, but allow Advanced-class hams to begin operating with Extra-class privileges effective immediately.
I realize that this is still going to raise a hue and cry among a select group of the Extras, who think that because they took the 4B, it's "not fair" for folks who were lazy enough to only take 4A to get credit, but they can cope.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Business model?!
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great Prose.
Is your theory of how to do business applicable to all business? Of course not.
Does it cover all customers? Of course not! Sometimes you can NEVER satisfy the customer. If you try to, you waste time that could be spent on customers producing a net positive cash flow. You give up good customers by chasing the bad.
Why not make it easier for more people to become your customers by cutting prices in half! If you have a good product/service, demand will increase! A lower price will make it a lot easier for new customers.
What? It would bankrupt you?? Attracting new customers by making it easier for them doesn’t ALWAYS pay off? You go out of business. Your present customers loose out when you go belly up? Your employees get thrown out of jobs, loose their income? You can’t pay your bank loans? You loose your assets and income? Can’t continue health coverage for your self and your family?
But just think of all of those new customers you make happy!
How about FREE products and service? That would attract tons of new customers! Many, many, many happy faces!
Huuum. Maybe business models aren’t applicable to ham radio?
Aren’t there free radio services for those who don’t want to earn privileges? Why not simply use them instead of putting forth effort and time to become a ham?
Might be because at least one of them is in chaos, a snake pit? They didn’t have to learn about anything. The Technology was so advanced that all they had to do was buy a radio, and buy an antenna system, and away they GO! Hundreds of thousands of Happy, Happy, Happy “customers”—it was so EASY. Didn’t even need a ticket!
Anyone got any proof that the NO-CODE! Techs, and LOW-CODE ham tickets have attained the objective of getting more hams by lowering the effort to become a ham?
Anyone got proof that lowering the effort, AGAIN, will be low enough to “SAVE” Ham Radio, without turning it into a CB-hybrid?
Anyone post the question pools from any of the countries who now have no code tickets? Of course not! It is my understanding there ain’t question pools there!
Maybe that is the first step, importing the testing and material needed to be covered from the countries without a CW test? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a UK, EU, ZL or VK ham post a request on this site about how to make a dipole. Maybe it is too hard for USA hams to learn more about ham radio before becoming licensed? After all, we shouldn’t have to learn about any mode, or learn how radio works, that isn’t current technology, to design circuits. We just buy stuff and use it. With modern technology we don’t need any testing other than rules and regulations!
Ultimately, we may have to import more of the horror from the snake-pit. I think the REAL question is how much more jamming, and harassment, do we want to tolerate in order to attract more new “less-effort” hams?
Remember, if the bands go bankrupt, we can’t file for re-organization, just liquidation. Don’t believe it, 27 Mcs is BANKRUPT; management liquidated all responsibility.
So far, the most sensible concept I’ve heard of is that it is time for a major restructuring of all testing, and license privileges—a rewrite of part 97.
As far as I know, the only organization capable of doing that is The League.
Yup.
Go ahead.
File a petition with the FCC explaining how we need a business model to attract more customers, CW is ONLY a mode, and we have to take Ham radio into the new century by only testing what we absolutely need to know to turn on a transceiver and operate it. Go new technology!!
3s, less effort than 73s
We be destinated.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ said "You don’t drop a requirement unless you replace it with something—something of substance. If the code test is eliminated, the written tests need to become more intense and more comprehensive, with no published question pools, or question pools that are so vast that they would be impossible to memorize."
I agree with you 100 percent. The current written exams are a joke. Unfortuately, with the constant whine and complain from the no-coders, they will probably get what they want...even though the silent MAJORITY is Pro-Code. That's why my suggestion would at least force some supervision over the newbies....
I think the main reason to keep the code requirement has nothing to do with whether or not it makes a person a better operator. The willingness to study and pass the SIMPLE code test shows us ALOT about the person's attitude towards ham radio...in other words, how important it is to them.... When something is very important to you, don't you take much better care of it ???
The no-code Tech license has proved that ALOT of people will not make the extra effort it takes to upgrade if you give them TOO many privileges up front. This is basic human nature, and is basically what has led to the code/no-code debate that we have today. Before 1991, there were very few complaints about the code requirement because everyone knew that it what you had to do to get a license.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0YVW said:
“1. Allow all holders of the Technician-class license access to the Novice HF bands, regardless of code status...i.e., if you've passed Element 2, you're on the air in HF effective immediately.
2. Allow all hams with Element 1 credit access to the current General-class portions of the band (i.e., Novice and Tech+).
3. Allow all hams with Element 3 credit access to the current Advanced-class portions of the HF bands (i.e., General-class hams).
4. Since Advanced-class hams (as I recall) already have credit for the old Element 4A, issue credit for Element 4B and renew all Advanced-class licenses as Extra-class licenses, but allow Advanced-class hams to begin operating with Extra-class privileges effective immediately.
I realize that this is still going to raise a hue and cry among a select group of the Extras, who think that because they took the 4B, it's "not fair" for folks who were lazy enough to only take 4A to get credit, but they can cope.”
I don’t think that Novices and Technicians (with code) should automatically be given General privileges. Novices and all Technicians (with code and without code) should be granted the privileges of a current Tech with code (or Tech Plus), and all be classed as Technicians. If they want General privileges, they should still have to pass the General exam. The current requirements for General and Extra should remain. Generals should not automatically be upgraded to the current Advanced. The difference between the material necessary for the General vs. the material necessary for the Advanced is too vast. I see no harm in giving the Advanced class an automatic upgrade to Extra. After I upgraded to Extra, I took an old Advanced practice exam here on eHam. I was shocked to see how much of my Extra exam was taken from the old Advanced pool. Fact is, it was most of it.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N0YVW on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ sez:
I dont think that Novices and Technicians (with code) should
> automatically be given General privileges. Novices and all Technicians
> (with code and without code) should be granted the privileges of a
> current Tech with code (or Tech Plus), and all be classed as Technicians.
>
My rationale for proposing this is the fact that (let's face it), Novice and Tech+ licensees have absolutely done something that no-code licensees haven't...they've passed the 5 WPM. As a result, let's give them a nod and acknowledge this fact by expanding their HF privs if we're expanding no-coders into theirs.
If they want General privileges, they should still have to pass the General
> exam. The current requirements for General and Extra should remain. Generals
> should not automatically be upgraded to the current Advanced. The difference
> between the material necessary for the General vs. the material necessary for
> the Advanced is too vast. I see no harm in giving the Advanced class an
> automatic upgrade to Extra. After I upgraded to Extra, I took an old Advanced
> practice exam here on eHam. I was shocked to see how much of my Extra exam was
> taken from the old Advanced pool. Fact is, it was most of it.
>
The Advanced-class license is no longer a current class of license. If we're auto-upgrading Advanced-class licensees into Extra, why not give the Generals some additional privs in the mix?
And yes, I am currently a General-class license-holder. For about another two weeks, 'til I pass my Extra-class test, so I'm not saying this just because I want additional frequency privileges, because if this proposal were to be adopted, there would be no advantage for me in doing it myself.
Are there any lawyers out there who would like to write this up all nice and purty on a pro-bono basis, or do I gotta do the legwork myself on this one?
<grin>
PEACE ES 73 DE DOUG N0YVW
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“The Advanced-class license is no longer a current class of license. If we're auto-upgrading Advanced-class licensees into Extra, why not give the Generals some additional privs in the mix?”
I already stated my reasons. The jump in technical knowledge necessary on the exams from General to Advanced is much more significant than the jump in technical knowledge from Advanced to Extra. If one can pass the old Advanced exam, passing today’s Extra shouldn’t be much of a hardship. I believe that someone who studied for the Advanced exam just prior to restructuring in 2000, could have passed the Extra exam just after restructuring without studying for it. I don’t believe that one who could pass a General exam could easily pass the old Advanced exam without studying for the Advanced. You can compare the levels of technical knowledge required for the exams with the privileges themselves. There is a large increase in the privileges when you go from General to Advanced, but the difference between the privileges of the Advanced and that of the Extra are very small. An Advanced can go almost everywhere an Extra can go.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W8JJI on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The CW requirement has outlived it's usefullness.
It is time to put it to rest before it stagnates the growth of the hobby any further.
It's time to move forward ! ( without a cw requirement ).
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KQ6YF on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To AG4RQ
Who said anything about auto-upgrades (or grandfathering) Advanceds into Extras? I thought it was a good idea and posted a message in the speak out forum at this site.
Everybody was polite, but negative replies to my posts outran positive ones.
I still think that it's a good idea. In fact, I'll be blunt. (I can smell the fire being kindled!) If I can copy code somewhere between 3 to infinitely many times faster than the new breed of Extras, why can't I play on their turf?
Just a thought.
(dodges a killer tomato thrown at him)
B
.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K4FAU on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good article.
you are correct about an instant but probably not sustained rush of many many personnel that will go out and buy much better equipment thus helping local ham vendors and such.
Maybe if we could get a few more poeple on HF then the FCC would not be giving away our spectrum left and right.
And when I started ham radio the average age was early 20s -- now its like 45.
some folks act as if there is a direct correlation between the capability of receiving code and good manners ... its just all too consuming ..
I get so tired of hearing people say that by doing away with the Morse code portion of the test that you are dummying down the highly elite pool of prestigious ham operators. From what I see just becuase you know or better yet, use CW, does not make you a better mannered person.
But these are the same folks that I am sure that would also suggest that we force everyone who wants to upgrade from a dial-up internet access account to a high speed broadband connection take a mandatory 20wpm typing test whether they'll type letters or not… its that ludicrous…
I work, design and engineer some of the most highly sophisticated satellite and microwave communication equipment in the world. I have the technical capability, engineering degrees and experience to make two Dixie cups speak to each other half way around the world with digital quality –– I also served in the Army for 20 years as a morse code operator – an 05H and can send and receive at my heyday 37 wpm…...yet I do not use not want to use morse … I like to talk to folks ……
So who is dummying down what? So congratulations – you passed a Morse code test that your great grandfather would be proud of you for – you can send 5 wpm to a ham across the continent when in fact, the technology now allows you to send the entire Webster’s Dictionary in 3 minutes via gigahertz technology – so instead of looking forward – we are clutching something from the past to validate our existence.
These protectors of the code remind me of the story I saw on the History Channel about how upset the Horse solders were when the mechanized vehicles came on board and stated that this was the end of the US Army and that motorized vehicles would never succeed…I hope ten years from now my kids look back and laugh how we as a group based our technical proficiency on how well we rode the Morse Code horse and not drive the higher technology vehicles!
no code HF is going to happen -- it will happen soon -the world is going to it as we speak - and it will be good for everyone -- and while i am throwing in my two cents worth -- if it wasn't for all the no coders on 2 meters talking then surely by now the FCC would have given away that spectrum too... so be glad that we have folks out there using these freqs that you "protectors of the code" are so willing to defend...
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4FAU (aka N3HV) said "Maybe if we could get a few more poeple on HF then the FCC would not be giving away our spectrum left and right. "
Last time I looked, we are NOT losing HF spectrum... in fact we just gained some....The spectrum that is at risk is VHF/UHF...why don't we populate those bands ???....and to get a license for them doesn't require the code test !!! I've always wondered why people say we need more hams on HF to save the VHF/UHF bands ???
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KQ6YF said:
" To AG4RQ
Who said anything about auto-upgrades (or grandfathering) Advanceds into Extras? I thought it was a good idea and posted a message in the speak out forum at this site.
Everybody was polite, but negative replies to my posts outran positive ones.
I still think that it's a good idea. In fact, I'll be blunt. (I can smell the fire being kindled!) If I can copy code somewhere between 3 to infinitely many times faster than the new breed of Extras, why can't I play on their turf?
Just a thought.
(dodges a killer tomato thrown at him)"
I'm not arguing with you. I'm the one who agreed with granting the Advanced class an automatic upgrade to Extra. Read more carefully what I posted. I said that the level of technical knowledge needed to pass an Advanced exam is almost on par with the level of technical knowledge needed to pass an Extra exam. Its the suggestion to automatically upgrade Generals to Advanced privileges that I have a problem with. Very few who just passed a General exam would be able to pass one of the pre-restructuring Advanced exams. Also, with the very small difference between the privileges of an Advanced and an Extra, that would remove any incentive for Generals to upgrade to Extra. You, yourself, being an Advanced didn't upgrade to Extra. I'm sure its for one of two reasons. Either:
1- you don't want to be mistaken for a slow-code Extra, or
2- the amount of privileges you have to gain as an Extra isn't worth paying the fee and taking the exam.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KQ6YF on September 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
to KG4RQ
you're a perceptive fellow and you got it right. me busted!
if i ever changed my call the only two possibilites would be my original general class call (wa6hzn) or one in the same format in which my name is embedded.
B
.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WH0AMI on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good article, jump right into the frying pan.
CW will be used long after the test requirement is gone. Yes, it will go away. The operators that had to take it will be gone, but some place, some one will be tapping, because it is what they WANT to do.
I am surprised so many of you care.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WAN2BE on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just purchased a 10 meter radio last week. I am not licensed yet and have only keyed up to test the SWR of a J-pole that I just built. I know nothing about the ham lingo and weird acronyms, but the whole thing seems fascinating to me. I have soldered together a crude oscillator circuit and made a key using some spring steel from the rope recoil salvaged out of a broke lawnmower and and old piece of pine 1" x 6". Right now, I am taking a break from studying for test and learning code. Really, the code is more interesting than the exam material. Whenever I get my license and get into whatever FCC database I am supposed to get in, I would love to talk to others the way telegraphers did 200 years ago.
By the way... Is the callsign I made a "vanity"?
J. Micah Cefalu
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W4ETN on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, all true. Except the no code tech did not dump thousands of no code tech's on the already over crowded HF bands. The no code tech did not kill Amateur Radio, just another nail in the coffin.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If there were a way to sort out the "No Code CBers" from the "No Code Hams", I wouldn't be so opposed to eliminating the code requirement. I have yet to hear any real workable solution here.
The issue is, that to keep the hardcore CBers that happened to have passed the simple Tech exam off of the HF bands, we have to have create a hurdle that they are unwilling to jump over. Right now that is the code exam. Unfortuately, many very good hams, for whatever reason, are unwilling to jump over the hurdle as well.
My opinion is that we keep everything as it is until such a plan is in place. Maybe the solution is a extremely difficult written exam. I would support that, if it were in place BEFORE the code requirement is eliminated.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NEW-HAM on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ wrote:
Ham radio is not a popularity contest. It is a big mistake to try to attract new people just to increase our numbers. We don’t need a flood of those who have the CB mentality, who want to bring their CB habits into the amateur realm. The current “Speakout” on eHam asks, "What do you see for the future of Amateur Radio? In 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc...." My reply was that ham radio would be less technically-oriented, more plug and play, would take on the characteristic of what CB used to be like before deregulation caused its anacharistic collapse, less radio-related QSOs and more non-ham related type talk.
I would agree that ham radio is not a popularity contest; however, we have to change our mode of operation. I do not understand why hams like you always think the only new people that would become hams are CBers. I guaranteed you that if you visited the average elementary school in the US, and ask the kids about ham radio, less than 1% would know anything about it. If the ARRL uses PSAs, it could target children, teenagers, and adults who are interested in computers and electronics just as businesses target their audiences when it adverstise produts. Targeted advertisments work! Furthermore, the average citizen in the US think most hams are CBers, and that is a result of lack of advertisement. Why do you think most new neighborhoods have antenna restrictions? Because they don't want those ugly CB antenna destryoing the aesthetics of their neighborhoods, but hams maybe given some latitude if they knew about the emergency work that hams perform. It takes advertising to get the word out. Ham radio could continue to thrive if we change our marketing plan.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NEW-HAM on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4MOB wrote:
NEWHAM said:
“Sometimes you have to change with the market. If no one is buying your product, you have two choices-- change the product or get killed by the competition.”
But my point is that we have been changing the product:
We went to a VEC instead of FCC testing system.
Published the question pool.
Multiple choice replaced short (and long) answers on tests.
Code speeds dropped from 20 to 5 WPM for Extra.
Created a No-Code license.
All that in the last 15 years...and we're still complaining that the average age of hams are increasing, no new hams are being recruited, etc.
It is good that we changed; however, we must keep changing until we find a successful product that people are willing to buy. If a business makes a product, and no one buys it, the business has to change the product of its marketing strategy. The same applies to ham radio. Make the prodct exciting and make the requirement for ownership as simple as possible, and most important of all-- ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE. We need to focus on the youth and adults who are electronically inclined. When was the last time you or your club visited the Boy Scouts or an elementary school to talk about ham radio? When was the last time you invited a electronic tech you know to your hamshack? Based on the numbers of new hams coming intio the ranks, I would say never if I had to speculate.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Our club has visited with the Boy Scouts quite a few times (our VP is a Scoutmaster). For the most part, the boys are interested in computers, the internet, girls and sports much, much more than ham radio.
Most electronic techs are too busy playing with the latest greatest networking gadget--or overcoming the latest viral infection on their business network!!
We can't keep changing...because eventually we will change enough to where ham radio isn't ham radio anymore. We both know that computers are the big thing right now. Should we ditch radio in favor of becoming a computer hobby? No, because we are *ham radio* operators!!
Someone once said "You can't please all the people all the time." At some point, we are going to have to say "This is ham radio. This is what we do. Take it, or leave it."
Sooner or later, we must accept the fact that there are some people in this world who don't want to communicate via radio with friends and faraway places, who don't look at a roll of coax and ponder about the next antenna, and who don't look at a radio and go "cool!!". We should tell people "If you like those (and similar) things, fine, successfully demonstrate your knowledge, and come on in. If you don't like what we do, sorry, maybe ham radio isn't for you."
We must be faithful to our purpose so eloquently set forth in Part 97. To change ham radio just to appeal to "a greater number of people" is doing a disservice to everyone.
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4MOB said "We must be faithful to our purpose so eloquently set forth in Part 97. To change ham radio just to appeal to "a greater number of people" is doing a disservice to everyone."
Well said !!!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K2IY on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Case in point is that the Amateur SERVICE is a place for people to use radio without commercial interest. As many OT's pointed out it takes a special person to love radio (even in these days of instant personal communications via internet). Based in this I can forsee retention of SOME code req't; either as is or a relaxed version for HF activity.
My second case in point is that in light of public service and Homeland Security, one can foresee some opening of the rules for the Amateur SERVICE concerning activity on the vhf and higher frequencies. For example every emt, policeman or fireman may be given tech privelages by showing the ability to operate a radio, not necessarily display circuit design skill etc. Likewise all publicly elected officials may be afforded similar privaleges.
Allowing our public servants and officials to check into or monitor our vhf public service repeaters etc. will add a new dimension to HR. Traditional hams will still be the maintainers and controllers of thse facilities. Besides adding a new use to our spectrum by RESPONSIBLE individuals, this will also increase commercial equipment sales and increase exposure for the amateur service.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N5XM on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This kind of discussion is fascinating, and it seems there are a lot of different perspectives out there. What is hard to understand is why so many seem so disinterested in upgrading. When you first get started, 2 meters is ok, but in less than a year I was bored to tears. Elmering is great, and I've been lucky to have a 50+ year Ham as my Elmer. My Elmer taught me of the great history and tradition of Ham Radio, and I am as greatful for that as I am all the technical stuff he helped me with, and he is an E.E.
Being a good operator comes from inside. For me, becoming the best Ham I could become is my way of thanking all those who came before me. We need to teach folks the technical stuff, but also help them understand that is an honor and privelege to be a Ham. I love CW, but it really runs deeper than that if you think about it.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W6TH on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can you be more specific and inform me as to where you have received this information?
Also, how soon for the developement for this future procedure?
Thanks,
W6TH
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W6TH on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2IY, sir:
Can you be more specific and inform me as to where you have received this information?
Also, how soon for the developement for this future procedure?
Thanks,
W6TH
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K2IY on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6TH
I was just giving a personal view of what can happen to the amateur service.
I've come to agree with the OT's that we need to preserve some of the code tradition, especially for the hf bands.
I simply feel that for the vhf bands we need some approach which will allow for growth and use of the bands by responsible individuals.
If amateur radio is going to survive and grow we need to preserve it's tradition and character but also find new and innovative uses to serve the country. IMHO we face alot of competition with other services and commercial interests.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gentlemen!!!
Progressive dumbing down of Amerika:
Past Code Speed requirement=13wpm
Present Code Speed requirement=5wpm
Future Code Speed requirement=0wpm
Future Technical EXAM requirement=NONE!!!
Think I'm off base??? Just wait Boys and Girls IT IS COMING!!! Why you ask? Because our "Wanna-Be" Brothers and Sisters DEMAND IT!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2IY,
Isn't it bad enough now where Politicians try to say what is best for us all the while "Pick'n our Pockets" for our own hard-earned money and you're advocating giving them "AMATUER RADIO LICENSES TOO???" JESUS/GAWD ALMIGHTY have'nt the Politicians already done ENOUGH DAMAGE to you as well as the rest of us??? You better come back out of the SUN as it's frying your BRAIN OB!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KK7AC on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Alienate people comming into the hobby of Amateur Radio?" (Meaning CW as a hinderance)...I dont even use CW very much at all, but it was what attracted to the hobby; dedication, hardwork, and a service that separated itself from "other radio services". (I once felt proud of my amateur radio accomplishments, but now I can say it has been cheaped abit) It only alienates those who dont have an intire interest in the hobby to begin with. I understood full well what was expected of me and what I needed to do to have the incentive to upgarde. I too started at no-code and worked my way up to extra, at no time did I cry or wine about something not being "fair". America has become such a self-rightous, something for nothing instant gratification socity...its sad to see it everywhere you look; in religion, socitial values, morals, laws, government, our schools and now our hobby. A dumbing down of sorts. I wanted to upgarde so that when a lay-person asked me about my radio station, I could show them its full potional from satellite to HF. I did not want someone to come over and say "Hey your a ham, lets talk to someone over seas" ...I didnt want my response to be "I cant do that, I'm not allowed to use the radio spectrum that allows that". We all have our reasons for becomming hams, wanting to upgrade and thoughts on the code. I say leave well enough alone, dont pull this great hobby into the cespool of mediocrity.... A Hams View
KK7AC
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
yet another CW/ANTICW DEBATE. A businessmans point of view? OLD SAYING.......SAME SH-T, DIFFERENT WRAPPER!
No offense to the auther, it was well written!
How about a crackheads point of view? How about a metaphysist point of view? How about an existential point of view. How about a nilist point of view.
Fruadian point of view? How about a satelite view?
How about a view from the TV SHOW'' THE VIEW''!!!!
Sorry, just had a crummy day. I just needed to write 2 cents of literary trash!
I am not even going to make a PRO OR CON. Those that know me, know where I stand.
Sophestry is an art form. That is my stand on this.
73 de MIKE
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KD3JF on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you, Thank you for posting such a sane article.
There is a poem I have used many times. It is entitled "Cheering Up The Sick." This woman visits this other woman to cheer her up. She tells her that her husband has been seen all over town with another woman. If that is not enough she goes on about other people she has known that have died from the same sickness. Of course the purpose of the visit was to cheer up the patient!
Paul Gates, KD3JF
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K1KID on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yep, we need more people! Instant gratification is what this is really all about. Screw the CW, it's obdolete anyway. Simplify further the technical exam, no one builds their own gear any more. Propagation? I don't never see no sun spots! Antennas? I buy mine at HRO.
We NEED more people. Instant gratification helps. The dumbing down of tests helps. All of America is being dumbed down anyway. Hell let's have no tests at all. Worked for 11 meters. We need more PEOPLE, yep!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1KID,
U seem like a very perceptive individual as I am!!!
BINGO!!!
Don't wanna learnna da CODE, donna wanna learna da theoryia, I'mma justa a DUMBA citizen who'a knows his a'rightahs!!!
DARWIN WAS FRIGG"N WRONG!!! As the above explains!!!
:-))) or :-(((
Take ur pick!!!
JIM/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K2IY on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the end this desision will not be made by me or any of the posters here on this forum. The desision will be made by the FCC people, some of whom are hams.
Some of you can call it "Dumming Down" if they relax cw and some will call it "An Injustice to Others" if they maintain the cw standards.
It's just important to put yourself in the FCC's point of view and figure out what they may be thinking or end up deciding.
Just keep in mind that the FCC will view the Amateur Service License req'ts the way they view any form of radio licensing (Commercial, Marine, Municipal or Business Licensing). IMHO they do not make these decisions solely on "ham tradition" or "ham character" standards. A Ham station is the same as any Commercial, Municipal, Marine or Business License because; in that they both require a technical station license and operator license.
Or better put, this decision will not be made on the basis of emotional arguments (either way).
Also you can't believe that these Amateur standards will ever resemble CB Service which was crystal controlled 5 Watt radio Service.
For what it's worth CB was a noble idea because it gave ordinary citizens the ability to report all types of emergencies. Especially following the rapid growth of the Federal Highway System in the 1950's, CB's invention as a citizen's mobile service is not illogical. Ita actually did serve a public function for some groups, til it became a mess.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NEW-HAM said:
“I would agree that ham radio is not a popularity contest; however, we have to change our mode of operation. I do not understand why hams like you always think the only new people that would become hams are CBers. I guaranteed you that if you visited the average elementary school in the US, and ask the kids about ham radio, less than 1% would know anything about it. If the ARRL uses PSAs, it could target children, teenagers, and adults who are interested in computers and electronics just as businesses target their audiences when it adverstise produts. Targeted advertisments work! Furthermore, the average citizen in the US think most hams are CBers, and that is a result of lack of advertisement. Why do you think most new neighborhoods have antenna restrictions? Because they don't want those ugly CB antenna destryoing the aesthetics of their neighborhoods, but hams maybe given some latitude if they knew about the emergency work that hams perform. It takes advertising to get the word out. Ham radio could continue to thrive if we change our marketing plan.”
Your idea of a publicity campaign to inform and educate people about ham radio and what it is all about is a good idea. That is where I draw the line. I am totally opposed to watering down and changing our hobby just to make it more appealing to the masses. As I said in my earlier posts, it takes a special type of person to be a ham. Ham radio isn’t for everybody. This hobby doesn’t need everyone that is living and breathing. Unfortunately, that’s what the Internet has become. We need to reach out to those who have a love of radio, a love for electronics, a desire to learn and a desire to experiment.
As for the CBers, if you or anybody else doesn’t believe that a no-code HF ham license won’t bring a flood of Cbers / Freebanders in, you’re sadly mistaken. These are the hard-core CB types that will just continue “shooting skip” on 27 MHz as long as we have a code requirement. Remove the code requirement and you will see loads of them testing for their ham licenses. They don’t want VHF or UHF. They want HF. They will walk out of testing sessions with a minimum of General. Not all of the 11-meter crowd uses Rangers or Galaxys. Many have all-band HF rigs made by Icom, Kenwood and Yaesu. Loads of them are just chomping at the bit to “go legal” once the code requirement is dropped. When you start hearing echos and roger beeps on 17 and 20m from ops with valid ham callsigns, along with 10-4 and “we back quiet” or “we wavin a hand” you will understand what I was trying to warn you about. By then, it will be too late. The very worst element will probably still be deterred, as those won’t want to be under any rules or use a callsign. They will just remain on the freeband and continue their lawlessness.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WR8D on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well guys and gals it looks like its just about over now. There's many of us that have been exposed to the filth thats leaking into our hobby. There's many of us on the other hand that has no idea what we're talking about because they've never had to listen to these types. Its so bad here many of us have dropped our arrl vec programs. My reason for this is i dont want my call associated in any way with what i see as
the demise of our wonderful hobby. I hate the thought of hf becoming another 11 meter waste land. Fcc deregulated chickenband and most of us know what that turned into. Now its starting on our hambands. I dont think there's enough of us that honestly understands what we risk or do anything about it. Yes we all want to ring our hands and say lets get new blood in the hobby. I think most are living in somekind of a fairy tale world though. This isnt the land of milk and honey and good ole put the hammer down is waiting right around the corner with his mouth watering..I've had a few go rounds here with an arrl officer or two about this issue of code-nocode. I guess i kind of got under one of their collars a little and he quoted a figure which i dont remember but it was in the thousands. "Thousands of Cbers" out there is what he was talking about. Arrl is aware of the potential for new membership. No this is not another arrl bashing either. You just form your own opinions. Has anyone really thought about who is really behind all this and really got it started and keeps it rolling along? How many of you folks have seen someone in a nice family pass away and the kids all fall out and start fighting over the money?? We all have. People in this country will sell their souls for a buck. Nothing is sacred anymore...everything is for sell and has a price. I know it wont help now with the code-nocode but i hope there's just a few out there that can read between the lines. I'm just scared about good ole put the hammer down. I've already had to deal with him and it was not a pleasant experiance. My vec team all disbanded and we dropped our arrl membership. Most folks just dont believe they speak for "hams" anymore.
This is just a passing thought for all you fine folks..I feel no ill will toward anyone just sadness that we all couldnt stand together...soon now it will all be differant. This filth will sooner or later get around to each and every one of you where ever you talk. Then after its too late you'll understand and see for yourselves. You'll think..what a mess..i had no idea and...those ole farts were right.
This is my last one folks it just ain't worth the effort anymore!
73 and God Bless All
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KZ9G on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4FAU:
The average age of the general ham population is in its late fifties to mid sixties. It's far above 45. I have seen these figures within the last year or so, but I forget where. It I find it again, I'll be sure to pass it along.
I do know that ham radio need NEW and YOUNG BLOOD. That is, attract folks that are my age (late thirties) and younger. In fact, I usually find it difficult finding others in my age group to converse with, on the air or at group/club functions. Ending on a similar note, I hope the ARRL's Big Project will get younger men and women interested again.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N1RWC on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to agree with N3EVl on this one,
Sort of like having to be in a Tuxedo to be allowed to order at the Drive Thru Window.
I am all for the CW only portion of the band, and a responsible Amateur will respect those Frequency / Mode Boundaries. As for CW vs Non CW, let's just see what the FCC says, then go from there.
PS I know several CBers turned KBerrs and they are Generals and Extras and make the hobby like 11 meters, then again I know some Techs without CW that make the hobby enjoyable, so make your own decision on that one.
|
| |
|
Dumbing Down? or Same-Old Same-Old?
|
|
|
by AB0OX on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ/KQ6YF/K4FAU/KZ9G et al.,
We have all had a variety of experience with amateur testing and please allow me to offer a little insight from mine.
I passed the Novice test in 1972 and 1984. I passed the current Technician test in 2000. For all practical purposes, these 3 tests are/were the same test -- allowing for minor adjustments made for new modes and RF exposure, band limit changes, etc. The material is essentially the same and the difficulty is essentially the same.
I passed the General written exam in 1975 and again in 2000. Again, this test is essentially unchanged other than the natural adjustments for 25 years of change.
The 5 wpm code test is still passed with 25 consecutive "letters".
In general, these tests are the same as they ever were. Whether one works from a 1972 ARRL License Manual (which had sample questions), a 1975 Ameco General Class License Guide (with sample questions, problems, explanations, etc), or the current guides with lessons, review questions, and the question pool is nearly irrelevant. The "current" crop of study guides accurately reflects the "current" test. The effort is about the same. It's been this way for 30 years that I know of.
I can't extend this evaluation to the current Extra exam as I never took any of the previous versions.
If one is studying for the GRE or GMAT, tests from previous years are available from the publisher, and one would be a fool not to use them for practice as one's overall placement (percentile against the competition) is used by graduate schools in selecting candidates.
Will a score that places a candidate in the top 10% of all prospective graduate business students (GMAT) guarantee graduation? Of course not. Will it guarantee a successful career in business? No. It simply tests a "relevant skill set."
So: Are question pools routinely published (for entrance tests)? Yes. For some tests.
I've passed any number of tests on any number of subjects over the years (and I'm sure you have too!), and to my experience the learning and testing methods matter less than whether the material will be reinforced through actual application. "Use it or lose it."
One memorizes band/mode edges, speed limits, which countries attended various treaty conferences, how to construct a plural possessive in another language -- you name it. It all starts with memorization. Such material is then quickly lost if there isn't a practical application for it. Again, "Use it or lose it."
But there's a double-edged sword here. Material which is routinely forgotten by most who passed the test presumably has no relevance and should therefore be replaced by material which tests things people will actually use (and thus remember).
HUMOR WARNING
All logic aside, I've been at 5 wpm CW since 1972. It's not as though code has been a relevant part of my life all these years (I use it now and then since I've been re-licensed) but I can't seem to forget it, even if I tried. It's like riding a bicycle, I guess.
Will I ever design and build my own oscillator? Not without a reference book, I assure you. Will my business career ever require that I calculate the volume of a conic solid in less than 45 seconds? One can only imagine.
My highest regards to Mssrs Hartley, Colpitts & Tschebeshev,
73,
Jack
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KA2DDX on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Finally,
A code - no code discussion that makes sense. I could not agree with you more. I've been a cw op for 41 plus years now and love it dearly. But, we cw ops are becoming dinosaurs. Amateur radio needs to move into the future. We don't need to argue over it any more. Addressing ourselves to more pressing concerns is the key. Thanks Mr. "Businessman".
|
| |
|
RE: Dumbing Down? or Same-Old Same-Old?
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0OX: That was a very logical, objective, and straight forward post. Therefore, it will never fly in this forum! You're not nearly arguementative enough, nor are you mudslinging. You are not permitted to make statements of fact around here. Otherwise, you'll be accused of being an idiot, obviously uninformed, etc,,,etc... Be prepared for all the impending accusations. We all know that you didn't take the same tests as all of the "Real Hams," who in some cases have been around half as long as you.
You really are wasting time making logical points here. You could go on all day stating facts like, the majority of problem operators who are involved today, were licensed long before the suggestion of removing or even lowering the CW standard. Or, the bulk of problems or even illegal operations on 2 meters and 440, are caused by Hams sporting four or five digit calls.
I can tell you one thing. The folks who have an issue with the so-called "dumbing down" of Amateur Radio, will have nothing to worry about. Anyone who is intelligent enough to be a desirable candidate, won't have the patience to deal with these people anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: Dumbing Down? or Same-Old Same-Old?
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7FD said:
"10 years is not long enough for a clear perspective; the radio river been around a long time and it used to be a lot cleaner."
So how long, in your opinion, is long enough for a ham to make a valid observation? Unless you've operated spark gap to the Titanic, I'm not so sure your experience in radio qualifies you to make a valid observation.
As far as I can remember ham radio, only back to about 1969, there have always been bad operators. As a kid, I used to spend hours tuning around on the 'ol HQ-170 listening to crazy talk on 20, 40, & 80. In fact, I can remember a few times my dad walking in and making me turn it off because he didn't like what was being transmitted.
|
| |
|
RE: Dumbing Down? or Same-Old Same-Old?
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To the Guy who mentioned about his friend coming over and saying "Say your a Ham let's work someone overseas!!!"
Depending upon band conditions you might not be able to anyway on HF, but what I'm getting at is even the "NO-CODER BOYS & GIRLS" can and do work "The World" via VHF/UHF IRLP links!!! Hell! even I've tried it and it's pretty slick but it's not MY IDEA of what Amateur Radio is all about!!!
To each his own huh?
So what do they need extra HF privileges for to work the World when THEY HAVE THEM ALREADY and the method fits into their present "Instant-Gratification" mindset as well, IRLP gives them that opportunity!!!
And how many of these Cry-Babies would have the PATIENCE to chase and work that elusive rare one on HF???
They either want it NOW, or they'll cry and cry until I get it!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2FART!!!
By virtue of your I.D name you're not the brightest "Marble" in the Gene Pool either!!!
And for you to CROW about us older guys will die-off eventually is absolutley true, that's called life, but how do YOU KNOW that YOU won't "Drop Dead" tomorrow yourself!!!
Wise-up!!! Nah! In your case that's IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wish I could tell all of my proffessors at the hospital and university, WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE, OR DO NOT NEED TO KNOW for my masters/phd!!!
SENERIO.....lets say we did compromise and say OK,
with out 5 WPM. TECHS can have full phone/digital/cw on
10M AND 12M only. Then the FCC and the O.T.'S.,O.O.'S can highly monitor for a year.
Have a wait and see attitude. See if we have a CB like service between 24-29.7mhz. Maybe us O.T.'S will be Pleasently surprised to find mostly good ops.
However I know what the feedback will be from this senerio. WE SHOULD HAVE ALL HF! WE DO NOT WANT WAIT FOR FULL HF RIGHTS!
This is a compromise and a test to see what would happen if 5 WPM were to be dropped.
HEY, nobody can perdict the future. If you can perdict the future, please email me some lotto numbers and stock tips!
I did submit this proposal to the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W3DCG on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about No Code Tech = General full privileges to a maximum of 10W PEP.
Might make people strive, certainly gives a taste, hones operating skill, leads to a deep understanding of the meaning of privilege.
Regarding business point of view, all I can say is this:
Drop Code completely = more gear sold, more dues, more hams on HF, more good and, more bad.
Because it is hard to argue that CW is NOT the 2nd most popular mode, Total Code Removal also means a certain lowering of an already childishly low standard.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K0AST on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
proffessors -- uh, professors
SENERIO -- scenario
senerio -- again, scenario
perdict -- predict
I think the professors need to work on your spelling!
(I am sorry, this was just soooo bad of me!)
Anyway, my measily two cents worth... Open up General bands to no-code, Extra bands to those with code & Extra exam passed. Compare the two over time & see what happens...
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Humor Warning
|
|
|
by N0YVW on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0OX writes:
>I have some pictures of the cats in the shack on the
>cube wall here at work and often find myself explaining
>ham radio to my coworkers. With that in mind, I offer
>the following simple explanations:
>HAM RADIO: I always start by explaining HF DX, which is
>similar to picking up the telephone and telling the
>operator "I'd like a miserably poor connection to
>anywhere at random. I'd like to arrange to exchange
>postcards with someone I've never met. If possible,
>I'd like a connection to someplace where people
>don't really live, and there are no phones or
>electricity. Never mind why."
> ...
*wipes a tear from his eye*
Ah, by all the forgotten Gods, I laughed so hard when I read this'n...
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice post, well written, interesting view point.
Amateur radio is now at a crossroads of sorts. It can hang on to its traditions and die slowly of old age, as the license stats appear to show it doing; or it can find its place in a communications world that has changed dramatically since the CB fiasco of 25 years ago.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KOAST Hmmmm, you took more time to take a cheap shot with my spelling, then the topic. I type 50 wpm, do not use a word proc here. That was soo bad of you.
No hard feelings. However your plan is just my idea, with much lower standards. Very derivative of you.
I will not even bother with a DSM-IV 300 code.
Some of the work I do deals with polymer delivery of anti-cancer agents for glial cell carcinoma.
So before you rag on ones spelling, look in the mirror.
Would you care to explain why a polymer is more suited than standard bolus, or drip delivery.
Congradulations on passing 5 WPM, I hope it was not too hard for you.
Persona non grata pro rhe nata sans pro bono!
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by PSY2OP on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
MIKE---JJH PLEASE, Do not waste your time with those that bug you with spelling. I know who your advisor is.
I know where the funding comes from. The work you bio-engineers are doing is cutting edge.
Why are you here. I know that the N.I.H. is pushing
you guys to learn so much in so little time.
The things you deal with, I am very concerned.
Stick to your required reading for this week.
EHAM may be stress release for you. It is not working
for you at all.
AMICHE DE AMICHE. I know you know what I am telling you!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know Boys that really having the CODE requirement for HF PRIVILEGES is a good thing, because it is the one TESTING element that separates those who are willing to WORK for their Ham Ticket rather than those who bitch,cry,moan, and complain probably because they feel INADEQUATE or are too damn LAZY to learn it!!!
They make up all sorts of EXCUSES why they should'nt have to LEARN it!!!
And learning it has nothing to do with having a so-called "Ear for Music" either, as I know guys who essentially have "Tin-Ears" but still learned it because that what it took to get their HF PRIVILEGES!!!
It all boils down to "We want SOMETHING for NOTHING!!!" and that's irrefutable!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
DRINK STEAK....A TALL TASTY GLASS OF MEAT! OH, WRONG EPUB
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W4RA9-10 on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The code is going to be phased out. Isn't that great! Now all us Tech-No Code hams can get something for nothing. I knew this day would finally come. Down with the Code!!! I am delighted to know that this makes you "older" hams very mad. There's nothing better in life than to annoy old people who don't want to progress.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WR8D on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To W4RA9-10< typical dumbass cb type. If you're smart enough to even pass a writen test and get on the hambands...you'll never fit in anywhere. You'll be just like the rest of them. They stay together on certain freq's on say 80 meters. They think they have to run 2000 watts and just talk a half mile down the road to each other. Kind of think about yourself and those like you in this way. "you can take a horse to water but you cant make him drink"...it relates to you in this way just slightly differant words.."you and your type can take an amateur radio test...you can even be extra class...but you'll still just be a dumbass cber"..Any one of us can go through the bands and pick your type out and all we have to do is listen but for a few seconds. Always remember to remind yourself that "you" make yourself inferior to everyone else. Thats the way you and your kind have always been and that should explain to you why the ham community will never welcome you and your kind. You'll never know the brotherhood of amateur radio.
I know guys i said i was finished but i just could'nt resist this chickenband trash that showed up here.
73 Hi Hi..this one "is" the last one.
John WR8D:
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N9UWI on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you for a wonderful piece about amateur radio. Well said.
I am a no-code tech who has been on the air for over 10 years now, and always enjoyed amateur radio and most if not amost all the people I have met due to ham radio.
I also support dropping morse code testing.
Before attacking me, one of the things I have asked sense the day I took my test, is why are all the test questions out there for anyone to look at. I have never been able to memorize things like that, so the only choice I had was to learn the material, and truth be told, I enjoyed learning it.
I will continue to respect any good operator, all I ask is the same in return.
Thanks,
Oliver Gross, N9UWI
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by THEWISEONE on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To the crybaby who proclaims code is gone: You better not do too much dancing yet at least until the fat lady sings on this one lest your likely to end up like the spoiled child on Christmas morning only to wake up and find he did not get his favorite toy. Wah Wah give that man a bottle of milk and a crying towel.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC4P9TY on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: John WR8D
Juat the fact that you said 'Hi Hi' proclaims what a loser you are. Have you ever seen the outside world? Get out of the shack, off the code and out of your casket! You are everything that's wrong with Amateur Radio. You are the problem; not the Morse Code. Yes, I agree the Code will go, because we all must agree that it's useless! You must wake up and stop acting like a 1970's CBer, stop wasting our air on this planet - you pansie!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Apparently from some of the other INANE postings out here I'm right!!!
Either "NO-CODERS" or "WANNA-BEs" are totally either very FRUSTRATED or have feelings of tremendous "INADEQUACY"!!! So whether it's that so-called lady "KQ6XA" or all of the other Losers who can't hack LEARNING the CODE you don't deserve HF privileges anyway!!!
Don't any of you Boys or Girls who are "Anti-Code" assume for you this is going to be a "cake-walk" to CB-type" HF operations because it won't be!!!
Jim/nn6ee
PS, For all you other "LOSERS" out there who think we'll disappear thru attrition you're ALSO wrong in that alotta you guys can just as well DROP DEAD before us!!! Ever think about that MORONS???
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by THEWISEONE on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes Sir folks we have a old anonymous poster back with a new screen name. He is the same loser he always was in between blubbering about the code he has yet another barb to sling at a real fellow ham.
For you of the no-code backbone who must be feeling very cheated at having nature shorting you on various endowments, QUIT YOUR CRYING BE A MAN! GO BACK TO 11 METERS WHERE YOU BELONG. REAL MEN KNOW MORSE CODE
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WR8D on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: KC4P9TY..Another piece of cb trash. I'd at least have the sense to make up a real looking call. What i said to that other chickenband creep goes for you too with the exception of..."I'm holding your PANSIE in my hand right at this moment". You're just like the others...you'll stick out like a beacon on hf. You'll never fit in anywhere except with the other filth that you'll be a part of on our hf freq's. Think about it pal. Even if you get to extra you'll be an outcast. Being extra wont change a thing..you'll still just be a dumbass cber.
John WR8D:
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WR8D on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Folks i hope you're all watching whats going on here because this is just a taste of the attitudes you'll get to meet after the code is gone. These fools dont want to belong all they want to do is whine and cry because i guess they think the world owes them something. These last two fools that tried to jump me are just a drop in the bucket..Big ole put the hammer down is just around the corner with his sorry mouth watering. Just waiting for them to give him the hf bands.
Ye hear me out there all you dumbass cbers?
73 and sorry for the language to the ham community..but thats all these type understand.
John WR8D:
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC8YHN on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can’t see how any business model can be applied to HR. I am also a business owner and I have rules that my customers have to follow in order to get my service, no exceptions. I will not rework my business model or change my rules to get one or two or even ten more customers at the expense of the quality of my service. I seem to have happy customers so I must be doing something right.
I can’t buy into this idea that we need to get our numbers up to preserve our privileges. This won’t help us at all. BUT what will help is that we PROMOTE ourselves and HR by pulling together and becoming an asset to the public. It is good that we have Field Day and other events, but do we as a group (local or National) get together and donate our time to things that expose us as a group? This is one thing that is desperately needed; another thing is unity and continuity within as a community.
I agree with K2IL and the reasoning behind his statements. It is a fact that Amateur Service is just that a service, not a hobby, which means that are specific reasons for the requirements in order to gain PRIVILAGES to this service and responsibilities that go with the privileges. There are reasons for Code, one being a communications mode for disaster work where other communications modes will not work. This may sound impossible, but there are times, which as a Ham you should know.
From my point of view, I don’t buy the need to follow other countries just because they decided to do something. Their amateur services serve a different purpose than ours and their laws and actions don’t tend to follow what we would expect them to be.
If anyone thinks for a moment that dropping the code requirements will actually help HR, then I would like them to listen to the CB and some of the repeaters around me and see if they can tell the difference. I have been really disappointed by the way some of my fellow Hams speak while talking on the repeater.
I have to add; what is troublesome for some of us is the crappy attitude and comments about the subject. This sounds just like a CB conversation.
73
KC8YHN
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KD7BBO on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Grate articl can't agree more besides the CBer's in my
part of the world don't like all the rules that go with
being a ham.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K0AST on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LIGHTEN UP! I did apologize!
Your attempts to impress with your professors & science just caught me, that's all. Wasn't necessary or germain to the discussion. Coupled with the spelling errors, it was a real dichotomy.
And...
I don't use a word processor either, I only type 20WPM with limited fingers, I was not attempting to be your "derivative" plan as I am quite capable of original thought, I don't deal with cancer (although I work with some people who do), I wouldn't understand what a DSM code is, although I can read the Electrical Code and wire your house, I look in the mirror a few times a day to check my hair & my teeth, I don't deal with polymers other than in daily usage of normal household applications, and I did pass my test at better than 5WPM.
Okay, so you are smarter than me? Whatever...
BTW, it is congratulations, not Congradulations with the extra D...
;-)
------------------------------------------
KOAST Hmmmm, you took more time to take a cheap shot with my spelling, then the topic. I type 50 wpm, do not use a word proc here. That was soo bad of you.
No hard feelings. However your plan is just my idea, with much lower standards. Very derivative of you.
I will not even bother with a DSM-IV 300 code.
Some of the work I do deals with polymer delivery of anti-cancer agents for glial cell carcinoma.
So before you rag on ones spelling, look in the mirror.
Would you care to explain why a polymer is more suited than standard bolus, or drip delivery.
Congradulations on passing 5 WPM, I hope it was not too hard for you.
Persona non grata pro rhe nata sans pro bono!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by DOODAH on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Jim/nn6ee spouted :
> PS, For all you other "LOSERS" out there who think
> we'll disappear thru attrition you're ALSO wrong in
> that alotta you guys can just as well DROP DEAD
> before us!!! Ever think about that MORONS???
How to truly embody the amateur spirit! Not...
What a charming individual. Perhaps eham could kick
him off this system for bringing shame upon the hobby?
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W8OB on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What this guy decides he's not going to take any crap from a Cber or smartass no-code and he should be banned? Hey if they can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Way to go Jim
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by DOODAH on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> W8OB put his foot in it :
> take any crap from a Cber or smartass no-code
another fine example of the welcoming amateur spirit!
What would your mother say?
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Funny are'nt they???
The main detractors of mine out here are the MORONS who are ANONYMOUS!!! GO FIGURE!!!
Boys your CREDIBILITY is ZERO!!!
:-)))
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Point well taken OB!!!
If someone does'nt want to get his "Head Slapped" ought to be more mature about his up-until-now ASSINE & IMMATURE postings like "DOG-DOOHDAH" & N3N6ta"!!!
Christ!!!! Nothing worse then "Free-Bander" Morons who try to TROLL!!!
Hey Boys!!! Everybody sees right thru your DOG-DOOHDA!!!
Jim/nn6ee
PS, "DOG-CRAP" oops I mean "DOG-DOODAH" why isn't your forwarding EMail ADDRESS available??? Don't tell me you don't want to be harrassed do you???
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by 2AK1536 on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've had many hobbies in the last few years from R.C. Airplanes, varmint hunting to radios. In the R.C. world I came across a few clubs that payed no nevermind to new members and the only time that they would say anything to them would be when they came to the field with some HIGH DOLLAR tx or plane. WITHOUT NEW MEMBERS THE CLUB WILL FADE OFF TO NOTHING. As far as the radio world, it's now 2003 and I'm been into radios since 1975 (YES CB's) for the first few years AM only, then I found SSB and a better group of people.
Back then to the CB'ers HAMS were the antichrist, because of the talk heard about CBers from the HAMS in the area. Today I'm working on my test through this website which I like very much. I have 4 hf rigs in the radio room and lots of friends that are helping to push me. But I have NO INTEREST at this time in CODE and from reading some of these posts I will be thought of as a second class op. FULL CURCLE -- NEW MEMBERS IN A HOBBIE not giving a chance to have a good time without being hasseled. I do agree that there are LOTS of jerks on the 11 meter band to this date, I moniter 40 meters with my KENWOOD TS-530s or one of my YAESU FT-101's..and I do find my share of mindless ops. up there also, from the music to the HAMS that rip you off when you try to buy some equipment, not to forget the good HAMS that I listen to and met ...Some HAMS are no better than those CBers that they are bitching about. I DO WANT TO GET MY TICKET and have an op. 3 blocks down from me. I'm very sorry that CODE does nothing for me at this time, does that make me less of a op. than most? If the new blood comes in with a NO CODE ticket I would think that most would listen to see how they conduct themself on HF bands before passing judgement, not to mention I do know dozens of Hams that talk out of band (freeband) but will never say anything because of the abuse that they will get. I hope to get my ticket before the new year and hopefully make contact with all of you.
DAVE
P.S. HIT
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
These discussion threads are always amusing to read after they have been running for several days. They will typically start out with a well worded, carefully considered article, and then over the course of time, slowly degenerate into a “Flame Fest” perpetuated by anonymous Trolls.
I found the original preface of this thread to be an interesting point of view, with some fairly sound logical arguments. It’s a shame that many here lack the maturity to keep it on that plane.
The only reason I post in these threads is to try to remind all concerned that we are all Hams. We need to be acting in concert against external threats to our hobby, like the whole BPL issue.
Personally, the whole “Code Issue” makes no difference to me. My own interest is in mobile communications, and the VHF/UHF world serves my needs well. It’s got nothing to do with being “lazy” or “wanting something for nothing”. I’m not particularly interested in your precious HF Bands. (BTW: I learned code 45 years ago, as a boy scout. I’m sure it would come back to me with a little “brush up”, but I just don’t need it.)
We have to accept that within our hobby, there are many different interest groups. Just because someone doesn’t share your interest in CW operations, doesn’t mean that they aren’t an important part of this hobby.
Why do so many of the critics seem to assume that everyone who favors dropping the code requirement also want simpler testing? From the conversations I have had, that is certainly not universally true. In my opinion, with technology moving at the pace it is, the tests should be much more comprehensive. I also favor the periodic re-testing of existing licenses.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Kent,
You've got a point about the EXAM!!!
I'd have NO problem with dropping the CODE requirement as long as the Technical elements of the TEST would not be published in a "Question/Answer" format and that the license manuals published for a particular class of license would give THEORY background only and point you in the proper direction as far as the resulting answer was concerned!!!
We all KNOW the tests are too damn easy now even with the whimppy CODE test @ 5wpm!!!
MAKE THE THEORY TEST an "ESSAY-FORMAT" test and tougher than it is now & I'm sure alotta guys including myself would withdraw our collective disgust in removing the CODE REQUIREMENT!!! NO MORE MULTIPLE-CHOICE B.S questions!!!
Whadda ya think Guys???
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by 2INTEREST on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Be sure to make your preference known on the survey presently on this site concerning the code test issue. Scroll down to the bottom of the home page.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K5SP on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very good well written article. I am one of those old 20 wpm Extras, been licensed since early 70's.
Since I became licensed, there have been so many technical innovations in HR that have challenged me to "learn" new things. I rarely use CW anymore.
So, lets propose that all "older hams" retest periodically to ensure they are up-to-date on all the new innovations. My General exam in 72 was much more difficult that the one given today, but it had no questions about digital, psk-31, satellite ops, etc. Because I didn't demonstrate knowledge of those modes should I be allowed to use them? (I don't condone retesting, but asking new hams to prove proficiency in an outdated mode is a similar analogy.) CW is indeed archaic. I see no problem with removing the requirement, for as I scan the CW portion of the bands there at times is little activity, but, the voice is being used considerably.
Do we need to regulate our hobby? Yes, but lets do it by making the exams more than just an exercise in memorizing a study guide and question pool. Our local ham club (I was once president, but I got out) is nothing more than a group of old men that do nothing to further the advancement of ham radio, nor do they encourage younger people to pursue the hobby. They actually vote on a persons membership, and it they have something personal against a prospective member, they are not allowed in their "club". This attitud prevails everywhere. My XYL says they are a group that feels they are above anyone else and won't have anything to do with them. I tried to change this as President, held a summer camp at the college for which I teach, and only had the support of two of the members. The others only wanted to do their annual hamfest, and not get involved in anything else, or community service.
This attitude is killing ham radio. We need to support our prospective hams, elmer them, tell them when they make errors, and assist them in any way possible. (Don't yell at them over the air, curse them, and be obnoxious. Contact them off-line and point out the proper way that in in the Operating Manual.
What I am saying is, that times change, and our hobby needs to change, and not cling onto the Past, and the attitude that "I had to do it, so should they". If this prevailed with drivers licenses, we would all have to crank our model A or T, and drive with manual transmissions, because thats the way it was when my father and grandfather got their licenses. How many want to do that?
just my .02 73, de jim k5sp
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N9FAL on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a salesman for 20 yrs, I couldn't agree more---get customers, not orders!
However........
You are not going far enough. Why just eliminate the code requirement?
We need to eliminate everything: code, theory exams, and licencing.
This way we can welcome everyone. LET US NOT DISCRIMINATE!!!!!!! That would be mean and unfair, and we do not want that, OH NO!!!!!
We all need to be the same. What a terrible crime it would be to have a code requirement. We would hurt too many feelings by cruely restricting those who cannot pass 5wp.
Boo Hoo Boo Hoo Boo Hoo
I'm crying and I can't take it anymore.........
What a mean and unfair World we live in.......
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great!.............Another post dripping with sarcasm! Why do some people behave like that? Would they walk up to a stranger on the street and address them like that? I think not. How about giving your fellow Hams the same courtesy you'd give a perfect stranger?
I see some consistent points brought up by those who are against dropping the code requirement: “CW is still important.” ….”Learning Code proves that the applicant is willing to work for his (or her) License.”….”Those that don’t want to learn code are lazy, and will be poor operators.”…..”Ham radio is sinking into the CB abyss, and dropping code is just another step in that direction.”
It seems to me that most of the people arguing against the elimination of code are really concerned about the quality of the new operators joining the “HF Fraternity”. This is a valid concern. We all want to see good operating procedures, and technically capable operators. I just don’t think that a 5 WPM Code Certificate guarantees this. After all, passing the Code Test does nothing to prevent the new Licensee from rapping out;
" - . -. / ..-. --- ..- .-. / --. --- --- -.. / -… ..- -.. -.. -.--"
I do, however, agree with the critics that people should be willing to work for additional privileges. We should, however, insist on meaningful work, not "Busy Work".
If the real issue here is QUALITY OPERATORS, then let's deal with that directly, and do the following:
1) Stop the publishing of the actual questions and answers to the tests.
2) Make the technical portion of the tests longer and more comprehensive.
3) Make at least one section of the tests essay style, to eliminate the "Multiple Guess Syndrome".
4) Expand the portion of the tests that deals with correct operating procedures, and insert that section in every test from "Tech" on up.
5) Put a probationary period on each new license.
6) Periodically retest existing licenses.
What do you think?
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N0VFP on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's just cut to the chase here. Let's get rid of the code, and then all us no-coders who have been TRYING for many years can get ahead!
Lloyd, N0VFP
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LIKE I SAID BOYS IN MY EARLIER POST, make the HF operating privileges HARDer to obtain without CODE!!!
But even the "CRY-BABIES" would say "NOW I DON'T WANT TO LEARN THE THEORY EITHER!!!"
PISS ON ALL OF THEM "WANNA-BEs"!!!
Look what the "Limeys" have done as of late as well as a few other EUROS!!!
Jim/nn6ee
PS, To a few of the detractors out there who want everything for NOTHING you DO NOT DESERVE A PLACE IN THE ELITE RANKS OF HF AMATEUR RADIO!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W5TRTU8 on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
It's time you do all of us a favor and euthanize yourself! You would be doing yourself and the rest of us a great service. You will be rewarded with 40 WPM of code and all HF bands to yourself. Ahh, just think of the possibilities! C'mon Jim; it's time, do the right thing. By the way, I hear the FCC is going to take the code requirement away. It will be a great day for ham radio when that happens! Just stop your bitching.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N0YVW on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why do we have to make this an all-or-nothing issue?
Can't we hammer out a band-plan, which would give no-coders a slice of the pie in HF (both voice and some CW, for those who want to learn it the best way -- by using it), yet keep the Code requirement for higher levels of licenses?
Say, for example, to get your extra-class ticket, you've got to retain 5 WPM, or 5WPM for General/13 for Extra?
I still haven't heard any compelling (to me) arguments against an earlier post I made...give no-coders all the current Novice privs, bump Novice/Tech Plus up to General HF privs, General into Advanced HF privs, and upgrade Advanced-class licensees to Extra as they renew, but allow them to operate on the Extra bands right now.
I think the only thing we would maybe have to come up with that's not already in the band plan is voice privs for no-coders, as (if I recollect rightly), there are no Novice voice privs below 10m.
We could also create a cap on Novice power-levels, say, 100W or 200W PEP for freqs below 28MHz?
I haven't had the chance to read all of the current code petitions before the FCC, but none of those that I've read so far create a mixed system, such as I've just described.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
THE BEST THING TO DO IS GET RM-10786/RM-10787 PASSED THEN worry about reshaping the bands. 1st keep the CW bands as they are DO NOT CHANGE THEM PLEASE.then as for the other matters let us see what is petitioned and or proposed at a later date as this may be a better compromised SOLUTION AND NOT THE PROBLEM.we all should after this is OVER learn to get along as a fraternity and not be DIVISIONAL!!!!!.BTW we seem to be more concerned about this no code VS pro-code when we should be ATTACKING THE BPL/WI-FI ISSUE. QUERY who should WE BLAME IF BPL/WI-FI PASSES????????. 73 DE N2NZJ TOM.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by DOODAH on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>PS, "DOG-CRAP" oops I mean "DOG-DOODAH" why isn't
>your forwarding EMail ADDRESS available??? Don't tell
>me you don't want to be harrassed do you???
That's the first correct thing I've read from you.
Too right I don't want to give my indentity in the
face of your boorish rantings!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by DOODAH on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> P*SS ON ALL OF THEM "WANNA-BEs"!!!
>Look what the "Limeys" have done as of late as well >as a few other EUROS!!!
>Jim/nn6ee
>PS, To a few of the detractors out there who want
>everything for NOTHING you DO NOT DESERVE A PLACE IN
>THE ELITE RANKS OF HF AMATEUR RADIO!!!
Elite, yes?! Right... right... keep taking the pills Jim - the prescribed ones, that is, not the others
Elite ranks... LOL... what a ranker!
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Geez............compared to this, Channel 19 on the Children's Band sounds like "easy listening"!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N8ZH on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have watched the "code" vs. "no-code" debate with interest for some time and believe that no-coders should be given some HF privileges. This will promote the growth of ham radio and give us political clout.
If growth becomes excessive, however, a compensating squeeze may be applied to CW band allocations. This is what CW operators, like myself, fear.
If you are an unsympathetic "no-coder" who doesn't view this as a potential threat, be forewarned. Current band allocations permit CW within the voice spectrum. It is only out of courtesy (and adequate bandwidth) that CW operators refrain from using this privilege. If our space shrinks, we will be forced to move up a few KHz where our narrow CW signals will cut through your SSB like a hot knife through butter. Not only will it drive you nuts, it will give you a lesson in why CW is still a viable and valuable form of communication.
We need to see both sides of this issue (and maybe buy stock in companies that sell filters)...
- N8ZH
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IF THE MORSE REQUIREMENT IS "RETAINED" AMATEUR RADIO WILL DIE OFF VERY SLOWLY BUT SURELY IT WILL FADE INTO THE ANNALS OF HISTORY. there appears to be a lot of diehards out there that are not willing to ACCEPT ANY CHANGE for their own SELFISH REASONS AND INTERESTS this mind set will ruin it for countless thousands of potential NEW AMATEURS. INVEST IN THE FUTURE SUPPORT RM-10786 this will fuel the growth of the HOBBY.how ever this growth will be SLOW BUT STEADY it will not be as some say an invasion of thousands in a short period of time.THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN BELIEVE ME.IF THE CORRECT DECISIONS ARE MADE NOW THIS HOBBY WILL NOT "DIE OUT" it is up to us to do the right thing or go the way of the "DINOSAURS". 73 to all de n2nzj TOM.
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by WR8D on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: N2NJZ ..We're not worried about thousands of new folks entering the hobby. We're not worried if thousands of them key up all at once and arrive at the same time. Evidently you've not read or care about what is going on. What we care about is thousands of hardcore cbers with vulgar lingo and even worse operating habits that most of us have already had to deal with. Now maybe its not happening there where you live but brother it has already in lots of places. Dont start crying about elmers either i've practically beat a few over the head and they wont listen...they're just plain ole stupid cbers. Ham radio will never die...but it will turn into the next 11 meters. Get your head out of the sand and take a look and listen around the bands. Dont let someone at arrl tell you that we need to drop the code. All they want is new members and they will sell their souls to get these thousands that are just out there waiting. Also before you start off about the elite 20 wpm extra...it doesnt mean a thing to any of us if you got yours at 5wpm or like me 20 wpm..what separates everyone is the attitudes and operating practices. How do you feel about hearing 10-4 and cb handles on 2 meter machines and on hf freq's..well the rest of us are pretty fed up with it and thats why most of us that are the so called diehard or dinosaurs as you say are pretty darn fed up with it. Anyone thats active on the bands doesnt even need an explaination as to why the code should not be dropped.
73
John WR8D:
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
to whom it MIGHT CONCERN,IT WON'T HAPPEN. CASE IN POINT THE 75 METER BAND. the cw and the theory TEST did not filter any of the LID'S on that band.CW/TEST IS NOT A FILTER.IT IS UP TO US TO POLICE AND CONTROL THE BANDS AS WE ALWAYS HAVE. and like i mentioned before WE WILL NOT HAVE DROVES OF NEWBIES RIGHT AWAY.the growth will be very slow NOT AN INVASION IN A RAPID WAY AS MANY HAVE SUGGESTED IN A NEGATIVE SENSE.WHEN THEY DROP THE MORSE TEST THERE WILL BE VERY LITTLE CHANGE.(just a healthy slow positive GROWTH) nothing RADICAL as many nay sayers PREDICT.SO 73 DE N2NZJ TOM NCI#4936.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC5JPZ on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since we Technician Lites are being accused of acting like CB operators I thought I would answer. Why is it that here in Tarrant County (northeast Texas), two meters is populated by well manered people but if I tune to 75 or 40 meters I hear garbage? If that is what a telegraph exam does to a person's ability to behave then I do not intend to ever take a telegraph exam.
I look forward to the removal of the telegraph exam requirement...I will connect the power leads to my 10 meter all mode tranceiver and begin listening to voice and telegraph. Eventually I will learn the "Continental" telegraph code and use telegraph on various bands.
Let's work to protect the telegraph subbands forever.
James
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by M1ACQ on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't normally get involved in these "debates" (using the word in its loosest definition.) But being one of those "despised" no code licenses that now has access to HF (to my surprise actually - didn't think it would be that quick,) I have to say that rarely have I ever heard so much venom and so many insults directed at one set of people in my life!
With all due respect, your exams are nothing to write home about - take a look at the UK or Eire exams (I took the UK one in 1996, it was quite a bit tougher than it is today) I don't see the death of amateur radio coming anytime soon - I've been listening to the ham bands since I was 13 or so (I'm 36 now - if that makes any difference) and I hear much the same operation standards, both good and bad, as I did then.
I am actually learning morse code at the moment - even though I don't actually *have* to learn it - I want it mainly for VHF weak signal work (my favourite band is 6m - that's the one the radio powers up on)
I was always quite happy on VHF - I knew I'd need to pass the morse test to get on HF, at the time I didn't want to. Ham radio is neither my only, nor my most important, hobby.
I don't think my operating skills are that bad, if some of you ever work me on HF (17m SSB or 20m SSB/RTTY) you can see for yourselves - I'm always open to constructive critisism.
can we all just remember for a moment that we are all Hams - code or no code and also remember that politeness costs nothing.
Best wishes
Frank M1ACQ
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said Frank!
I really don't think some of these people realize how badly they're embarrassing themselves, with their pompous attitudes and venomous comments.
You would think that a institution like Amateur Radio, which is supposed to be all about service and helping others, would remember it's own creed a little more clearly.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by THEWISEONE on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I would rather see the morse test remain and the ham radio HOBBY die, than to see it taken over by lowlifes. Will the last real ham please turn out the lights and lock the door when he leaves
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by M1ACQ on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thewiseone said
"I would rather see the morse test remain and the ham radio HOBBY die, than to see it taken over by lowlifes. [snipped]"
If ham radio dies then so does morse code - if the test is dropped, morse code is still practiced by those that want to use it.
Frank
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by N1KGH on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good article by the original poster and interesting comment on qualified leads. Some comments here, though:
1) If they're interested enough to ask what you're doing, and further interested enough to ask about classes, meetings and such--they're *already* qualified from a sales POV! They're your leads!
2) People want to *do something* after 9/11. They may not be the mythical NTS "iron men" but they that are interested in public service *will* do what needs to be done, from my experience elmering the occasional ham doing an event for the first time.
3) People are supposed to have fun with this, even when it's "serious" Homeland Security stuff. Our goal is to encourage the newbies such that they use their life experiences on ham radio and that they couldn't think of doing anything else in their hobby time. If they come to love CW, we couldn't stop them if they wanted to.
4) But, we can stop people cold when we ask them to kiss our rings (or another part of the anatomy best not mentioned here) in pursuit of increasingly arbitrary criteria. People don't have time for club cliques. We have alienated--and still alienate--people outside the hobby and we are suffering for it.
73,
Dave
N1KGH
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by K3TIN on September 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8ZH makes a good point. Although I have been an avid CW op for over 42 years, I have mixed feelings on dropping the CW requirement. Some have mentioned it as a filter. Of course it is a filter, and there are other filters that currently exist and could be introduced.
HOWEVER, I also see the validity of dropping it as an absolute requirement for HF privileges. As many have mentioned, all one has to do is listen in on 80M fone to see that the "filter" is not perfect. I have no doubt the filth and chaos on 80M (and other bands) will become worse once the "minimal" filter of CW is dropped.
I echo the sentiments of Jon, N8ZH. The main concern for CW ops is that we will actually "lose" band allocations for operating CW. I have no problem at all with responsible people joining and enjoying the wonderful world of ham radio, CW or not. But I certainly don't want to lose MY privileges in the process.
Jon also mentioned the FACT that out of courtesy, CW ops normally do NOT exercise their "right" (by frequency allocation) to operate in the "fone bands". I will presume that Jon did not infer that a CW op would intentionally interfere with a fone QSO in progress.
Having said all that, I must say Jon, that presuming there is this great influx of new "fone" ops (à la CB if you like), there will no doubt come a time when CW IS actually prohibited. This will probably take several years, bits of band space at a time, but it is inevitable. My hope is that CW will be allowed for at least the rest of my lifetime.
I know the flames will come, and that is a shame. All I am saying to people who have no interest in CW is that I believe the vast majority of CW ops do NOT look down on anyone who does not like CW. We happen to enjoy it and wish to continue to operate CW because we find it enjoyable, relaxing or just plain FUN!
I also believe that most of us do NOT consider ourselves to be "elitist". BUT, that does not mean we don't take pride in being able to do something that only a small fraction of the rest of society can do. I fly and instruct in jet aircraft, HOWEVER, I am certain that a far SMALLER number of people can copy 40WPM CW! Am I saying I take more pride in being able to copy medium speed CW than in being able to fly jets? YUP.
Bottom line: If you can join the ham radio ranks and enjoy HF privileges without passing a CW test I WELCOME YOU! I'll be glad to help you enjoy whatever facet of this wonderful hobby you like in whatever way I can. Just please don't "run me down" because I happen to like CW.
THANKS and 73!
de Larry
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Larry;
If more hams shared your constructive attitude and open mind, there would be no controversy here. Furthermore, if the majority of CW operators held your point of view, I believe we would see more new Licensees interested in CW, even in the absence of a Code Requirement.
I have long observed that the very best officers lead by example, not intimidation!
Thanks for your post.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone said,
"Doug:
Great article, good points. However, you must know that if your position prevails and the ranks of ham radio swells with no-code Extra's, then before long we will see:
Profanity on 75 meters
Broadband "Hi-Fi" SSB splattering on 20 meters
Overdriven digital signals
On-air tune-ups on top of ongoing QSO's
Operators unable to work split or handle DX pileups "
Reply,
Uh.... so how is it going to change anything? what do you mean it will result in these things before long? It's already there!
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Ye hear me out there all you dumbass cbers?
73 and sorry for the language to the ham community..but thats all these type understand.
John WR8D:"
Mr. John WR8D, I have a comment,
You do not need to apologize to the Ham community for insulting CB operators. You need to apologize to the ham community for another matter altogether.
Now what kind of way is that for an Amateur Radio Operator to conduct themselves in an open public forum.
Could this be a reflection of your operating practices on the air?
Now before you start blowing a triode or anything, I am just pointing out that we must set an example to other "non hams" in the community that in fact do understand "other language."
After reading your post clearly, even you must see by now that you have set an example of yourself in the ham community, now haven't you.
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KD7KCP on November 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is what I have to say to the lazy, slothful technicians who lack the desire to spend the energy to pass element one. I received my first license, Tech with H.F. ( which means of course that I passed element one) on 8/15/00. On 8/8/02, I had to pass element one once again to get my General. I have never, not even once, used C.W. on the air. My daughter passed element one her first time at the age of 15 ( tech with H.F.), and once again at the age of 17 (General). She also has never used C.W. other than to pass the test. If you and your kind would spend half as much time studying for element one as you do whining about it, you could pass it. So stop your whining, pass the test, and be a hero not a zero. Sincerely, Slow code General, KD7KCP
I john think is right on the money, see below.
"Anyone too stupid or lazy to pass a lousy 5 wpm cw test doesnt deserve HF privledges, plain and simple. Get off that lazy but, quit whining and crying and learn something that thousands of others have learned and be proud of the accomplishment of actually earning a ticket instead of being handed a gimme. If some of these jokers spent one third of their time learning cw instead of crying like a spoiled little brat who cant get their way, they already would be an extra. Hasnt the hobby been dumbed down enough already? Does the arrl need members that badly as to look the other way and not bother to lobby the FCC to keep the testing we now have? Sickening! I guess the love of money has polluted this hobby like the rest of present day society where the dollar is more important then principles and values. Pathetic!!"
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
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
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by CODEBASHER on December 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does any one really remember WHY CW was originally required for Ham radio? not from tradition, not because it was the only "MODE" (I'm talking after voice came about) But WHY Was it "ORIGINALLY" required?
73's de N0KLU, Mike
Rolla, Missouri
NCI-4743
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W3ULS on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr. Renze's article is so rational and on point that it can only disturb the cantankerous naysayers who want to pull up the gangplank and/or sneer at anyone who doesn't send/receive CW at 15 wpm.
Happily, the ARRL's Board of Directors over last weekend adopted a new licensing proposal that will help a great deal in introducing interested non-amateurs to our hobby. The proposal for a new no-code "Novice" license in particular is very well thought-out. It should meet Mr. Renze's criterion of meeting people's needs where they are, while opening the door for the newbies to explore HF/VHF/UHF for whatever interests them.
My only regret is that the proposal wasn't advanded a decade ago.
Way to go, ARRL!
73,
John, W3ULS
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KC8AQH on June 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This sounds so much like 9 years ago when I no-coded into ham radio. I just got back into it, and yes, I am a 5wpm extra. I studied for my general, but took the extra on a whim, and passed on my knowledge, not my memory!!
People, please remember, this is public spectrum, and the public will control the regulations governing how we get to use it. If you touted cw as an awesome mysterious mode instead of a requirement, you probably could interest more people in it. Keep up the infighting and the spectrum will be split into business spectrum and citizens usage--i.e. CB. Knowing cw doesn't make an operator more professional, check out some of the "CB extras" on the low bands, the 20 wpm types.All code does is make it harder for the average Joe to hear how silly you all can be. Truthfully, CW is a nice mode, but if you are so gung ho for CW, stay on CW and avoid them crazy phone types. Darn, that won't work, non-code afficionados can get on their pc and send and copy CW too. Hey--thats it--If a person doesn't want to learn code, let them demonstrate proficiency at booting up software and interfacing a PC with their rig, a much more useful skill in today's world in my opinion....maybe even make them show that they can program their vcr-oops dvd player, and set the time. We don't force drivers to show they can shift a manual transmission or crank a crank to start their model T, the rest of the world understands technical advances,wait, isn't that supposed to be part of amateur radio,too???
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB2DHG on February 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a young boy my intrest in Amateur Radio was halted because of the code. I remember how frustrated I was trying to learn it. I gave up and through the years still loving the hobby I gave it a shot when i was 27 years old. I broke through that code barrer and went all the way... Back then I would have loved to have the code eliminated from the testing.
I run both sides of the fence when it come to this subject. I feel that CW is an important part of this hobby. After all as Hams we are obligated to perform emergency communications when called on through disasters. As we all know, no matter how bad the band conditions are a spark can always be heard! This being said, We are also dealing with the survival of our time honored hobby.
So, although I am an avocate of keeping the code in the testing proceedure of Amateur Radio Licinsing, I am more interested in keeping Amateur Radio alive and growing. I do get on the CW portion of the bands at least once a week if only to keep my skills up.
We must do what we have to do. I think we should at least keep the 5 WPM portion of the test in as it is now for the GENERAL portion of the Licensing.
Common people 5 words a minute is not so hard!If I can do it anyone can.
I beleive by lowering our standards we lower the caliber of operator that is needed to be part of this INTERNATIONAL HOBBY... Remeber other countries are listining to us and we need to make sure we do not dirty up the air waves and look sloppy to the outside world...
Amateur Radio is a privilage and honor given to us by our Goverment. As Ham Radio Operators we act as embasitors promoting fellowship and good will.
We need to keep this hobby alive. I beleive that more exposure to the general public and expoaing all that Hams do will spark the interst in would be hams...
Eliminating the code? Is this really the answer to helping this hobby grow? I really do not know?
We must however be very carful what we ask for, we may just get it! 73 my brothers and sisters.
|
| |
|
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by W4SK on August 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An interesting analogy that I had not considered before reading your article. A businessman's view.
If you are a businessman, or a student of human nature, then you also know that there are some people who want something for nothing. Before it became politically incorrect, it was referred to as laziness.
This group of something-for-nothings has great patience. Why work for something today, when you can get it for free if you just wait long enough?
The FCC and the movers and shakers in the electronic manufacturing industry can no longer resist tapping into the growing pool of something-for-nothings, who wait patiently for their next truckload of free cheese.
This is not a new phenomenon. Long ago, some wise person said something on the order of "we reap what we sew". In amateur radio, we're reapin', and it isn't pretty.
-W4SK
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB3GTR on October 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bottom line folks - Need some effort to be exerted to get tickets from applicants to keep some standards. That's fine, but don't force the code on people. How about an extra written element in place of the no-code to help weed out the less serious types.
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
|
|
|
by KB3GTR on October 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe leave code to the Extras or the experts.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Will a Compromise Work on the Code?
The Amateurs Code: What Happened?
High Noon on Paddle Hill
It's Official! Morse Code Requirement Ends Friday, February 23:
My Quest for the Ultimate Key
Other Editorial Articles
My First Memory
The SB Project
Hamming It Up, The Early Years
A Hobby from a Hobby
Managing Ham Radio Estate Sales
|
