eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques

Peter (VK3KCG) on September 23, 2003
View comments about this article!


Slam the Exam and other Survival Techniques.

Make it easier for the common folk to get into amateur radio. Lets face facts, we are not getting much of an inflow of new blood into our hobby, this is a World Wide trend and if we (as a collective) do not do something about it we have a very good chance of losing our bands.

I have read various amateur radio test exams from a few different countries and they mainly have one thing in common and that is that you need to be an expert to get an amateur license. I suggest that the license should be made easier to get more people on the bands; I also suggest dropping CW altogether, as it has no functional use in testing if one will be a good operator or not.

I do not mean throw CW out the window so to speak but those with a genuine interest can learn CW and use it if they want to.

One thing that should be upgraded is the rules and regulations; operators should know these intimately especially the safety aspects including safe exposure limits, antenna hardware safety issues and even knowledge on interference reduction.

I keep hearing that the Internet has taken people out of the hobby and has stifled the inflow of new amateurs; I think that we should educate the general public about our digital modes including the Internet linking of repeaters (IRLP). This would surely interest the computer communicators. The next cry will be "it will be like CB" what utter hogwash how many amateurs were once on the CB ? I admit that I was on the CB once upon a time; I had to start somewhere, as Amateurs do not grow on trees you know.

The biggest threat to amateur radio at this present time is Broad band over power line internet access (BPL), if this gets passed by the FCC and I should add that if they were doing due diligence it would never ever be allowed, it will totally trash the HF spectrum from 2Mhz to 80Mhz. Some amateurs have seen the video of HF interference on the ARRL site and said "he is directly under the power lines, it will not be a problem at a greater distance" I will say this now that BPL will cover the whole of the United States and as coupled to the power grid will act as one huge antenna array that will most likely cause HF interference in other Countries on the opposite side of the World, you just wait for the next increase in the Solar sunspot cycle and you will see what I mean.

The point that I am trying to make is that we are looking at a very serious threat to our HF bands not just in the U.S but every other country. Governments of other countries use the U.S as a yardstick, "if it is ok for them it is ok for us" is a common saying that is used as an excuse to do the inexcusable.

We really do need more amateurs to join our ranks, there is more political clout with a larger group and Governments everywhere would hate to lose votes but at just .34% of the population amateurs in the U.S.A just do not make for a powerful lobby group.

One way to extol the virtues of our hobby is by the means of Television advertising, I know everyone screams how expensive is that to do. I am sure that an advertisement with some public service overtones could get some free airplay; if you do not try you will never ever know.

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Peter:

You’re a brave man! I just hope you remembered your asbestos shorts today, because there is going to be a stampede to flame you!

Having said that; I agree with a lot of what you say.

We definitely need to get more people into Ham Radio, because right now, we are a politically insignificant force. Politicians understand only one thing…..potential votes.

I have to respectfully disagree on the Technical Testing issue. Even though surface-mount technology has made many radios almost “tinker proof”, “Homebrewing” is alive and well in other areas, like experimental antenna design. A good technical background is as important in these ancillary areas as it used to be in radio modification.

The “Code/No Code” is where you will get the hottest flames. I have never seen an issue that seems to polarize a forum like this one does! (To say nothing of luring ALL of the Trolls out from underneath their bridges!)

To me, “Code/ No Code” is a non-issue. I learned code a long time ago, and have never used it since; …..it’s just not one of the areas of Ham Radio that I’m interested in.

I also think you’re right on target with your assessment of the BPL problem. Many people on these forums are vehement about keeping a code requirement in order to keep “unqualified” people off the HF Bands. I just wish they would realize that if things go badly with BPL, the issue will be resolved;…….. because their precious HF Bands will be gone!

This thread is going to be fun to watch!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL

 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by OE5ARP on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Very well said!

BPL is the largest threat to ham radio in its
entire history.

/ralph oe5arp
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K2CAD on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I agree that it would be nice to have more active hams on the air but I do not agree with the idea of making the test easier. If pure numbers are all that is important, then that would suggest dropping the test totally. Why not just issue everyone a call sign when they renew their driver’s license. Then we would instantly have millions more hams. Would this make things better? I don’t think so. I think the way to get more hams is to make it interesting to people. When people want something bad enough they will be willing to work for it. Then once they have it they will respect what they have earned. I think that increasing the ham population is a great thing and in order to do that every ham today should make an effort to show some one else how interesting and fun it can be. If you want young blood in the hobby then make it a point to visit a local school or youth group meeting (boy/girl scout etc.) and show them what it is like. Take the time to encourage people to get their license. Help them with anything that they find difficult. Don’t look to the regulatory bodies to increase the ham population, if they do you won’t like what happens.
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N2ZYZ on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I want to play devils advocate here just to prove a point.

In my opinion, BPL is a major threat to many great bands. But why should I worry about it, I can't use those bands becuase I did not pass my CW test. I passed the written, but not the CW. I can only operate above 50. In fact since a great number of people can't use those bands chances are they like myself won't fight for them! I would rather see a faster internet connection in my hose than worry about something that does not concern me!!!!
Folks, facts are facts the numbers in this hobby are dwindling and if something is not done to attract more people then it will die. It will not die overnight but it will die. Just look at the numbers. There is more strenght in numbers. Remove the CW element so that more people will get hooked on these bands. This way more people would have a stake in keeping them!!!!! What purpose other than tradition and serrogation does CW provide?
Removing element 1 alone won't make the ham population grow, but it will get hams on HF where they can fight to keep those bands. Later we can concentrate on making the hobby popular once again with the people that are going to keep it alive much longer, the young boys and girls!


My 2 cents
John
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N2XE on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
<<Make it easier for the common folk to get into amateur radio>>

That's the last thing we need Pete. As a matter of fact, the ease of getting an Amateur Radio license right now is probably responsible for the bulk of the "problems" we have.

We don't need or want "common folk" in Amateur Radio, we want folks with a burning orgasmic love of radio. We want people who still see magic in wireless communication. We want people with RF flowing in their veins. Amateur Radio has captured maybe 30% of these uncommon folk.

Common folk have FRS and Citizens Band.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N2ZYZ on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Ok Archie, I'll go and get my cross for the cross burning party. We don't want their kind around here!!!!

Just hope that you have a life preserver for when this ship sinks!!!
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KE6OUD on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"We don't need or want "common folk" in Amateur Radio"

Well, another reason I or my wife will upgrade!
(2/6 meter contester, PREY for me!)

My 2 cents, 73 Charlie KE6OUD
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W5AU on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"As a matter of fact, the ease of getting an Amateur Radio license right now is probably responsible for the bulk of the "problems" we have."

Well Said. The old saying "Give them an inch and
they will take a Mile" applies very well here.
These people want to "Destroy what they do not
Understand" Morse is a tradition that is as much
a part of Amateur Radio as Baseball or Football
is a part of sports. If you people spent as much
time learning as you spend complaining, you could
have learned the code quite well.



 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Seen previously;

>>>>”….These people want to "Destroy what they do not Understand" Morse is a tradition that is as much a part of Amateur Radio as Baseball or Football is a part of sports. If you people spent as much time learning as you spend complaining, you could have learned the code quite well.”<<<<

The "Sports" analogy is really poor.

Are you also saying that anyone who wants to play Ice Hockey should have to pass a Baseball Tryout?

Also, what’s with the “These people” and “you people” stuff? Everyone posting here is an individual and deserves to be recognized as such. The desire to group people into monolithic categories is one of the hallmarks of bigotry.

BTW, I learned Code 45 years ago, and currently have no use for it.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N6YVY on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Well John we are all common folk. To wit we are not under the rule of a King or queen. You sounding like Kb9yky and theirs no place for that in ham radio.
So just get off the high horse you on.
Bob N6YVY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by BUBBA4CW on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Yo... BUBBA here....
I agree... Let the common folk in and open up the bands...
Let all "CB'rs" in and crank up them "LIN-E-ARS". It would sound great on 2 meters or even HF. Imagine, ME on a 5KW heater.... along with all my friends and 10 codes....

10 - 4 !!!!!
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KC0LPV on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>>As a matter of fact, the ease of getting an Amateur >>Radio license right now is probably responsible for the >>bulk of the "problems" we have."
>
>Well Said. The old saying "Give them an inch and
>they will take a Mile" applies very well here.

That's funny, the majority of people I see who are real "problems", both on the air and on the net, are OT hams, "Real Hams", with that 20 wpm Real Extra license.

It may not quite be a majority. I'd say it's close to a 50/50 split between crochety old timers and no-coders.

Jim
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KG4YJR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
N2XE said:

>>We don't need or want "common folk" in Amateur Radio<<

What a great ambassador, role model and spokesperson for amateur radio. I wonder if he would like it if blacks, Jews or any other type of individual the he himself almighty thought unworthy should not be eligible to vote, live in the same neighborhood as he or go to the same schools as his grandkids.

What a piece of work some of these pro-coders are.

73 (not to the idiots)
Dave
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by BUBBA4CW on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
BUBBA here....
That's what I'm talkin' about... The old stuck up "HAM" type attitudes. I think everybody should be on the ham band. So... you know code... SO... you passed a test or 2... Does this mean you are better than me? Ain't NO WAY!!!! That's whats wrong with this whole picture. Maybe you'll get it.... Then again, maybe you stuck up "HAM" types won't.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KG4YJR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
BUBBA,

I think what some of these bitter "I'm better than you" types resent the most is seeing people that enjoy amateur radio and life more than they. Even though you see no-coders voice their opinion against the code, you don't see the same venomous, emotional hate that you see in the pro-coder's comments. It's almost 90% typical of them. No-coders seem to want more people involved in this hobby, the pro-coders are almost always against more people joining unless they are over the age of 70 and know how to build a transceiver out of a can of tuna. Oh yeah, and when they want us to write letters against BPL.

10-4 & 73
Dave
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by WD0CT on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Peter, thanks for a great post.

"The next cry will be "it will be like CB" what utter hogwash how many amateurs were once on the CB ? I admit that I was on the CB once upon a time; I had to start somewhere, as Amateurs do not grow on trees you know."

So true. I've been hearing this type of 'gloom and doom' since I was a new ham. Every time something changes, it will 'ruin the ham bands'. Well it hasn't happened yet and it won't happen when the code requirement is gone.

We should also start thinking about refarming the cw sub bands. After all, half a hf band is not needed to support three cw qsoes. "Use it or lose it".

Steve
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AG4RQ on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KG4YJR mentioned "Oh yeah, and when they want us to write letters against BPL." That's Ok. We're not in dire need of your help. In addition to the many hams that made their effort to fight BPL, there are many other entities who are ready to take up the fight against BPL besides the ARRL, such as NTIA, Cingular, Verizon and Sprint to name a few. These four have submitted their comments and replies to the FCC's BPL NOI. These four have enough clout to blow BPL out of the water. Cingular fears that harmonics from BPL pose a definite threat to cell service on 800 MHz and even possibly on 1.9 GHz. Companies like these 3 cell providers have the economic resources to combat BPL and any entity connected with it. NTIA will not allow BPL to jeapordize our national security.

If you saw Florida Power and Light's reply to the FCC's NOI, you would realize that I would most likely be one of the first hams to be affected by it. From what they say, they seem eager to be one of the first to offer BPL by 2006. However, I am not in the least worried about BPL since doing my homework. It will never be allowed to pass in its raw state.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N2XE on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Hey Dave,

You didn't read what I wrote. What I said is that we want that "uncommon" soul who has a love for radio.

Remove, append and apologise for those idoitic comments about Jews and blacks. I'm not easily offended but your attack is highly offensive and I will not let that stand.

I didn't attack you're inability to learn CW. I didn't say that Generals and Extras were better than anybody else. All I said is we should promote Amateur Radio to those likely to appreciate it. How you equate that with racism and anti-Semitism is beyond the comprehension of any decent, rational person.

Again, read my post and try to understand what I said. After you read it, and you still don't see how all I'm saying is that we should promote Amateur Radio to those who have a love and affinity toward radio, then I'll re-write it with one-syllable words so you can understand it.



N2XE
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N2XE on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KG4YJR wrote... "Even though you see no-coders voice their opinion against the code, you don't see the same venomous, emotional hate that you see in the pro-coder's comments. It's almost 90% typical of them..."

Gee Dave, don't you read your own vitriolic hate-filled prose? In a previous post, I suggested that we should promote Amateur Radio to those likely to appreciate it and you somehow turned that into the ranting of a pro-coder who hates Jews and Blacks.

You seem to fit the "venomous, emotional hate" type pretty well. I'll go out on a limb and speculate that you don't know Morse either.

BTW, where did you get that 90% statistic from?

 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KG4YJR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
90% is just speculation John. Here is your letter you sent me too for others to read:

Hey Dave,

You didn't read what I wrote. What I said is that we want that
"uncommon"
soul who has a love for radio. Remove, append and apologise for those
idoitic comments about Jews and blacks. I'm not easily offended but
your
attack is highly offensive and I will not let that stand. I didn't
attack
you're inability to learn CW. I didn't say that Generals and Extras
were
better than anybody else. All I said is we should promote Amateur
Radio to
those likely to appreciate it.

Again, read my post and try to understand what I said. After you read
it,
and you still don't see how all I'm saying is that we should promote
Amateur Radio to those who have a love and affinity toward radio, then
I'll
re-write it with one syllable words so you can understand it.

N2XE
John Ceccherelli

My reply was:

John,

I found your comments equally offensive as they were
posted. It is not up to you to decide if whether a
person's love of radio is a deciding factor in whether
you want them allowed into amateur radio or not and
you did use a label on a certain type of people. The
comment did not accuse you of having those racial
beliefs, it questioned them. The FCC has their own
rules and requirements for individuals seeking a
license, your opinions are not a deciding factor in
who should be allowed to be in amateur radio or not.
If you have a problem with my opinion of your opinion,
then I guess you don't believe in others rights to
free speech but that comes as no surprise.

Dave


 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KA4KOE on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
BOYS, BOYS, BOYS!!!!!!!

I am NOT Going to listen to this racket any longer!
Now both of you go to your rooms and don't come out till I tell you to, or its the WOULF HONG FOR BOTH OF YOU!!!!

I MEAN IT!!! JUST YOU WAIT TILL DAD GETS HOME!!!

 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W8MW on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
How dare VK3KCG suggest that common folks be welcomed to the exclusive ranks of Professional Amateur Radio? As every self respecting Professional Amateur knows, our vast technical knowledge and morse code skills make us an elite corps of radio specialists doing important things the general public doesn't understand. In fact many of our top spokesmen have said right here on eHam they'd rather see Professional Amateur Radio die than have it get infested with common folks who lack our dedication and commitment to excellence. I agree completely. I support the death of Professional Amateur Radio and the revitalization of Amateur Radio.



 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N2XE on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KG4YJR, Dave,

Thanks for posting my note to you. You didn't have to because it's already up there posted for all to see.

You wrote..."I found your comments equally offensive as they were posted. It is not up to you to decide if whether a person's love of radio is a deciding factor in whether you want them allowed into amateur radio or not and you did use a label on a certain type of people. The comment did not accuse you of having those racial beliefs, it questioned them."

Dave, I didn't say it was up to me to decide who is allowed into the club. All I said is that we should PROMOTE Amateur Radio to those likely to appreciate it.
That's all. I didn't say we should exclude anyone, I didn't say we should make them learn CW.

Let's put it this way... Would Omaha Steaks mail out advertisements to a list they got from a vegetarian website?

Why are you so upset Dave???
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by BUBBA4CW on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
You old "HAM" types just don't get it. Knowing code and being able to built a ham rig out of your old cigar box, doesn't show me squat. It just confirms the facts on what us "COMMON FOLK" already know about you.
You should be glad to have "REAL PEOPLE" who have an interest in the amateur radio hobby. Maybe you might get more support for your hobby, if you wanna be wizards would lighten up. It's really all of our hobby. Who gave you "PRO-CODERS" the corner on the market for the amateur air waves. Over the years, you stuck up "HAM" types have lost the real meaning.
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K0RGR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I see the comment repeated several times here with others agreeing, that the current license requirements are responsible for "...most of our problems...".

Just what problems are you talking about?

Are you talking about the lack of activity on both HF and VHF or the low rate of renewals of Technician licenses?


 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W4VR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I agree...beef up on the rules and regulations and to go one step further ease up or eliminate the theory portion of the exam...after all most hams have become appliance operators and don't build equipment or antennas anymore. As for CW testing the writing is on the wall, but the majority of these operators are over 50 so let them enjoy the hobby if sending dots and dashes makes their day.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N2XE on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
...in a nutshell..."Most of our problems" refers to constantly easing requirements and the rancor it has produced. Those that got in under stringent requirements feel cheated, those under relaxed requirements feel looked down upon.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by BUBBA4CW on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Sounds like the old timers have to get over it.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K4FAU on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I may not be the best person in the world to jump in on this but here goes….

For the last 25 years I have been in the US Coast Guard serving as telecommunication technician. I am now a instructor at the same course.

I started off as a Morse Code operator in New Jersey. I grant you I graduated at the near bottom of my Morse code class but still passed the 40 wpm requirement easily.

I also was sent to 9 months of antenna and radio theory and fundamental classes. Upon graduation billions of years ago we all were required (simply because the instructor was a Ham Extra Class type) to take the Morse code and written tests. My class had 37 folks in it. On a windy Saturday in New Jersey in winter 1978 we all went and took the Ham radio test and all by simple virtue of having studied Morse and electronic theory and fundamentals for almost a year left with our Extra licenses.

So in 1978 37 of us got "forced" into Ham radio and to this date – 22 still are active (three of my class passed away, and I think one is in jail) but the point is that we are still active running MARS stations, teaching in service schools and running C2 systems for the DoD and doing so as Hams and Coast Guard Instructors.

A few years ago the Coast Guard decided to do away with the Morse requirement for us to learn as newbies – and for good reason – No one ever used it for emergencies. Technology had developed a means to communicate request for assistance via HF voice, FM, AM, TacSat. And the trusty cellphone… I mean – in my opinion only a fool would trust sending a morse code message that his ship was sinking – people wanted to call on a phone – ask for help – and hear a warm friendly voice on the other side saying help is on the way.

Two weeks ago 28 Coasties graduated from the DoD Signal center at Ft Gordon – they had over a year of telecommunication traning, satellite uplink/downlink, antenna theory, computer ops, you name it – but what they didn’t have is any morse code. So how many of the last 3 classes that have graduated have became Hams – ZERO. The reason is simple – they simply don’t see a need to study something that the US Govt (both the FCC and Coast Guard and DoD) themselves have stated was not necessary.

One of the seaman that was asking me about how to become a ham told me that to be forced to study the code to get a license was like a surgeon being told he had to learn about Ether because that’s how they use to do it back in the civil war or a skipper having to learn how to pilot a steamboat because for the longest time that was the naval tradition – and he has a point – morse code was around and was an acceptable form of communication when Steamers and biplanes were the norm but technology has changed greatly.

But here it is today – the 21st Century and we are judging folk on their capabilities of being good Hams based on a 19th century art form.

Do I believe in tradition - of course -- but tradition shouldn't be the basis of restricitng new technology or ideals.

Do I still use morse – yep, do I scream and yell at my new students because even though they can design an antenna system with a coke can and chewing gum that can talk to someone 1000 miles away but must be inadequate because they don’t know morse code – No.

Bottom line is that there are a ton of great folks out there that would be a great benefit to Ham radio but just don’t want to, or can’t learn the code. And just for the record – for the last two classes I asked “how many of you guys use CB radios” – to date the number is Zero. I had one girl in the telecommunication class raise her hand and ask “Whats a CB?”… so the argument that if we open the airwaves up to these fine Americans that have served for over a year learing the best in radio theory and fundamentasl that they are suddenly going to invade your air space and start talking CB is just ridiculous…

Anyway … my two cents worth…








 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KG4YJR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Typical scenario/conversation in Washington, D.C.

Secretary:

Congressman______, you have two phone calls. On line one you have one of those major utility companies lobbying for BPL that wants to give you a tremendous campaign contribution on board their CEO's private yacht with the girls from Hooters catering while they film a commercial saying that with more choices for high-speed Internet access the prices for all consumers will drop significantly with the extra competition in the industry, on line two you have a couple of grumpy old men wanting to know if you got all their emails and they want to tell you about RF noise that may be caused by BPL. Which call would you like to take sir?
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by NE1RD on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I volunteered for a testing session as a VE this weekend. We had one applicant. Another testing session in the area was cancelled because there were no sign-ups (and no walk-ins allowed). I wish more were interested... I worry sometimes...

That said, it occurs to me that I'm grateful that I don't have to have a license to be an amateur astronomer. The thought of going on a web site like this one and being lambasted because I bought my telescope and didn't build it, or because I image electronically instead of with hypered film, or because I just enjoy looking at the sky instead of intensely looking for NEOs or comets, pains me. If the sentiments from this site were carried to astronomy, I'm sure I'd be accused of not being a "real" amateur astronomer.

Luckily, there is no such web site. I have only my friend who has encouraged me to get back into astronomy. He says "relax, enjoy it, learn as you go." How refreshing!
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AG4KU on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I usually go to great lengths to avoid getting into these arguments, but I just have to chime in.

Hello. My name is Scott, and I'm a slow-code extra.

Step one of the 12 step program complete....

All this talk about code/no-code and changing the tests all seems like wasted energy to me. Yes we need more ops, but I have to say... had I seen this sort of backbiting before I got my ticket, I would have run... yes... not walked... but RUN away from HAM radio. Thankfully, I was introduced to the service by a close friend and Elmer, who faithfully guided my development. And, thanks to an active local club, I was mentored by many an OM (and a few OLs). Thanks to the fine folks that helped me out, I can say that most of my shack is the result of HB or kits and there is very little here that I can't trouble shoot and fix myself. No test, no matter how well designed, could have done that.

I just have to ask those that complain on EITHER side of this argument.... When was the last time YOU elmered someone? When was the last time YOU made a positive contribution to HAM radio?

This is not meant to be accusatory. I am sure MANY of you out there have taken fledglings under your wing. And for those that haven't... I remind you that it can be VERY rewarding... and it WILL be appreciated.

hpe to see u on the cw segs...
73 es all the best!

Scott
AG4KU
QRS pse...
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KC0ODY on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
NE1RD, isn't it nice that the "go-to/no go-to" debates in amateur astronomy haven't taken the bitter, vindictive tones of the code/no-code debates in amateur radio?
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KG4YJR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Scott, AG4KU asks:

>>When was the last time YOU made a positive contribution to HAM radio?<<

Hmmm....maybe it was when my wife and I contributed money (anonymously through our local club) to help purchase study materials for residents at a retirement community so that they could take the worthless, feared and hated no-code tech exams. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention buying an HT for a new !OH MY GOD! no-code tech who was physically disabled and low on finances.

BTW - Pedro Duque, KC5RGG or Mike Foale, KB5UAC, astronauts and no-code techs for the ISS Expedition 8. See current QST Magazine pg. 78

73
Dave
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
K4FAU;

Thank you for a well written post with a positive spin!

On a personal note......You have my sincerest thanks for 25 years of service to our country!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by THEWISEONE on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
OH LORD HERE WE GO AGAIN!!! Please BPL hurry and put us out of our misery.
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N3NL on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Probably the best way of dealing with these issues
is to have a beginners license like the Foundation
class in Britain or the old Novice class in the
USA. This beginners license could include HF voice
privileges to get the beginners started on specific
sub-bands. This would be good for recruiting and
would settle a lot of these tiresome arguments.
After all ham radio is supposed to be FUN.
73 Nick Leggett, N3NL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AG4KU on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KG4YJR,

I commend you on your fine contribution. As stated in the post... These questions were not meant to be accusatory. I know for a first hand fact that there are many great folks doing just as you have done. I thank you.

Scott
AG4KU
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N6AJR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
first, where do you get your info that there are less hams now, than before. I refuse to take your word for it. I know in the last couple years I have VE'd for probably 75 new hams and they have been from age 12 ( a young lady) up to a couple of old geezers ( anyone older than me and I am 55 going on 90.)

Enough gloom and doom. Ham radio is not dead and instead of complaining get a kid to study and when he or she passes the tech test, but them a radio.. If you ai't part of the answer, you are part of the problem... 73 tom N6AJR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KG4YJR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Thank you for your kind words Scott.

You know guys...if you also do a web search for >CB'ers for charity< you will also see that these people (myself being one in the early eighties) are not a bunch of animals and the type of culture that ruined radio communications and that the elites hate so much. The hollier than thou and the back in my day attitudes accomplish nothing except boosting the self proclaimed one's ego.

73
Dave
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Five ways to stop code\no code fighting

1. All postings must be done using typed dits and dahs on the forum. (that should cut down on some of the QRM)
2. If you don't know code, you can find software that will translate to and from code for you.
3. Ask the power company to bring BPL to your neighborhood as a test site.
4. Sell amateur spectrum to highest bidder.
5. The FCC acts swiftly on removing code requirement for a license but does no restructuring of license class or spectrum at this time.

73, KD5YDY
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K0AST on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
If any one got it right, it was K4FAU.

Morse is not the be-all, end-all for Amateur Radio, it is simply one facet of it.

A few years go I went to build a vacation cabin on a WA state island. You would have thought I was building a toxic waste incinerator. Most of the neighbors were ALL up in arms because I was building something without their permission, using their community road (which I had rights to use) and building on some long extinct roadway access that had since been moved. In other words, all the "old timers" were in a tizzy because something was a' changin without their permission. One guy told me he didn't want more traffic on the road because one of his kids got hit on it by a car. I asked him how long ago -- he told me 25 years ago! Talk about stuck in a time warp! Seems to me some hams out there would fit right in with this "neighbor"!

I have not been a ham for long, but the time I have been has been quite a bit of fun. But like one of the other previous comments -- had I seen all the strife in this community beforehand, I might not have even bothered.

Ham radio is NOT an ol' boys club. Even though some of you would really like it to be such. It is an all-inclusive club. CW, Phone, SSB, Packet, PSK31 etc etc etc. Black, white, yellow, etc. Mexican, Japanese, American, Canadian, etc. No one, I repeat, NO ONE has been elected president or spokesperson for what this should all be -- including me.

Yeah, we all have opinions -- just like we all have a--holes. As a newcomer of roughly 2 years, some of the a--holes loom larger than others. Nonetheless, if we want to keep this boat afloat, we better start acting like a team. A house divided amongst itself will surely fall.

For those of you who live and breathe code -- God Bless YOU! Right on! Key away till your last dying breathe & I will defend your right to do so.

For those who have no interest in code -- God Bless YOU as well! Talk away! I will defend your right to do so as well.

Because for this ham, amateur radio is not about code, it's not about mode, it's about communication. And some of you really need to work on YOUR communication skills.

Dan
KØAST
Mercer Island, WA
Generl (Lite for those of you who really seem to care)
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Is Mercer Island anywhere near Gabriola Island. I know Gab is in Canada. I have a cousin that built a swanky "cabin" on Gabriola.

KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by WILLY on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
by KG4YJR on September 23, 2003
N2XE said:

>>We don't need or want "common folk" in Amateur Radio<<

What a great ambassador, role model and spokesperson for amateur radio
.......

I think you missed his point.

He's not excluding anyone from becoming "uncommon". All they need to do is pass both tests, and join in!
That'll make 'em "uncommon". :)


........
What a great ambassador, role model and spokesperson for amateur radio. I wonder if he would like it if blacks, Jews or any other type of individual the he himself almighty thought unworthy should not be eligible to vote, live in the same neighborhood as he or go to the same schools as his grandkids.
...........

Poor analogy / comparison. No one can change their ethnic background and/or race.
Anyone can study and take the tests to earn an Amateur Radio license.
I think he was inviting anyone that had the desire, to join the hobby.


........
What a piece of work some of these pro-coders are.
.........

Yes, he is. Whether you agree with him or not, he demonstrates his intelligence quite well.


.......
73 (not to the idiots)
Dave
........

Congratulations. Its nice to see 73, instead of
'best regardses-es' as has become quite popular.
:)


To you and yours - - 73
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K0AST on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Mercer Island is a posh, suburban island in the middle of Lake Washington. The lake borders the east side of the city of Seattle. Interstate 90 crosses the lake and the island, and ends in Seattle at, believe it or not, the Seattle Mariners & Seahawks stadiums.

Dan
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB1EVZ on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
N2XE wrote on September 23, 2003:

> > Make it easier for the common folk to get into amateur radio.

> That's the last thing we need Pete. As a matter of fact, the ease of getting an Amateur Radio license right now is probably responsible for the bulk of the "problems" we have.

Since when? When's the last time you heard someone new on a repeater?

> We don't need or want "common folk" in Amateur Radio, we want folks with a burning orgasmic love of radio. We want people who still see magic in wireless communication. We want people with RF flowing in their veins. Amateur Radio has captured maybe 30% of these uncommon folk.

That's the problem, fewer people have a "burning orgasmic love of radio" these days. Back then, ham radio was a tinkerer's thing. Now, people tinker with P2P networking and Linux and computer "stuff"--they're not interested in ham radio instinctively.

We need to recruit new people by making it easier, but not test-free, to get in. I think the test should have different levels. One should basically get you on VHF with max 50 watts--just to "tempt" you, for the people who might use it more, and to satisfy the needs of people who just want to chat with people locally. This test would focus less on antennas, propagation, and such, and more on basic operating skills, procedures, and the common sense that we're looking for. The next test would grant full privileges on VHF, and similar (50W) privileges on HF. It would cover safety issues with large wattage, antennas, and contesting/DX etiquette, since it's what matters on HF. The last one would provide full priviliges, and it would be more focused on propagation and emergency communications, i.e. the more hobbyist sides of ham radio.

Comments to thomastuttle [at] earth link [dot] net, flames to /dev/null.

73's, Tom KB1EVZ
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB1EVZ on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
> Because for this ham, amateur radio is not about code, it's not about mode, it's about communication. And some of you really need to work on YOUR communication skills.

>Dan KØAST

WELL SAID!
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by LNXAUTHOR on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
- talk about 'dwindling' numbers of hams should be backed up with facts, not speculation... if you examine the stats on U.S. amateur radio operators, you'll see some lower numbers, but nothing to indicate that the service is going away or declining in popularity...

- the NCI folks, IMHO, have done a great disservice to amateur radio... passing a 5WPM code test is no big deal - and if you can't, i think you have bigger problems to worry about than getting legal access to HF...

- one word: Elmer

- elmer'ng is an important facet of this hobby... rules, courtesy, 'gentlemen's agreements,' band plans, repeater coordination, acronyms, jargon, and operating procedures need to be learned by all newcomers...

- even if the code testing goes away, and anyone can get access to HF (or any freq) by simply paying a fee or taking a test won't help matters when operating on the air...

- this whole argument about code/no-code is a red herring to the real problem - people unwilling to learn or put the effort into being the best radio operator possible..

- just my $0.02
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N7DKK on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Well said, K4FAU. And logical, too.

I just wondered, though, how many of those 37 people in your class would have taken the amateur exams if your instructor didn’t require it? Was there sincere interest or was it patronage?

I realize many are still active, but do you think they would have ever taken the first step independently to get their license?

It seems to me that the Morse test is, and has been skewed from years and years of “tradition and necessity” to “A rite of passage” or “A ritual for advancement into an elite fraternity”.

Necessary? It’s not any more. But, I think it brings those new hams a perspective on what their forefathers went through. It brings them into a fraternity of brothers and sisters that suffered just the same.

I think it helps them treat their fellow amateurs better.

Are we better-off because the code is diminished or gone?

If BPL doesn’t pass, ask me the same question in five years.
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Nice concise prose Peter.

I'm sorta surprised you consider the USA exams "hard". I've repeatedly heard the rumor that to pass your exams, and the UK exam, one needs a LOT more knowledge of electronics than is required here.

73
Bob
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W0LFS on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
DAVE & BUBBA
YOU ARE SO FULL OF IT..IT IS GUYS LIKE YOU WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP OUT OF AMATEUR RADIO.ALL I HERE OUT OF YOU IS PURE TRASH .I AM AN EXTRA AND I DO NOT USE CODE AND IT DON'T MATTER TO ME IF THEY DROP IT OR NOT. BUT IF IT MEANS HAVING GUYS LIKE YOU TWO ON THE H/F BANDS I HOPE THEY KEEP IT.I WOULD BET YOU ARE JUST TO LAZY TO LEARN THE CODE, YOU CAN'T PULL YOUR A&$ AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER AND T/V LONG ENOUGH TO STUDY, YOU ARE JUST TWO C/BERS WHO WANTABE HAMS YOU DONT WANT TO EARN IT. YOU WANT THE WORLD TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING..BTW I TO STARTED IN C/B IN 1971.
KEITH J.
[wØlfs}
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD6TQE on September 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
N2XE Why dont you step up to the plate and elmer some of these common folk.It is bigoted bluenosed idiots like you that will be the death of the hobby!
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by WR8D on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
RE K4FAU: Come out here to the east ky and wv boarder and spend a week at my shack. I'll let you listen to the latest bunch of upgrades here locally from 2 years back and you'll see what many of us are all up in the air about. We cant elmer or teach them anything..they are just hardcore cbers. A few are even extra now and still use cb handles on hf and the area 2 meter machines. We're not making this up its happening all over the country in differant places. This is the future of amateur radio.

Sorry but thats how it really is:
73
John WR8D
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K6BBC on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"We don't need or want "common folk" in Amateur Radio"

NO, let's just keep the same boring ones we have now.

These no-coders should be given the voice due them - NONE. They won't be happy until one needs to be 65 years or above to qualify for a ham ticket.
 
to WR8D  
by WB4M on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with you. I made a post a few days ago that backs up what you say about some people being "un-elmerable". After years of absence, I visited my local radio club, one that I was president of years ago. I attended a meeting with a friend who had assembled a portable QRP station that fit into a small satchel - rig, antenna, solar panels, the works, and he was going to give a demo of it to the club members.
For the first hour or so of the meeting, the members argued over each word of some new by-laws of some sort. A few of us got rather bored listening to this jibberish in a hot stuffy room, so we went outside for some cool air. Once outside, the members bragged about working DX on 11 meters. One called my friend a "fool" for buying and assembling an Elecraft K-2 Xcvr, and that a HW-101 was the "best damn rig" ever made. After listening to this and other totally ignorant comments, my friend and I came to the conclusion we were among CB'ers, nothing more. Ten codes and other CB slang is used on the repeater.
WR8D is correct, these type of people cannot progress beyond their present level. It's no wonder to me that ham is deteriorating into CB because CB'ers are the only ones interested in ham radio. They want to get on ham freqs with the minimal amount of effort, if any effort at all. They bring with them their ignorant CB jargon, slang, and that totally stupid, moronic hill-billy way of talking. Why anyone would deliberately want to sound like an imbicile is beyond me. Sorry folks, when the CW requirement is gone, you WILL see things get worse, not better. Sure, there a lot of people out there who will become great hams, but they will be outnumbered by the CB good-buddies. Why CB'ers and others wish to destroy ham radio is another thing I cannot understand.
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KC7ZMV on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I love CW. I got my license in 1957, let it lapse a few years later and got it again in 1997. I have only used CW. However, I see no reason that it is part of the exam. Exams are not rites of passage, they should be for the purpose of deciding whether a person is qualified to be a ham. That does not include knowing code. No one has to show proficiency in other modes.
That being said, I do believe that it is important that those who choose to join the ranks are excited by the prospect, want to contribute, want to be a good citizen, and hopefully, technically oriented enough that they can at least tinker a bit. Just like in sports, not everyone wants to be or can be a football player, so not everyone can or wants to be a ham. We should not come across as exclusive, but at the same time there do have to be requirements. I do not think we need to increase our numbers in any way, just to be increasing them.
One last comment: in my opinion the FCC wants to get rid of the amateur service. The reason is that in the US, the only things of value are those that have commercial returns. So, BPL will pass, mark my words.

jim/KC7ZMV
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W5AU on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KD6TQE..... Licensed 6 months and dont seem to be
able to read. Go back over N2XE's post.... better
still, here it is !!!

"we want folks with a burning orgasmic love of radio. We want people who still see magic in wireless communication. We want people with RF flowing in their veins"

My Friend, this is the way it used to be, and this
is why so many of your "old timers" dont want to
see Amateur Radio Destroyed.

Do not destroy what you do not understand !


 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K7IHC on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Pretty good initial article. In this day and age of amateur radio, I now see no reason why a Morse code test should be required for a ham to be able to operate on the HF bands. There weren't any PSK31 or ATV tests when I took the exam to get my Tech license. Along a similar line: in the U.S., one doesn't even need to know how to change a flat tire to pass a driver's license exam.

I DO agree that the written exams should contain MORE questions on RF safety, proper operating procedures, and FCC regulations pertaining to amateur radio. A ham license is more of a learners permit than a radio communications proficiency certification.

One thing I find interesting: Though one hasn't passed an Element 1 Morse code exam, one (Tech licensee) could still communicate using Morse on CW in the *above 50 MHz bands*. Passing the exam isn't a requirement to be able to use Morse on the ham bands.

I believe that I could (if allowed to) easily start operating on the HF bands now, and could always learn Morse later, just as I've learned about packet radio, using APRS, operating above 1 GHz, and using other modes on the *above 50 MHz bands*.

Even though I haven't passed the Element 1 exam yet, I still believe I have a lot to contribute to amateur radio.
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by VK2SKY on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"Make it easier for the common folk to get into amateur radio."

Dumbing it down is not the way to achieve this - those not interested enough to make the effort to get even a basic licence, but who "just want to talk on the radio" already have numerous options available to them.

Put another way, if you make it any easier, what SPECIFICALLY will distinguish Amateur Radio from CB?

Put yet another way, if you make so "easy" than even a fool can do it, only a fool will want to.

If on the other hand by "making it easier" you mean removing the barrier of obscurity, then I would agree. Removing this barrier involves action at the local level by clubs and individuals to promote the hobby, something we have generally neglected for the last few decades.

"I suggest that the license should be made easier to get more people on the bands; I also suggest dropping CW altogether, as it has no functional use in testing if one will be a good operator or not."

Have you been reading the news lately? The ITU dropped the requirement in July, and various administations are moving in that direction. Non-issue.

"One thing that should be upgraded is the rules and regulations; operators should know these intimately especially the safety aspects including safe exposure limits, antenna hardware safety issues and even knowledge on interference reduction."

Agree 100%

"The biggest threat to amateur radio at this present time is Broad band over power line internet access (BPL)[...]"

Agree 100%

"One way to extol the virtues of our hobby is by the means of Television advertising, I know everyone screams how expensive is that to do. I am sure that an advertisement with some public service overtones could get some free airplay; if you do not try you will never ever know."

Certainly worth trying, but as you say expensive, especially as repetitive exposure is needed. In any case, you need local follow-through by clubs and individuals to have any lasting impact. In fact, we can do this now, without the expense of TV campaigns.

73 Richard VK2SKY


 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by VK3DMN on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
There isn't a lot that hasn't been said already about this subject ;-)

However I'd just like to ask people on both sides to take a deep breath before they answer threads with the code/no code or less tech requirments.

Speaking as a ham operator (yes I passed the fast morse over here 20+ years ago) who is also an amateur astronomer, one of the other poster's mentioned amateur astronomy. As a hobby it has some simalarities to amateur radio. People traditionally built their own gear, but now more and more buy them. More technology has meant that less skilled is needed to at least start using equipment.

Amateur astronomy has also gone through what some of the old timers saw as a 'dumbing down' with the introduction of computerised goto telescopes which will (after a simple alignment), point to anything in their database that's above the horizon.

The screams from the "but no one will learn the sky anymore" were deafening *grin*.

But you know... things _have_ settled down, and the new goto scopes are (for the first time in years) attracting new hobbyists to the hobby in greater numbers.

And guess what? Lots of those people are learning the sky!

There isn't any reason why ham radio can't undergo a similar change and end up the better for it.

If the code hurdle goes, and we get new people attracted to the hobby then I'm sure lots of those people will continue to study _after_ they are licensed, and some of them will even learn morse code.

The same way some people still like to build crystal radios :-)

 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N3NL on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Many thanks to VK3DMN for his good comments on the
similar developments in amateur astronomy with its
automated "go to" telescopes. Many people will
push ahead to learn and grow in a field even if
there is no regulatory push to do so. However, there
is also a value to an achievement-oriented amateur
radio service. Perhaps the solution is to drop the
code requirement for a general class license that
would offer most privileges and keep the code and
a tough technical exam for the extra class license.
This would probably work even if the extra class
license was strictly honorary without additional
privileges (the way it once was). VK3DMN is correct
that amateur astronomy is quite healthy and productive.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N2XE on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
To Glenn, KD6TQE,

What did I say that you think is biggoted??

Again, I think we should promote Amateur Radio to those most likely to appreciate it. I don't see the biggotry there.

You make a good case for an IQ requirement however...
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
The comparison to Amateur Astronomy is particularly valid because the Amateurs in that field provide valuable data, and actively help to advance the Science.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL

 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K0RGR on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Personally, I think it's highly acceptable to have a real 'life' with many different interests and still be a ham radio operator. Some of the comments here sound just like the arguments for priestly celibacy. The priesthood is a life-choice. Ham Radio is not, and should not be your life!

We need people with passions for a lot of things. There is strength in diversity.

Life has changed. My Dad came home from work at 4:30 every afternoon and sat down in his easy chair with a newspaper until precisely 5:00, when my housewife mother would serve us dinner. After dinner, Dad would retire to the radio room and would not be seen again until bedtime. He was a ham's ham, and Mom did all the housework, cooking and cleaning, and raising the kids. The kids never asked to be driven anywhere because it was all in walking distance.

When I get off work, which may be anytime from 4:00 to whenver my customers are 'extremely satisfied', my first duty is to figure out where I am supposed to find my family. They may be at any one of a dozen different locations for the kids sports activities, church activities, of after-school events. We don't often eat at home during the week during certain sports seasons. If I get home by 9:00, I have one precious hour to do something before I hit the sack so I can get up, sleepy, at 5:00. Most of the time, I have to pick up a kid someplace because our lousy bus system stops running at 6 o'clock.

Last night, I had a half-hour QSO on 80 meter CW between 9:30 and 10:00 - it was very enjoyable. I did work a lot of 2 meter FM as I flew around town, including a nice Echolink QSO.

I can truly appreciate why people are not willing to invest any more time than absolutely necessary for any hobby. All hobbies that can't be done 'on the fly' have suffered, and Amateur Radio is no exception.

So, the question really is, 'Do we adapt ham radio to fit the modern reality?'. I think we must adapt or perish.

I do not favor reducing the current technical tests - what is required is the minimum needed to safely operate a radio station, whether you build anything or not. But, I also strongly oppose making the current exam any more difficult. We have to start requiring actual knowledge on the part of our licensees, not just proof that they spent a certain amount of time to demonstrate their undying devotion to our hobby.

In this country, we spend $billions on programs to promote early reading, and also to treat debilitating 'learning disabilities'. Our wonderful Governor just announced a new program to require all children to be competent readers by the end of first grade - typically age 6, which will require starting them at age 4. However, in Denmark, they don't try to teach reading until the age of 8. This is because they have determined that the area of the brain required for reading is not fully developed in many youngsters until age 8, and trying to force a child to read too early leads to learning disabilities - things they claim are now extinct in Denmark!

I think this may tell us that when we have the luxury to do so, we need to let people learn when they are ready to learn it. Our entry license needs to be a 'learners permit' that doesn't force people to learn withing a certain time. The syllabus for the U.S. Technician is actually very similar to that of the new Entry license in Britain. But there is a huge difference in the priveleges. Perhaps we need to harmonize things by granting our Technicians HF priveleges with a very low power limit as is done there.

 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KG4YJR on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>>IF IT MEANS HAVING GUYS LIKE YOU TWO ON THE H/F BANDS<<

It appears we have another biggot who doesn't want certain types of people like ex-cb'ers on HIS bands.

Another fine role model and ambassador for ham radio.

73 (You old farts tickle me to death)
Dave
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N8VB on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
K0RGR:

A well written response... Bravo!

N8VB
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
There is a real problem with the idea that an entry level license should be isolated to 50MHz and above. I live an essentially rural state with just a few cities that might qualify as metropolitan. VHF and UHF are totally dead. There's nobody out there to talk to, PERIOD. Occasionally, you might find somebody talking but that's a rarity. The 2m and 440 repeaters are dead, used only for emergency and ARS nets. You could "monitor" all day and not get a hit. So you bring a new ham into the hobby, and tell 'em to learn proper operating on VHF and UHF. Most will be so bored they have only two options, upgrade or leave the hobby.

Then the code becomes the big blockade to upgrade. You discover you have to put in a significant amount of your limited free time to learn morse code so you can talk to somebody, anybody out there on HF because VHF and UHF are dead. That's when the big drop out rate occurs. Few have the luxury of devoting the amount of practice time required to become proficient in code. You tell me I can practice code on VHF and UHF. If I can't find anyone to talk to, there sure aren't any out there using code.

This a very real problem in most states. I don't hear CBer talk on 2m, I don't hear ANYBODY. You proponents of any entry level that limits one to VHF and UHF need to know what reality is for those living away from major population centers in rural "cities". A Technician licenses is worthless here unless all you want to do is work the walkathons, etc. You never even get a chance to learn to use your HT because you might get am unplanned QSO once a week.

Wake up you guys and realize the rules you're proposing are totally unworkable for the average American.

KD5YDY
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KC2SSB on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Will someone please take this horse's carcass out of here? I think it was beat to death a long time ago!

Hey Eham.net! How about you start removing some of these articles!? Out of the last 10 articles, 7 of them have to do with CW and the future of ham radio. We've had that arguement and it's really getting old. Ham are gonna start looking to other websites for interesting topics soon!
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KG6NXL on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I recall, in my fading addled brain somewhere, that alternating current (AC) has a very stable frequency of 60 Hz. Of course this frequency is broadcast from every power line great or small, weak or strong, in the entire USofA. I would recommend not trying to use it as a carrier. hi hi

Now, with BPL, if there were one (several?) standardized frequencies, how would that interfere with "the entire HF spectrum?"

Educate me please. It does seem to me that if BPL were implemented and controlled as to bandwidth and frequency, it might be feasible and not interfere with HF communications.

KG6NXL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W6TH on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Read my lips
Quote:
BTW, I learned Code 45 years ago, and currently have no use for it.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
Unquote.

This is the new ham folks, ex- cb'er. Laugh it off.

I believe after reading so much on the posts in and on EHAM that there is really no need for ham radio. Much communications is spent on the computer and here on EHAM or QRZ.COM.

I for one am in favor of the BPL and will be more use than the Amateur bands. We need faster communications and as far as I am concerned Amateur radio is outdated and outmoded. This is a fast moving world and we must be prepared to keep abreast of communications.

Should CW and tests be eliminated, so should ham radio and lets all move forward and go for the BPL. In time all Gov't agencies will be in favor and will benefit all concerned as no-one uses ham radio any longer, only to argue and demonstrate what fools they, these hams can be.

-------

 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K0RGR on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
The problem seems to be that BPL does not operate on a discrete frequency. If you visit the ARRL website and view the videos, you will notice that they tune the receiver up and down several Mhz to demonstrate that the interference from BPL is very broad.

In my comments to the Commission, I asked why BPL could not be limited to frequencies above 54 Mhz., or at least above 30 Mhz.. If it will operate on the 50 Mhz. between 30 and 80 Mhz., why do they need 2-30 Mhz. too? Surely, with 50 Mhz. bandwidth, they can provide much faster performance than our home networks can use, anyway.

We need to make people understand that the shortwave frequenices are a unique natural resource - they are the only place where long distance radio communication can take place naturally.

To destroy this resource, which belongs to all humanity, just so Johnny can illegaly download music a little faster, would be a crime.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KC8VWM on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Peter Said,

<<<<"The next cry will be "it will be like CB" what utter hogwash how many amateurs were once on the CB ? I admit that I was on the CB once upon a time; I had to start somewhere, as Amateurs do not grow on trees you know.">>>>

Hmmm. Perhaps with all the animosity in Amateur Radio lately, it might be better to "upgrade" my current Amateur Radio license to the Citizens Band Service.

They don't have all these difficult topics to discuss and I hear the equipment is cheaper.


KC8VWM




 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Ok Vito....... Very clever, very entertaining!

It's time to get back under your bridge.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W6TH on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL tests were taken by mobile and on roadways and very close to the source of interference, the power lines.

I don't believe the interference is any worse than our own computers or from radiation of our televison sets, the horizontal oscillators. Or even the high voltage arc over from the high voltage power lines.

Fast downloading or up loading of illegal music is of no concern to me, but for other means.

Lets not knock it until we try it. Try it and then remove the bugs and this is the way it always will be performed.

I checked the ARRL testing, but I will need more information as to what degree of interference in decibels and distance checks. Why attenuation in some areas and non attenuation in others.

-----
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by PUTTNU2SLEEP on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I for one am for code elimination. Just think with the influx of no codes buying HF radios from major manufactures. They will make millions, and then they can afford to advertise and attract more people through slick advertising of their sexy radios!

Oh yeah and I will make a pretty penny too. Since I own amatuer radio stock! WHooo Hooooo!
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD6TQE on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
W5AU:
Sorry, I have been a ham for over ten years.Your post is just another example of the HF snobbery that permeates the hobby.BTW I am studying the code right now so I can upgrade. I have some friends on 10 meters that I want to work.If I do go down to HF(I have a 706MK2)and you hear me, remind me that you are a arse.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W5HTW on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Code/no-code? No one at the official reins of ham radio is here reading this, and if they were, they wouldn't give a penny for the last 6,000 opinions posted here or on qrz. I believe thoroughly the FCC has already made its decision, based upon what is good for the FCC. Almost none of them are hams, and their job is vastly more complicated than listening to a bunch of whinny babies. We are the furtherest things down their very, very long list of importance. They will do what they wish to make their job and their burden easier, and we can write from now till the Fourth Coming, and all we are doing is insulting each other. The FCC doesn't give a darn. There may be a few at the ARRL who care a dab, and one or two do drop by and read these postings, but they are not sitting in the driver's saddle of the FCC. They like to THINK they are, but it isn't the case.

Prediction: The FCC, regardless of what anyone here wants, says, cries, whines, yells, moans, groans, yelps, belches, burps, bitches, will (1) remove the Morse testing requirement, (2) expand the phone bands and reduce the CW bands, (3) combine some license classes, reducing the types of ham licenses to two, or possibly even one. They will do it all in early 2004, possibly as early as April, and no later than July 1.

My guess is Novices, both Techs, and Generals will be made into a single class. Advanced and Extras may be made into a second class. But since there is practically zero "extra" about an Extra today, why not just make them ALL into one class? And I think that is a serious possibility. We don't need Incentive Licensing if you remove the incentive.

That will remove all the details of class-based subbands, making the FCC's job of checking us out still easier.

Now. I think BPL is another sky is falling thing. Like "use the bands or lose them." While some organizations have been screaming at use "more hams, Mom, more hams, so we don't lose our bands" we have actually gained 60 meters, 30, 17 and 12 meters, all of 160 meters (which was limited due to LORAN and other government things) more of 3/4 meters. Losing? Hardly. The only "loss" was a segment of 220 MHZ.

BPL will NOT (my prediction) become a major threat to ham radio, for before it becomes widely in use -- if ever -- it will be revised so much we won't even recognize it. The biggest threat to ham radio has already arrived, and it is far, far worse than BPL would ever possibly become. Instead of being destroyed from the outside, by BPL, we are destroyed from the inside.

We are trying to prevent a toothache when terminal cancer has pervaded the body. The termites have destroyed the foundation, only the roof of the old house is left, and it is crumbling.

BPL, though, has to face multiple problems, and ham radio is not even in the running. Upgrading power lines, as most power lines are badly outdated, is one priority. Avoiding mutual interference on BPL lines is another. And figuring out who the hell is going to pay for it is the biggest roadblock. For those of us in rural areas, BPL could conceivably be a blessing, but how do you explain away the power outages, the hits by lightning, the shorting of insulators by hawks, and corrosion of insulators by dust? I think it would be less reliable than my dialup on copper phone lines.

About the code/no-code debate, I really don't give a darn! Honestly! (Neither does the FCC, I'm sure.) I've had a good run of over 47 years in ham radio, so if it turns into CB tomorrow, I can sell the equipment to a new Ham-Ber-Hinterneter (he'll lap it up like a fly in syrup) and get the photography going again. Let him play "radio on the internet" and I'll forget radio existed. I had my turn. Too bad many of those today won't get their turn at the great hobby, but hey, that's progress.

See you on BPL?

Ed
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by W5AU on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KD6TQE:
Apparently you can not read or have no comprehension of what you are reading !!!!!
Enough time wasted on you! You are helpless.

Again, N2XE made an absolutely fantastic post.

"we want folks with a burning orgasmic love of radio. We want people who still see magic in wireless communication. We want people with RF flowing in their veins"

Anyone that finds this offensive needs to stay as
far away from Ham Radio as possible.


 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I see zillions of people every day that can't be separated from their wireless phone. Are those the folks you're talking about? hi hi

BTW. Your metaphor is not too far off. The word amatuer derives from the French word AMORE meaning -- you guess it - L O V E.

KD5YDY
 
Come on guys.....  
by KB9RHA on September 24, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I've always believed and also read it somewhere recently here that Amateur Radio needs to be marketed better. That's very true. Most people have the wrong image of our hobby and that's because they haven't been exposed to the right information. I'm sure there's many people who are either professional electronics, communications, etc. techs or just hobbyists who might find something that floats their boat in our hobby. There's lots of great things to do. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many operators are too busy bitching and moaning about code/no-code, this, that, and the other, and the obstacles our hobby must overcome in order to survive.

I'm sure many people who searched for information on amateur radio came across discussions where most of what they read was flaming and arguing. That only portrays a bad image of amateur radio and if that's the reason many have been turned away from our hobby, I'm sure you all know whose to blame for that!

Sure, there's other reasons people who might enjoy this hobby don't bother looking into it and that's why we need to market it better. I read somewhere that MSNBC covered amateur radio's involvement in 9/11. That's great! That's just a fraction of what we need. How about someone putting together a show for Tech TV? There's a lot of stuff amateur radio operators can do and I think it would make a great series for Tech TV. I wasn't even thinking about that when I started the message but it sounds like a GREAT idea to me! I honestly would have to wonder how many people would understand exactly what it is that we do and how our hobby benefits the nation.

I think that with positive publicity we could not only draw more people to ham radio, but we could also get through to some of the people who have bad opinions of us and/or are on those damn neighborhood commitees banning antennas and that sort of stuff.

So why not quit complaining and everyone work together to solve the problems than add to them. The FCC isn't going to help us out. We have to do it ourselves. Generate and push for more positive publicity!

73, Chris
 
RE: Come on guys.....  
by KD5YDY on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
There's a TV show for kids called something like "How does it work". Now that would really nice if several of the technical TV shows for kids featured amateur radio and all the cool things you can do. The type of kids that watch those shows are the more technically-inclined so just might be the type we want to reach.

I had some neighbor boys (age 14) over to mow my lawn (they love to earn money) and say a cubex quad antenna I was building. They were really intrigued about the "thing" I was working on. They never thought something that shape could be an antenna. It would be great to just have an antenna/gadget show with loops, quads, slopers, the kind of stuff they don't usually connect with being an antenna. In fact, we've had cable TV so long in our neighborhood, they didn't even know what an outdoor "TV antenna" looked like and wanted to know what I meant by "rabbit ears". I had to chuckle a bit to myself realizing that all these kids knew was internet. Then I told I could connect to the internet without DSL or cable or even dial-up. Really? Now they were all ears. I'm saving that one for the next lawn mowing. :-)

73, KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K9KJM on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I would like to see MORE classes of amateur licenses
to reflect skills and ability. Thereby giving people
incentive to learn and upgrade to the next higher
clase of license. But let's face it.
This is NOT going to happen. I think we will be
very lucky to be able to keep even three classes
of license.
I am very much in favor of doing WHATEVER it takes
to get newcomers in to the hobby. This wonderful
hobby MUST adapt or perish as stated.
I am glad that soon we will see the general class
go to "no code" to breath some new life into the
HF bands.
I also hope that the CW requirement is maintained
for the extra class.
Those who would rather see the hobby die than evolve
should take a good look in the mirror and see what
they have really become.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Many have expressed the view of keeping Morse testing just for EXTRA class. I don't think the FCC would have a legal basis for doing that if they decide it is not even necessary for entry level license. What you may find is some of us new HF no-coders learning it because we CHOOSE to and want to try the mode rather than having it forced upon us just to use phone. If American Extras behave as some English are, requiring a ham to pre-qualify in morse before having a phone QSO with them, a doubt any of us would find Morse interesting enough to learn it. It will all depend on the statements we see and here both on the air and on the internet forums that could be the deciding factor of whether Morse dies with it's aging users.

KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD7ALF on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Let me get this straight....

Just because I don't know code, that makes me a non-ham?
Hmm....I have a framed piece of paper from the FCC that states otherwise.

Honestly, I really don't care either way if they drop the code requirements. If they do, great. If they don't, great. I'm utilizing the portion of the band that I'm allowed to use.
I don't infringe on the boundaries.
I don't operate with more power than I need.
I follow the rules and ethics.
I am respected by my higher license class friends for my courtesy and operating skill.

So what you tell me is that I'm basically a "second class citizen" in the ham community because I'm a no-code Tech?

Seems to me that those that follow the rules and earn respect are the better hams, regardless of license class. We have better things to do than complain about what the FCC is doing and belittling RADIO OPERATORS that don't know or don't use code.

Go crawl off in the corner and play quietly with your Vibroplex and leave the rest of us alone!
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KC0ODY on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KD7ALF sez:

"So what you tell me is that I'm basically a "second class citizen" in the ham community because I'm a no-code Tech?"

A few might; most won't. The few sad sacks that might probably would be found on forums such as these, not on the air. I wouldn't borrow trouble and take a defensive posture for no reason, though. I would be wiling to bet that you're never gonna run into it on the air. If you perchance ever do, then just remember, "illegitamus non tatum carborundum" and take refuge in the knowledge that it must suck to be them.

Jackie
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>>"So what you tell me is that I'm basically a "second class citizen" in the ham community because I'm a no-code Tech?"

>A few might; most won't. The few sad sacks that might probably would be found on forums such as these, not on the air. I wouldn't borrow trouble and take a defensive posture for no reason, though. I would be wiling to bet that you're never gonna run into it on the air. If you perchance ever do, then just remember, "illegitamus non tatum carborundum" and take refuge in the knowledge that it must suck to be them.

Actually a no-code Tech is a sixth class Ham with today's licensing structure. A second class ham would be an Advanced Class licensee.

Don't like it? Then upgrade, for gosh sakes. Don't just complain about someone pointing it out. That *is* what incentive licensing schemes are for.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Incentive licensing is meaningless if the prize to be earned has little to do with what you have to do to get it. Incentive licensing is the cause of the all this elitist attitude, the mean and ugly remarks being made to "lower class" licensees. The best thing that could happen at this stage of the game is to do away with all class specific bands and put all amateurs at the same level--One Class Licenses structure.

KD5YDY
 
RE: to WR8D  
by N3TNQ on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
After years of absence, I visited my local radio club, one that I was president of years ago. I attended a meeting with a friend who had assembled a portable QRP station that fit into a small satchel - rig, antenna, solar panels, the works, and he was going to give a demo of it to the club members.
For the first hour or so of the meeting, the members argued over each word of some new by-laws of some sort. A few of us got rather bored listening to this jibberish in a hot stuffy room, so we went outside for some cool air. Once outside, the members bragged about working DX on 11 meters. One called my friend a "fool" for buying and assembling an Elecraft K-2 Xcvr, and that a HW-101 was the "best damn rig" ever made. After listening to this and other totally ignorant comments, my friend and I came to the conclusion we were among CB'ers, nothing more. Ten codes and other CB slang is used on the repeater.


I see many posts like this. I guess I have been VERY lucky in my time as an Amateur. I have seen very little poor operating. On our local repeater, "CB" type behavior just is not tolerated. Usually, all it takes is a mention to the offender and the problem is cured. As for the demonstration you mentioned. Too bad you can't come to one of our club meetings. You would be welcomed with open arms. In fact you would have difficulty in escaping : ) We have a hard time finding enough presentations of the type you mentioned. The meetings where there is something of that nature are the ones that have the biggest turnout. If your friend ever does a write up with pictures on his rig, I would be very interested in a copy.

Howard
N3TNQ
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by N3TNQ on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"Just because I don't know code, that makes me a non-ham?
Hmm....I have a framed piece of paper from the FCC that states otherwise."

Nope! That piece of paper states you have a license in the "Amateur Radio Service". That does not make you a "ham". Before you start flaming... I am NOT saying you are NOT a ham. Very likely you are. Code or not has nothing to do with it. Do you do your best to operate in accordance with regulations and proper procedures? Do you provide public service currently or would you be willing to if you were needed? If the answer is yes, then you are a "ham".

Just my opinion : )

Howard
N3TNQ
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"Incentive licensing is meaningless if the prize to be earned has little to do with what you have to do to get it. Incentive licensing is the cause of the all this elitist attitude, the mean and ugly remarks being made to "lower class" licensees. The best thing that could happen at this stage of the game is to do away with all class specific bands and put all amateurs at the same level--One Class Licenses structure."

The Citizen Band part of the Personal Radio Service has exactly this licensing scheme.

As long as there is any testing scheme at all someone will complain that they are being excluded unfairly and that they are being stigmatized because of it.

As someone pointed out earlier, this is a prime example of the problem with this country today. The "I want it all and I want it now and I want it with no effort" attitude will bring this country to its knees sooner or later.

All I can say is that pointing out that some are more accomplished, more knowledgeable, and have expended more effort is not being "elitist" and it is not being "mean and ugly". Saying that you can't reach this level because you aren't good enough is "elitism". Saying that you *haven't* reached this level because you haven't yet expended the effort is only pointing out the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. Too many in this country have forgotten that. It's called *incentive*.

73,

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by WB4QNG on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Make the code 30 words a minute and you have to have a BS degree to get your ticket. I don't care if there is only one ham left in the world at least he will be a good one. Oh he won't have any one to talk to you. Still think we need hams. I still don't see all this CB talk on ham radio. I beleive the last boom in ham radio came from the CB craze of the 70's. It didn't ruin ham radio then and I don't believe it will hurt ham now.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim;

If you are saying that the "Code/No Code" argument typifies what is wrong with America today, them you are being simplistic in the extreme.

Code/No Code simply isn’t that big an issue.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL

 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,

>>The best thing that could happen at this stage of the game is to do away with all class specific bands and put all amateurs at the same level--One Class Licenses structure.<<


>If you are saying that the "Code/No Code" argument typifies what is wrong with America today, them you are being simplistic in the extreme.

Code/No Code simply isn’t that big an issue. <

Sure it is what is wrong with this country. This debate was going on long before the WARC decision to drop the requirement from the Radio Regs.

Folks, I have never met anyone who would spend 10 minutes a day for a few weeks who couldn't learn 5wpm code. I happen to know one fella that listened to the ARRL CD every morning while he was sitting on the pot that learned the code in 5 weeks.

I've heard arguments from people on here that they didn't have the time each day to learn the code. Malarky. That's an excuse, not a reason. It's a matter of priorities. If they don't have ten minutes per day to learn code where are they going to find 10 minutes per day to operate on the HF bands? You should spend 5 minutes of that 10 listening to make sure you aren't going to QRM someone. That leaves 5 minutes to tune up, contact someone, and pass pertinent information. A patently absurd excuse to not learn the code.

I've heard arguments that if they only had full HF privileges they could learn the code. Malarky. That's an excuse, not a reason. I've seen fully functional Hallicrafter and National receivers go for less than $50 on ebay. I've seen Tempo 2020's go for $100 - and that is a fully fuctional and usable CW rig with a 500hz IF filter built in standard. You don't need HF privileges to get a receiver or transceiver and LISTEN. A patently absurd excuse to not learn the code.

I've heard arguments that Morse code is old, antiquated, and not of any use any more. Why should they learn it? Well, one more time, that is an excuse not a reason. Under Title 47, Part 97, the FCC has a requirement to set rules and regulations that provide for advancement in the skill of communicating as well as for advancement in technical skills. If they meet that requirement they are going to have to pick out something to test for skill level. Whatever that skill is, someone is going to scream that *I NEVER USE THAT SKILL, WHY SHOULD I BE TESTED ON IT*. A patently absurd excuse to not learn whatever the skill is.

A Morse code test is probably the easiest, simplest type of test possible that the FCC could implement to test for advancing skill in the art of communicating. Anything else is going to make it harder on both the VEC's and the testing applicant.

Those that are screaming about Morse code will probably be the *exactly* the same ones screaming about whatever the FCC comes up with.

That's because "I want it now and I want it all and I want it without expending any effort" is what they understand. They want all privileges, they want themm now, and they want them with no effort expended.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
To all,

Just a follow on to the previous message. I see where one of the FCC Commissioners made a speech last week extolling the virtues of BPL, even after the ARRL has filed its technical brief outlining the problems with BPL.

We may yet have to depend on Morse code via CW to get through the static we will have on our bands!

While PSK and FSK require a key-down capable amplifier that most amateur radio operators don't have, Morse code will work fine with most 600-1000 watt output ICAS rated amps that are available. That will cut through a LOT of noise that SSB can't handle and that psk31 just won't have enough power to hack.

So while Morse code may be old and antiquated, it may yet wind up being the HF communication skill of choice in the future!

(Maybe we should all be investing in the stock of some of the better linear amp manufacturers as well <grin>)

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim;

First of all, let me apologize in part for my earlier post. I didn’t intend it to be quite that curt.

While I appreciate your position, I feel that I have to differ. I still feel that “Code/No Code” is a very small issue.

I also feel that it’s a mistake to automatically put a negative spin on the desire to “Take the Easy Way”.

The whole history of this Country illustrates two long standing national characteristics:

The first is; “Can Do”. Historically, we have always had the attitude that we will get the job done, regardless of obstacles.

The second is; “There has to be a Better Way”. This goes hand-in-hand with the first. Whenever we have been given a difficult task, we have always looked for better, faster, more efficient, and easier ways of getting it done. One has to note that the phrase is “Yankee Ingenuity” not “French” or “Spanish”. The desire to find the “Easy Way” is one of the things that has placed us, as a nation, where we are today. (and I mean that in a positive sense!)

Now, in the context of the “Code/No Code” argument, we see people being criticized for looking for the Easy Way. Yes……..a few of them might be simply lazy,…..I don’t know:

I am sure of one thing, however: Our entire history teaches us that “The Smart Man looks for the easiest way to do the Job”! We should pause for a moment of objective thought before we criticize people for thinking the way we have taught them to! Getting the job done should be the issue: We shouldn’t be like Monks, who do penance as they pursue their goal, by intentionally taking the most difficult path.

The argument for “Code/No Code” should be based on real world considerations, like actual usage in emergency situations. If Code is still being regularly used as a method of emergency communication, then it is entirely reasonable to require some basic level of proficiency. If we have to search to find documentation of actual emergency usage, then we can safely consider removing it as a testing criteria.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,

I appreciate your message. However, I still disagree.

I agree with your concept of CanDo/EasyWay. I think that is a very good summation of the attitudes we used to have in this country and which I only wish we were teaching more of.

Where I differ is in the implementation of what I am seeing.

The CanDo attitude should be "I *CAN* learn the code".

The EasyWay would be in finding the easiest way to learn it. Be it by listening to a CD every morning while doing your business or by using a Morse computer program or by listening on the air.

The EasyWay is NOT to bitch and moan about the requirement needing to be removed because it just isn't *fair*, it is best exemplified by finding the easy way to accomplish the requirement.

We had a testing applicant earlier this spring whose reading level was about 4th-6th grade. He had a VERY hard time learning enough technical knowledge to pass the tech test, let alone the General test. But he did!

He didn't bitch and moan about the technical test being an impediment and it being unfair that he should have to take it. He didn't bitch and moan that a technical test didn't say anything about how "good" or how "moral" or how "law-abiding" of a ham he would be.

He took his CanDo attitude and figured out a way to get it done. How he did it may not have been considered an EasyWay to me but maybe it was to him. More power to him.

I have gone back and reread all of the numerous threads on eham about the code testing. Not one, not a SINGLE ONE, has the no-coders addressing specific alternative methods for the FCC to meet its Title 47, Part 97 requirement to set rules and regulations concerning the the advancement of the art of communication as well as the technical phase of the service. Not one has addressed how the FCC will meet its obligation to provide a trained pool of operators for RACES capable of using the assigned frequency allocations set aside for RACES in case the War Power act is implemented - including the CW (i.e. Morse) sub-bands.

In other words, I'm not seeing very much CanDo/EasyWay attitude from the no-coders on any of these threads. I *am* seeing a lot of "I want it now, I want it all, and I want it with no effort" attitudes.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AE6IP on September 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
> I have gone back and reread all of the numerous threads on eham about
> the code testing. Not one, not a SINGLE ONE, has the no-coders
> addressing specific alternative methods for the FCC to meet its Title
> 47, Part 97 requirement to set rules and regulations concerning the
> the advancement of the art of communication as well as the technical
> phase of the service. Not one has addressed how the FCC will meet its
> obligation to provide a trained pool of operators for RACES capable of
> using the assigned frequency allocations set aside for RACES in case
> the War Power act is implemented - including the CW (i.e. Morse)
> sub-bands

That's an outragous exageration.

First, your comment about the art of communication and the technical
phase of the service is a red herring. Testing for Morse code
proficiency at 5 wpm doesn't accomplish either.

Second, it has already been pointed out that your comments about RACES
don't apply. The FCC has no obligation specific to RACES. It has
stopped issuing RACES licenses. RACES licenses aren't held by hams,
they're held by custodians, who need not pass any ham test. There is
no regulatory requirement for RACES to use Morse.

You are assuming your conclusion in forming your arguments. What you
have failed to show is that testing for Morse code would accomplish
any of these things either. Since testing for Morse code won't, all
you are doing is raising a strawman.

 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP

I will go through this one more time for you. In the future, I suggest that you get a copy of Title 47, Part 97 and a copy of the Civil Preparedness Guide and study them before holding forth on what does and doesn't apply to the FCC and/or to RACES.

First:

>That's an outragous exageration.

>First, your comment about the art of communication and >the technical phase of the service is a red herring. >Testing for Morse code proficiency at 5 wpm doesn't >accomplish either.

*************
Sec. 97.1 Basis and purpose.

The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:
.................

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art.

*****************

"advancing skills in both the communication ... phases of the art"

Now we see the no-coders trying to claim that the use of Morse code on the ham bands does not represent "communication" since, if it does represent communication, being able to use it to communicate WOULD demonstrate advancing skills in the art of communicating.

It is amazing the claims that will be made in order to make excuses. The claim that being able to transfer information by 5wpm Morse code is *not* communicating is truly absurd.

It's just more of the "I want it now, I want all of it, and I don't want to expend any effort to get it" attitude that we are seeing.

Second:

>Second, it has already been pointed out that your >comments about RACES don't apply. The FCC has no >obligation specific to RACES. It has stopped issuing >RACES licenses. RACES licenses aren't held by hams,
>they're held by custodians, who need not pass any ham >test. There is no regulatory requirement for RACES to >use Morse.

Get a copy of both Title 47, Part 97 and the CPG. Here are some excerpts:

***************

Sec. 97.407 Radio amateur civil emergency service.

(a) No station may transmit in RACES unless it is an FCC-licensed primary, club, or military recreation station and it is certified by a civil defense organization as registered with that organization, or it is an FCC-licensed RACES station.

******************

Please note that the term FCC-licensed primary station refers to YOUR station location at your primary operating location just as it refers to mine. A RACES license is NOT required.


From the CPG:

*************

1-5. Background.

......................

2. RACES is a special part of the amateur operation sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). RACES provides emergency communications for civil preparedness purposes only. RACES is conducted by amateurs using their primary station licenses or by existing RACES stations. In the event that the President invokes the War Emergency powers, amateurs officially enrolled in the local civil preparedness group would become limited to certain frequencies, while all other amateur operations would be silenced.

*********************

Please note that it says RACES is conducted by amateurs using their primary station licenses OR by existing RACES stations.

RACES is a Federally funded operation authorized under:

*****************

CPG

1-3. Authorities.

1. The Communications Act of 1934, Section 606, as amended.

2. Executive Order 12472, Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions.

********************

This requires all federal organizations to support RACES as needed.

**********************
CPG

1-8. FEMA's Role.

FEMA's role is to provide planning guidance, technical assistance, and funding for establishing a RACES organization at the State and local government level.

***************************

This is not just an organizational thing. Actual funding is provided by FEMA.

Now lets look at eligibility for being a RACES operator:

******************

2-2. RACES Eligibility.

Any United States citizen, who possesses a valid FCC Amateur Radio Operator License, technician class or higher, is eligible to become a member of RACES. The services of amateurs who have a Novice Class license may be used, but this is not recommended due to the privilege limitations.

********************

From this we know that FEMA expects a pool of qualified operators to be available that can use all available frequencies and modes. The FCC has an implicit, if not explicit, requirement to support FEMA in the needs of the service.

There have been many weigh in on this argument that expects Morse use will die away if it is no longer a licensing requirement. Should the FCC eliminate Morse code testing and it does fade away then the FCC *will* be guilty of not meeting the requirements of the operator pool expected for RACES by FEMA.

If you want to argue that Title 47, Part 97 be revised to eliminate the FCC requirement to advance the art of communicating and that it should be revised to eliminate the CW subbands from the list of authorized frequencies in case of a War Emergency declaration by the President, then do so.

But please stop trying to perpetrate the fraud that there is nothing in the the US Code and Rules and Regulations that address the FCC's responsibilities concerning this matter.

>You are assuming your conclusion in forming your >arguments. What you have failed to show is that >testing for Morse code would accomplish any of these >things either. Since testing for Morse code won't, all
>you are doing is raising a strawman.

Hmmm, I have the facts to support my conclusions. There is no strawman in my arguments. You, on the other hand, have to argue that transmitting information using Morse code is not communicating in order to make your point. You obviously do not know the rules and regulations associated with RACES because your claims concerning RACES are wrong.

If you have something concrete to offer, other than meaningless platitudes, that can be proposed as an alternative to the FCC for advancing the art of communicating, please hold forth. If you have something concrete to offer on providing full and complete capabilites in the operator pool for RACES, something other than meaningless platitudes, please hold forth.

Otherwise you aren't doing anything except confirming the "I want it all, I want it now, and I want it with no effort" attitude that is so apparent among the no-coders posting on here. Give us some reasons and alternatives, not just excuses and complaints.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim;

I will not presume to question your research on the regulations pertaining to this discussion. You have obviously “done your homework”.

My problem with the current debate is that it seems to be largely hypothetical. The point I am really curious about is the recent, “Real World” application of all this.

In my mind, the central issue is this: “Is Code still being regularly used for Emergency Communications?”

If there are, in fact, daily usages of Code Transmissions to save lives and /or property, then it is obvious to me that a basic level of Code competency should be required.

If, on the other hand, we have to actively search to find documented cases where a Code Transmission “made the difference”, then I have to question it’s relative importance as a testing criteria.

As an aside, I should probably explain my position in all this: I learned Code 45 years ago (I can still recall most of it without straining), and I got my Amateur Radio License three years ago. My current interests have nothing to do with the HF bands. I am perfectly content with where I am. I’m not looking for a “Freebee” from anyone. My interest in this debate is largely academic.

I stand ready to be swayed to whichever side presents the most compelling facts!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>In my mind, the central issue is this: “Is Code still being regularly used for Emergency Communications?”

>If there are, in fact, daily usages of Code Transmissions to save lives and /or property, then it is obvious to me that a basic level of Code competency should be required.

Daily use? Probably not. But you will probably have to actively search to find "daily" instances of Amateur Radio being used for Emergency Communications" at all. Even the RACES part of the CPG doesn't recognize Morse code as a primary mode of communication. It spells out Voice, RTTY, and Packet as the primary modes. That doesn't mean that CW is still not the preferred mode when power efficiency is primary or when propagation is marginal. While many will point to psk31 as having noise immunity even better than CW, I don't personally know of any state EOC locations that are equipped for psk31. It won't do much good if you don't have it available. They all have CW available, however.

As documented in other threads, I know directly of at least two instances this year where Morse code was involved in emergency communications. Not life and death situations, but still emergency communications.

In the Kansas City area, the ARES emergency CW net is an integral part of the area emergency plan. It meets weekly for training and is activated as needed in emergencies.

On at least one of the threads you will find a rather compelling instance of someone in the military using Morse code to contact his base and arrange an airlift of a badly off buddy. All of the fancy satellite and voice/digital communication couldn't cut it. But he did make contact using Morse code over his HF radio.

One fact that seems to be missing in all these conversations is that other countries do not necessarily depend upon hams for emergency communications the way the US does and many others do not have "Congressional" expectations spelled out in their codes like the FCC does. Both have to be considered in any decision the FCC makes. That isn't necessarily true anywhere else.

While emergency communications is an important use of CW, I don't feel that is the primary reason today for testing for ability in using Morse code. The FCC does have an obligation to provide for advancing skills in the art of communicating. Testing for Morse code ability is about the easiest test I have seen proposed by anyone. If someone can offer a concrete proposal for something different that is as easy to learn and as easy to test for I would be more than willing to consider it. So far, however, all I have seen is complaining that testing requirements be eliminated.

Thanks for your reply. Have a good day.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AE6IP on September 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
> But please stop trying to perpetrate the fraud that there is nothing
> in the the US Code and Rules and Regulations that address the FCC's
> responsibilities concerning this matter.

Another outrageous strawman. Would you care to stop writing hundreds
of lines of irrelevant material and, for once, actually address the
question at hand?

To wit:

>> You are assuming your conclusion in forming your
>> arguments. What you have failed to show is that
>> testing for Morse code would accomplish any of these
>> things either. Since testing for Morse code won't, all
>> you are doing is raising a strawman.

> Hmmm, I have the facts to support my conclusions.

None of your "facts" even attempt to address the question of whether
or not element 1 accomplishes what you claim it is needed for.

> There is no strawman in my arguments.

There is nothing *but* strawman in your argument, for example:

> You, on the other hand, have to argue that transmitting information
> using Morse code is not communicating in order to make your point.

There's another strawman. I *never* made an argument that using Morse
code is not communication.

> If you have something concrete to offer on providing full and
> complete capabilites in the operator pool for RACES, something other
> than meaningless platitudes, please hold forth.

Remind me again, what evidence have you produced that element 1
testing accomplishes any of these goals that you (and no one else in
the world) are so concerned about?

> Otherwise you aren't doing anything except confirming the "I want it
> all, I want it now, and I want it with no effort" attitude that is
> so apparent among the no-coders posting on here. Give us some
> reasons and alternatives, not just excuses and complaints.

d00d, you're off in some alternate reality, and you're making the
anti-lazy insult at someone who passed element 1, uses CW, is a VE, an
ARRL certified instructor, an ARES volunteer, and a member of a CERT
team. you wanna insult me, you should find some overachiever insults.

Here's the reality, in simple terms:

Element 1 does *nothing* other than demonstrate that an individual has
studied enough code to pass the Element 1 test. It doesn't do *any* of
the other things attributed to it. Ask anyone familiar with testing
and test design to take a look at it, and they'll tell you that.

Since Element 1 doesn't do any of those other things, all of your
arguments are irrelevant. Element 1 has *nothing* to do with RACES.

Try to stay focused here, m'kay? There is no guarentee that someone
passing the Element 1 test will ever use Morse code again, let alone
that they will ever be involved in EMCOMM.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>d00d, you're off in some alternate reality, and you're making the anti-lazy insult at someone who passed element 1, uses CW, is a VE, an ARRL certified instructor, an ARES volunteer, and a member of a CERT
team. you wanna insult me, you should find some overachiever insults.

dOOd, perhaps you should learn how to analyze an argument. What you have done in your life has nothing to do with the argument you are putting forth. You are still putting forth a "I want it now, I want it all, and I want it with no effort" argument.


>Element 1 does *nothing* other than demonstrate that an individual has studied enough code to pass the Element 1 test. It doesn't do *any* of the other things attributed to it. Ask anyone familiar with testing and test design to take a look at it, and they'll tell you that.

See what I mean? You can't even admit that passing information via Morse code IS a means of communication. If you admit that then the rest of your argument tumbles into the dust. It means that the FCC *has* propagated rules that advance the art of communication and you have nothing to offer on how they should continue that. You just want to advance the "I want it now, and I want it all, and I want it with no effort" argument.

>Since Element 1 doesn't do any of those other things, all of your arguments are irrelevant. Element 1 has *nothing* to do with RACES.

>Try to stay focused here, m'kay? There is no guarentee that someone passing the Element 1 test will ever use Morse code again, let alone that they will ever be involved in EMCOMM.

Right. CW communications has nothing to do with RACES. That's why the CW allocations for RACES don't actually exist. They are just phantoms of my imagination.

Right. The FCC doesn't have any responsibility to FEMA. Again, it's just a figment of my imagination that they are both federal government agencies responsible for providing resources to fullfill government needs.

Right. Morse code is not a means of communication. That's just another figment of my imagination.

Right. The FCC doesn't have any responsibility to advance the art of communication in the Amateur Radio Service. That's just another figment of my imagination.

Right. We'll just all join the Citizens Band Service. Then we'll all be equal and no one will HAVE to know something they will never use and we'll all be happy forever.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim;

In a response to another post, you used the phrase:

>>>>”……..You just want to advance the "I want it now, and I want it all, and I want it with no effort" argument.”<<<<<

I have seen this sentiment expressed by a number of “Pro Code” posters, and I personally believe that this statement is not entirely accurate. It also tends to be insulting to those that it doesn’t truly apply to.

If the “IT” you’re referring to is “Access to the HF Bands”, then I only have to direct your attention to my own case to show that your hypothesis is not universally true……I am not interested in HF operations, and if someone granted me those access rights tomorrow, I would probably never use them. I tend towards the “No Code” side of the issue because I have not been convinced of Code’s ongoing relevance,……. not because I want the big “IT”!

I have spoken with quite a few people who are more than willing to step up to more rigorous Technical testing, but still fail to see the relevance of a Code requirement. I don’t think that the generic title of “Lazy” can be applied to these people.

I am sure that there really are people on the “No Code” side of the aisle who are simply lazy; …..But to leap to the assumption that everyone in the “No Code” group is “Lazy” is the sort of logical failure that leads down the road to petty bigotry.

While I am truly impressed with your knowledge of the Regulations pertaining to this general issue,….. I have to point out that the Laws and Regulations we live under in this country did not issue from a “Burning Bush” in the desert! ….. They were made by men, and as such, are rarely perfect. They also tend to become antiquated as time marches on, and require occasional revision.

I would personally love to see a thread on this subject where the logical and practical points of the issue were discussed,…. not the endless legalistic text produced by Bureaucrats and overpaid Government Lawyers.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,

Thanks for your reasoned message.

I would only ask what you would offer us a proposal for the FCC to use in meeting their charge to set rules and regulations that will advance the skill of comminication in the ARS?

While the rules and regulations that we and the FCC labor under may not be perfect and they may be antiquated that does not mean we can ignore them nor can we disobey them willy-nilly. Down that road lies anarchy.

Are you suggesting that Title 47, Part 97 be revised to take out the requirement that the FCC propagate rules and regulation to insure the advancement of skills in the art of communicating in the ARS? Is that what you really see as being antiquated and not perfect?

If you feel that this charge is still a valid one and will lead to the betterment of the ARS then rather than just dropping the Morse code test, we need to come up with a detailed proposal for a replacement.

It's my opinion that the 5wpm Morse test is about as simple and easy test to pass that can be developed. Anything else would be more complicated and would discriminate against *more* people. Any test procedure needs to consider the needs of all disabled people and the Morse code test can be easily modified to fit just about any disability. You can send with lights or a vibrating piezo element for those who are deaf or blind. I have a hard time visualing any other test for communication skills that is as easy to learn and as easy to test for.

Actually I am totally surprised that no one has offered the argument that the written test should be removed because it is discriminatory to those minorities that have to attend poor schools and whose reading level is not adequate to study for or to take the test.Neither am I aware of study materials being offered in second languages. Surely the whole ARS testing scheme violates Equal Protection in some manner or the other. Perhaps we should be contacting the ACLU to review the situation? Perhaps we can get a court to invalidate all of the testing and we can all be equal and all of us can have access to all of the bands and we can all be happy forever without expending any effort at all. Heck, maybe we can even get the court to make the licenses renewable annually and to tack on a $500 charge that will go into a pool for the federal government to administer that will buy equipment for the financially challenged who wish to enjoy using the bands. And we can open the bands to those who are now stuck on the CB frequencies. They have REALLY been discriminated against all these years. Yeah! That's it! The ARS has really escaped the move to socialism that is pervading this country. We need to bring the ARS into the modern world of American socialism, right?

BTW, This last paragraph wasn't aimed at you, Kent. It is just the logical conclusion of most of the no-code arguments I have seen on here.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Tim;

Well……….I guess the first thing we would have to agree on is why the FCC is required to; “…..propagate rules and regulation to insure the advancement of skills in the art of communicating in the ARS.”

I operate under the assumption that the reason for this requirement is to ensure that the Licensees in the ARS have the basic skills that would be required of them in the event of local or national crisis. I think that is a laudable goal, and I wholeheartedly support that.

But, if that is the goal,…… I then have some logical issues with the way things are currently being done.

I think we can all agree that Morse Code on CW is simply a way of transmitting information via RF radiation. Please note that it is only one of many! ……….Why then is it the only one that is tested for? Couldn’t one make the logical argument that the FCC is failing in it’s mandate, when it doesn’t test proficiency in the other commonly used modes of communication?

If testing proficiency in an operating mode like CW borne Morse is going to remain on the Test Criteria, then I would be firmly in favor of adding test modules for the other data transmission modes that are in common use for emergency communication.

The argument that credits the Code Requirement with “filtering out” undesirable operators also pales under this viewpoint. If the FCC really considered the Code Requirement an effective “filter”, wouldn’t a comprehensive test for all modes be much more effective in this role?

In my mind, it comes down to this: …..If you’re going to test for competency in an operating mode, then test for all commonly used modes! Now, in 2003, to single one out for testing gets dangerously close to being capricious!

As far as political orientation goes,…………..I really don’t want to “go there”. My own beliefs follow a Constitutionalist line, and I feel very strongly that it is possible to be critical of some of the “Pro Code” positions, without subscribing to all of the weak-minded Socialist Crap that is currently circulating in our Society!


Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,

>If testing proficiency in an operating mode like CW borne Morse is going to remain on the Test Criteria, then I would be firmly in favor of adding test modules for the other data transmission modes that are in common use for emergency communication.

I could live with this. Someone in a thread somewhere postulated a licensing scheme similar to that used for commercial licenses where you would have to gain an endorsement to your basic license before operating any specific mode. The basic license would cover knowledge of rules and regulations plus basic safety. Then the endorsements would cover the technical and communication phases of the art.

If you wanted to use 2m FM you would have to gain an endorsement in the technical knowledge that goes with FM generation, amplification, etc plus a test to indicate knowledge of how to do repeater operation, net operations, etc.

If you want to do SSB on either HF or VHF you would have to pass a technical knowlege test plus a voice operation test covering various things like how to operate in a DX pileup, how to operate in a net, how to handle weak signal conditions, etc.

If you want to operate psk31 you will have to show that you understand things like syncronous detection and that you can read and understand spectrum displays and waterfall displays. You'll have to show how to operate in the presence of phase impacts on the signal, etc.

First, the FCC is never going to do this. The band plan would probably have to be split into many, many different chunks to make it an incentive and to be able to police it. I can't see them complicating the band plan. Second, it would tremendously complicate the testing scheme for the VEC corps. I can't see the FCC agreeing to this let alone the VEC organizations. Third, I question just how many hams you will get to buy into this proposal, especially the ones on here arguing for the elimination of the code test.

Lastly, remember that this isn't just testing for communication modes used in emergencies. Title 47, Part 97.1(c) doesn't mention emergency communications at all. It is for providing for advancing skills in the art of communication, not emergency communication.

While I agree that code testing is not meant as a filter, per se, there does have to be some way to distinguish the ARS from the Citizen Band Service. It is my opinion that testing purely for technical knowledge is not sufficient. There truly must be someway to elevate skills in the art of communication above the least common denominator of no-knowledge-required that you find in the Citizens Band Service or the Family Radio Service. Otherwise we risk becoming identified as a least-common-denominator hobby and that puts everything at even further risk to things like BPL. Has anyone seen any complaints about BPL jeopardizing things like Citizen Band and that the power companies should be kept from BPL because the people need a hobby like Citizen Band radio? I sure haven't. I sincerely doubt I will. I don't want to risk in any way that such a view ever gets propagated for the ARS.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!


Tim;

I have to admit that I’m becoming a bit confused.

I gather from all your posts that your basic position is that Title 47, Part 97 mandates that the FCC “…..propagate rules and regulation to insure the advancement of skills in the art of communicating in the ARS”, …..which, in turn, requires the continued inclusion of a Code Test Element…………….OK, so far, so good!

You then go on to state in a recent post; “Title 47, Part 97.1(c) doesn't mention emergency communications at all. It is for providing for advancing skills in the art of communication, not emergency communication.”

Well,…. If this mandate wasn’t put in place to ensure a competent base of operators as a hedge against times of crisis,…… WHAT’S IT FOR???? Please don’t ask me to believe that we have a Federal Bureaucracy that has a purely altruistic interest in the Art of Radio Communication! The average Federal Bureaucrat wouldn’t save his own mother from drowning, unless he had the operational orders in triplicate, and the funding for the operation already approved!

When I suggested that testing for competency in other modes would be appropriate, if testing for code was to be retained, your reply was; “I could live with this.”…….but then you go on to say that the FCC would never do this because of the level of difficulty involved in implementing such a change.

You mean the right way, the way that most closely honors their mandate, is too hard for them? Gee……..that sounds a lot like the "I want it now, I want it all, and I want it with no effort" sentiment that I have heard others accused of!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I have to strongly object to the idea that amateurs must be certified in a mode BEFORE they can use it. How in the hell are they going to LEARN how to use it so they can pass a test demonstrating that they KNOW how to use it? That's the most bizarre thinking I've seen yet.

How do 16-year-old teens across the U.S. learn to drive a car? Must they pass a driving test to get their "learner's permit"? No, they pass a written test showing they know the rules of the road and required safety regulations. Then they are given six months of actual practice driving under the supervision of another licensed driver. After having six months of practice of real road driving, they take an "on-the-road behind-the-wheel" driving test to demonstrate the skill they've acquired and that they can now drive safely unsupervised under their own valid driver's license. Some states have instituted a graduated license structure since so many teens are involved in accidents due to lack of expertise (not lack of skill) but expertise. First, they can drive only in the daytime and with only family members in the car. Gradually, they earn a full license so they have the same privileges as every adult licensee. The need for the graduated license structure is totally based on the need for safety for the young drivers and others on the road with them.

Nothing in amateur radio is so dangerous as to require such a graduated structure. About the only "danger" from an inexperienced ham is potential interference with non-emergency amateur communication. No life or death threat here. Hasn't every ham done this by accident or inattention some time in their ham career? The sky didn't turn to blood. Amateur radio doesn't disintegrate just because a QSO was accidently or even purposely interfered. In fact, Riley Hollingsworth just said that 90% of interference problems he investigates are accidental, unintended. Unfortunately, that also means that there is certain number of very skilled, licensed hams out there that for revenge or anger, are purposely interfering. And these are NOT no-coders. These are usuallly, EXTRA class hams that have become BAD CITIZENS on the ham bands.

As far as all the drivel about RACES, answer a question for me. When was the last time the president used his war powers and actually activated RACES? Not during the Iraq war. During Desert Storm? The Viet Nam war? Korean War? The "cold war"? Has RACES EVER been activated since its establishment after WW2?

Just the facts now. Give me real data.

KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,

I may not have been as clear as I should have been. Forgive me.

>Well,…. If this mandate wasn’t put in place to ensure a competent base of operators as a hedge against times of crisis,…… WHAT’S IT FOR???? Please don’t ask me to believe that we have a Federal Bureaucracy that has a purely altruistic interest in the Art of Radio Communication! The average Federal Bureaucrat wouldn’t save his own mother from drowning, unless he had the operational orders in triplicate, and the funding for the operation already approved!

Title 47, Part 97.1(c) is only ONE of the bases and purposes listed in Part 97.1(c). Part 97.1(a) addresses the emergency communications issue!

I know it sounds unbelieveable but Part 97.1(c) doesn't mention emergency communication and it also stands alone separately from 97.1(a), they are not related by a conjuction or anything. I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm just asking you to read it. What is says is pretty obvious. Look back in the thread, I've posted the exact text at least twice probably. It isn't ambiguious in any way!

>You mean the right way, the way that most closely honors their mandate, is too hard for them? Gee……..that sounds a lot like the "I want it now, I want it all, and I want it with no effort" sentiment that I have heard others accused of!

I didn't say it was too hard for me! I said it would be too hard for the FCC <grin>. You are pretty hard on the bureaucracy elsewhere in your post - do you really think they are going to want to make things harder for themselves?

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KD5YDY;

Whoa Tex!……………….Hold your fire! (or at least pause a second when you go to reload!)

The whole subject of multiple mode tests and the related considerations came up because I was questioning the logic of picking only one of several operating modes for use as a test criteria!

The actual question I was trying to address, was as follows:

How can you justify picking just one mode as a testing criteria, and seriously call it “propagating rules and regulation to insure the advancement of skills in the art of communicating in the ARS”? (Particularly when you pick the oldest, and officially least used mode for your choice?)

Also, before your sense of outrage carries you away completely, I would like to make an observation about one of your lead statements, which was:

>>>>”How in the hell are they going to LEARN how to use it so they can pass a test demonstrating that they KNOW how to use it? That's the most bizarre thinking I've seen yet!”<<<<

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t we ALL pass a Technicians Exam (or better) WITHOUT the benefit of practicing on the VHF/UHF bands first? (Sorry…….Is this an example of “bizarre thinking”?)

If a formally layered and structured system was ever actually put in place, I would expect the upgrading licensees to approach their exams with the same “Can Do” attitude that the New Applicant brings to his or her very first exam. After all, if a rank beginner can handle that challenge, it should be a snap for all those “Real Hams” out there.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>I have to strongly object to the idea that amateurs must be certified in a mode BEFORE they can use it. How in the hell are they going to LEARN how to use it so they can pass a test demonstrating that they KNOW how to use it? That's the most bizarre thinking I've seen yet.

They do it the same way the commercial people do it. They learn it under the supervision of a someone licensed in the mode and then go take the test. Did you think the commercial people could learn how to work on shipboard radar by just starting to work on it by themselves till they were proficient in it?

It's not a bizarre scheme at all. It's worked very well in the commercial arena for a very long time.

>How do 16-year-old teens across the U.S. learn to drive a car? Must they pass a driving test to get their "learner's permit"? No, they pass a written test showing they know the rules of the road and required safety regulations. Then they are given six months of actual practice driving under the supervision of another licensed driver.After having six months of practice of real road driving, they take an "on-the-road behind-the-wheel" driving test to demonstrate the skill they've acquired and that they can now drive safely unsupervised under their own valid driver's license.

See? You answered your own question. Get a base level Amateur Radio operators license which enables you to start learning how to use different modes on the bands under the supervision of an Amateur Radio Operator licensed for those modes and then go take the test when you know how to do it.

Is your own explanation of getting a drivers license bizarre? It has to be if an exact copy of it for getting Amateur Radio License endorsements is bizarre.


>As far as all the drivel about RACES, answer a question for me. When was the last time the president used his war powers and actually activated RACES?

>Just the facts now. Give me real data.

I don't know of any implementation of the War Emergency powers by the President since WW2.


>Not during the Iraq war. During Desert Storm? The Viet Nam war? Korean War? The "cold war"? Has RACES EVER been activated since its establishment after WW2?

>Just the facts now. Give me real data.

Has RACES ever been activated since WW2? Absolutely. Do you know who activates RACES and when?


Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
No Kent, I wasn't reacting to your posting as I understood the context and the agrument you were proposing as a ridiculous requirement. I was reacting to Tim's "Agreement" that this would be a good idea.

Tim, you still have given NO FACTS about when RACES has been activated. Your statement that it has is not adequate document. Give me a date so I can go back and see in the history of the hobby. If a US President never has used War Powers, then real RACES could never have been activited. So just forget RACES in all future discussion of the code/no code issue. RACES is totally irrelevant to the issue. PERIOD.

All no-code Techs took a written test and are then allowed FULL EQUAL access to the VHF, UHF bands. There's no practice period, etc. The written test is all that is necessary to show they know the rules and regs to operate within the law. The same goes for GENERAL and EXTRA.

Code has nothing to do with one's knowledge to operate appropriately on HF bands. That's where the whole argument Tim advances falls apart. The FCC fact-finding three years ago determined that knowing CODE was not a useable measure of whether a person would comply with the law, behave as a good amateur citizen on the ham bands, or even whether they could assist during an emergency. Remember, no civil authority or amateur operator has used CW in an emergency in the 21st century. So testing for code profiency is arbitrary and must be terminated according to the FCC's own writings.

KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>Tim, you still have given NO FACTS about when RACES has been activated. Your statement that it has is not adequate document. Give me a date so I can go back and see in the history of the hobby. If a US President never has used War Powers, then real RACES could never have been activited. So just forget RACES in all future discussion of the code/no code issue. RACES is totally irrelevant to the issue. PERIOD.

I see you still don't know who activates RACES. When you can tell us all that, perhaps we can discuss the issue rationally. Till then you are just ranting about something you obviously don't know anything about. Because of that I *will* continue to use it because it is a legitmate requirement for the FCC to consider.

(Hint-RACES is not activated by the President or by implementation of the War Emergency powers or even by anyone in the Federal government - not even the "real" RACES)

>Code has nothing to do with one's knowledge to operate appropriately on HF bands. That's where the whole argument Tim advances falls apart.

Really? You still don't even understand what I have been arguing do you? Can you show me any post of mine where it even implies, let alone explicitly states, that Morse code testing has anything to do with being able to operate appropriately? (Hint- you won't find any.)

My point is that the rules and regulations require the Commission to provide encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in the communication phase of the art.

Do you see anything in there where it says knowledge of any communication skill has anything to do with operating appropriately? (Hint - you can't because it isn't there - except maybe in your imagination) That doesn't mean the Commission doesn't have a requirement to encourage advancing skills in the communication phase of the art.

>Remember, no civil authority or amateur operator has used CW in an emergency in the 21st century.

You've been repeatedly given three examples of recent use (two of which were THIS YEAR). Can you recite them or have you just eliminated them from your world view?

>So testing for code profiency is arbitrary and must be terminated according to the FCC's own writings.

Actually, the accurate conclusion from this should be that proficiency in ALL modes of communication used on the amateur bands should be tested before they can be used. Otherwise we are halfway to being a Citizen Band service. But then, weren't you the one that had the hissy fit when this was suggested? You are still propounding the "I want it all, I want it now, and I want it with no effort" point of view.

(See what I mean Kent?)

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim,

You totally missed my point. You have posted on numerous threads your belief that MORSE CODE proficiency is mandated because RACES would use CW frequencies.

RACES may use any amateur frequencies that the operator is licensed for. The ONLY CIRUMSTANCES where the CW bands are the only ones available for RACES is when the President uses the War Emergency Powers under the Communication Act of 1934. Then the frequencies are limited to CW portion of HF but still have access to most of VHF, all of UHF and above. Since a President has NEVER used the War Emergency Powers listed above, RACES has NEVER BEEN limited to the CW portion of the HF bands and probably never will.

As of April 2000, the FCC can no longer renew RACES licenses. No new RACES licenses have been granted since 1978. RACES is essentially being allowed a slow death. So anything related to RACES is not worth discussing. That's all I'm saying. That your premise that CODE is necessary to support RACES is a dead argument.

As far as encouraging the advancement of the skill and art of communication, I believe that FCC regulations have allowed multiple advances in the hobby, all which have been independent of Morse Code. PSK31, APRS, EME, meteor scatter, satellite communication: all these recent developments are advancements in the art of communication. CW had its heyday but now there are many digital modes that win hands down even in poor band conditions and weak signal.

CW will be allowed the same slow death as RACES. Perhaps it might be helped along a bit if the FCC reallocates half the CW spectrum for digital only and eventually eliminates CW-only subbands. You can use CW on any frequency so those that want to use it still will be able to, just no special allocation for CW is justified in the near future.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
And Tim,

None of the examples of CW-use in the 21st century amounted to a true emergency. No, I'm not part of the "I want it now, I want it free" mentality. I've been licensed since 1991 and have been content to stay a no-code ham for 12 years. I've passed all the written exams including Element 4 in the past two months and have learned Morse Code (believe it or not). I'll be trying to pass Element 1 next weekend. Why did I bother? Because I don't want to wait for the slow legislative wheels to turn before I can talk HF with my blind friend halfway across the US. So you're totally wrong in your evaluation of me. Get on the HF bands, Tim, instead of spending your precious time arguing on eHam. The day I pass Element 1 will be the day I never visit eHam again.

KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AE6IP on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>> Element 1 does *nothing* other than demonstrate that an individual
>> has studied enough code to pass the Element 1 test. It doesn't do
>> *any* of the other things attributed to it. Ask anyone familiar with
>> testing and test design to take a look at it, and they'll tell you
>> that.

> See what I mean? You can't even admit that passing information via
> Morse code IS a means of communication. If you admit that then the
> rest of your argument tumbles into the dust. It means that the FCC
> *has* propagated rules that advance the art of communication and you
> have nothing to offer on how they should continue that.

You really should try reading what you are responding to. The statement's about the *test*. Remember the *test*. we're not talking about what morse code is or isn't, what it does or doesn't, we're talking about the *test*. Got that yet?


>> Since Element 1 doesn't do any of those other things, all of your
>> arguments are irrelevant. Element 1 has *nothing* to do with RACES.

>> Try to stay focused here, m'kay? There is no guarentee that someone
>> passing the Element 1 test will ever use Morse code again, let alone
>> that they will ever be involved in EMCOMM.

> Right. CW communications has nothing to do with RACES. That's why
> the CW allocations for RACES don't actually exist. They are just
> phantoms of my imagination.

There you go losing focus again. Try reading for comprehension. Focus on *test*. Remember we're talking about the *test*.

> Right. The FCC doesn't have any responsibility to FEMA. Again, it's
> just a figment of my imagination that they are both federal
> government agencies responsible for providing resources to fullfill
> government needs.

Man, you're farther out in left field than a Barry Bonds homer. It is
slowly, and painfully, dawning on me, that you don't even understand
what the topic of discussion is.

> Right. Morse code is not a means of communication. That's just
> another figment of my imagination.

Yup, no comprehension of the subject under discussion.

> Right. The FCC doesn't have any responsibility to advance the art of
> communication in the Amateur Radio Service. That's just another
> figment of my imagination.

What *are* you ranting about?

> Right. We'll just all join the Citizens Band Service. Then we'll all
> be equal and no one will HAVE to know something they will never use
> and we'll all be happy forever.

I know this is a waste of time, but let me slow it down for you.

The issue being discussed here is whether or not Element 1 should be
retained. You know, whether we should *test* for Morse code
proficiency or not.

The point that you have, once again, completely refused to address, is
that Element 1 doesn't accomplish any of the things that you're
ranting about.

Stay with me here, we're almost done.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show how element 1
does any of the things you think are necessary.

Can you follow that? All the emotional overwrought smoke blowing in
the world isn't going to make a case for element 1. So, let's see if
you can stay focused enough to actually address the topic one, m'kay?
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Marty;

I get a real grin out of reading your posts. Keep up the good work!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KD5YDY,

>You totally missed my point. You have posted on numerous threads your belief that MORSE CODE proficiency is mandated because RACES would use CW frequencies.

>RACES may use any amateur frequencies that the operator is licensed for. The ONLY CIRUMSTANCES where the CW bands are the only ones available for RACES is when the President uses the War Emergency Powers under the Communication Act of 1934. Then the frequencies are limited to CW portion of HF

PLEASE, PLEASE get a copy of the Civil Preparedness Guide and a copy of Title 47, Part 97 and study them. Then perhaps you can discuss the issues intelligently. Right now all you are showing is an ignorance of the rules and regulations concerning the Amateur Radio Service and the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service.

>As of April 2000, the FCC can no longer renew RACES licenses. No new RACES licenses have been granted since 1978. RACES is essentially being allowed a slow death. So anything related to RACES is not worth discussing.

PLEASE, PLEASE get a copy of the Civil Preparedness Guide and a copy of Title 47, Part 97 and study them. Then perhaps you can discuss the issues intelligently. Right now all you are showing is an ignorance of the rules and regulations concerning the Amateur Radio Service and the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service.

>As far as encouraging the advancement of the skill and art of communication, I believe that FCC regulations have allowed multiple advances in the hobby, all which have been independent of Morse Code.

PLEASE, PLEASE get a copy of the Civil Preparedness Guide and a copy of Title 47, Part 97 and study them. Then perhaps you can discuss the issues intelligently. Right now all you are showing is an ignorance of the rules and regulations concerning the Amateur Radio Service and the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service.


>PSK31, APRS, EME, meteor scatter, satellite communication: all these recent developments are advancements in the art of communication. CW had its heyday but now there are many digital modes that win hands down even in poor band conditions and weak signal.

CW is still the king in weak signal work where multipath fading, selective fading, doppler shift, short openings, and several other signal impairments prevent the digital modes from reaching their potential.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim;

I’ll keep this short and to the point:

In my mind, the real issue here is not; “Who understands THE RULES better”.

It is; “Why are those rules in place? …. Do they make sense today? ….and “Should they be revised?”

Please address those questions.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP

>You really should try reading what you are responding to. The statement's about the *test*. Remember the *test*. we're not talking about what morse code is or isn't, what it does or doesn't, we're talking about the *test*. Got that yet?

Please, the test is a Morse code test. The purpose of the test is to demonstrate a skill in communicating. You can't even admit that Morse code is used to communicate or your argument falls apart. What is the purpose of any test? It is to test proficiency in something. A driving test is to test a person's skill in the art of driving. A Morse code test using a simulated QSO is to test a person's skill in the art of communicating using Morse code. It is a positive measure of advancing skill in the communication phase of the art.

It is really quite an pathetic argument that a test and the purpose of the test can somehow be separated.

>The issue being discussed here is whether or not Element 1 should be retained. You know, whether we should *test* for Morse code proficiency or not.

>The point that you have, once again, completely refused to address, is that Element 1 doesn't accomplish any of the things that you're ranting about.

As I said, you can't even admit that Morse code is used to communicate. If you do then you also have to admit that testing the ability to use Morse code is testing for a skill in communicating. If you are testing for a skill in communicating then you are meeting the bases and purposes outlined in Title 47, Part 97, Section 97.1(c) for providing for advancing skills in the communication phase of the art.

Do you really understand just how you sound when you deny that Morse code is used to communicate?

>Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show how element 1 does any of the things you think are necessary.

I just showed you logic trail above. Can you follow it? Morse code is used to communicate. Communicating by Morse code is participating in the communication phase of the radio art. Learning to communicate using Morse code is advancing one's skill in the communication phases of the art. The charge to the FCC to provide rules and regulations for emcouragement and and improvement of the amateur service in the communication phase of the art can be met through the testing for Morse code communication ability.

Can you follow that logic? Or are you going to continue your rant that a test is a test and test's don't have a purpose? Are you still going to stick to the claim that Morse code is not used to communicate?

>Can you follow that? All the emotional overwrought smoke blowing in the world isn't going to make a case for element 1. So, let's see if you can stay focused enough to actually address the topic one, m'kay?

No, I can't follow your logic that a test is a test and a test has no purpose. If that were true the technical tests would have no purpose either. If that were true what do we bother testing for at all? We should just move the Amateur Radio Service into the Citizen Band Service and we could all be equal and we could all be happy forever.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by NOCODING on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>>Common folk have FRS and Citizens Band.

You know what else!

I am sick and tired of people using computers that can't touchtype at least 40wpm. I am sorry but hunt and peck is simply wrong. If you really had the love of computers you would spend the time to learn touchtyping...common folk hunt and peck.

ought to be able to use a computer until they have taken electronics and computer science classes in college. Perhaps if we required that prior to allowing folks on the internet, we wouldn't have morons running unprotected systems, collecting and spreading viruses...common folk can't build their own computer or write software.

And what is up with these quick lube places...are you telling me that people with drivers licences don't know how, or care to take the time to learn, how to change their own oil?



I agree, what kind of world will we have if ham operators don't know code, nor can build their own antennas/etc. (without reading a book or asking someone else)


I am sorry for the outburst...I guess my valium is wearing off.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,


>I’ll keep this short and to the point:

>In my mind, the real issue here is not; “Who understands THE RULES better”.

>It is; “Why are those rules in place? …. Do they make sense today? ….and “Should they be revised?”

>Please address those questions.

I have addressed them over and over. Here it goes again.

***********

Title 47, Part 97, Section 97.1

The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:
........................

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.

*******************

The FCC has a specific charge in the US Rules and Regulations to provide encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in the communication phase of the art.

Section 97.1(c) cannot be read any other way except by those so blinded by an agenda that they are not willing to read the rules and regulations.

Morse code is used to communicate. Testing for Morse code proficiency provides for the license applicants to demonstrate an advancing skill in the communications phase of the art. The need to pass the test is a direct encouragement for amateur operators by the FCC to advance skills and improve in the communication phase of the art.

In fact, this is the ONLY positive, active rule that meets Section 97.1(c). The argument that the FCC "allows" advancements in communication skills is correct but it does not address the charge to the FCC that the FCC *encourage* advancing skills in the communication phase of the art. Encourage and allow are not shown as synonyms in my dictionary. Stimulate, motivate, and promote are shown as synonyms. It's difficult to stimulate, motivate, and promote something by doing nothing positive.

As much as anything, this is about holding the FCC and *ourselves* to the letter AND spirit of the law. The FCC cannot meet the letter AND spirit of 97.1(c) by "alowing" advancement through having no rules at all. The letter AND the spirit of the law is that the FCC provide for positive encouragement and improvement. If we don't like the existing rules that provide for this positive encouragement and improvement then it is also incumbent upon *us* to provide alternatives which *will* meet the letter AND spirit of the law, not just to call for abandoning what exists.

So I hope I the following answers your questions to your satisfaction.

Why are the rules in place?

To meet the letter AND spirit of the existing rules and regulations.

Do they make sense today?

While many call Morse code using CW obsolete and of no use today, I call on you to read the 2003 ARRL Handbook for Radio Amateurs where it states about Morse code: "It is not without reason that HF will probably be the last slice of the spectrum where analogue methods will be fully replaced by digital". Morse code using CW transmission still provides the best way to accomplish propagation studies involving weak signals and signal impairments such as selective fading, mulitpath propagation, doppler shifting, and a host of others which prevent phase and frequency shift digital modes from operating.

While some may feel that performing weak signal propagation studies and developing weak signal communication techniqes using analogue methods is not a modern undertaking, I would call such a view rather short-sighted and indicative of pushing an agenda regardless of the facts.

So, do they make sense today? I don't think you can arbitrarily dismiss Morse code as a viable, important skill just because it was invented so long ago. It makes sense to me for a host of reasons, one of which is outlined below.

Should they be revised?

Simply, no. Morse code testing is still the simplest, most easily implemented, positive test meeting Section 97.1(c) requirements. Morse code testing can be adapted to almost any disability including the blind and deaf. I have yet to see any alternative offered which meets the letter AND spirit of Section 97.1(c) which could be as easily learned and implemented.

Can any, ANY of the no-coders on this thread offer ANY alternative which meets the letter AND spirit of Section 97.1(c)? I haven't seen a single one yet, nor do I expect to. What they are more interested in pushing is an agenda of "I want it all, I want it now, and I want it with no effort expended".


Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K1CJS on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"As a matter of fact, the ease of getting an Amateur Radio license right now is probably responsible for the bulk of the "problems" we have."

Just a little test here, lets look at the enforcement letters issued and then look at the license history of the offenders. I bet you'll find that most of the enforcement letters sent to general, advanced and extra operators have a license issuance date way before the date the code requirement was dropped for operation above 50 mhz.

Also, the letters issued to technician class operators were for violations that were not deliberate, but instead were for violations that stemmed from not knowing the regulations well enough.

I'm not trying to point fingers, but lets be fair -- instead of just using a four inch brush to paint a two inch board lets use a brush that doesn't put the 'paint' where its not needed or deserved.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim;

My previous post was:

>>>>”I’ll keep this short and to the point:

In my mind, the real issue here is not; “Who understands THE RULES better”.

It is; “Why are those rules in place? …. Do they make sense today? ….and “Should they be revised?”

Please address those questions.”<<<<<<


I was taught in my Freshman Debating Class that an “Appeal to established authority” was poor debating form. In keeping with that thought, I have a challenge for you:….. Respond WITHOUT referring to “Title 47, Part 97, Section 97.1” or any other federal document. (Not even once!)

Explain to me in your own words the hard, concrete specifics:

1) What were the actual, practical reasons for mandating a Code Test element ?

2) Are those reasons still of practical value today?

3) Should these the current requirements be altered or expanded to deal with the myriad of technical advances that have occurred since the introduction of Code?

Before responding, please understand that I am not interested in another recitation of Federal Codes and Statues. Using only the actual technical merits of Code and it’s usage today, I want you to explain to me (and everyone else reading this) why, in your own words, Code should still be important to each and every licensed operator.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K1CJS on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
AB0WR said:

>>>Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show how element 1 does any of the things you think are necessary.......Morse code is used to communicate. Communicating by Morse code is participating in the communication phase of the radio art. Learning to communicate using Morse code is advancing one's skill in the communication phases of the art. The charge to the FCC to provide rules and regulations for emcouragement and and improvement of the amateur service in the communication phase of the art can be met through the testing for Morse code communication ability.<<<

What you are actually saying, Tim, is that you have to show proficiency in just one MODE of communication in order to use the HF bands, and that one mode is morse code. Extended, you say morse code is the key (pun intended) to being on the amateur bands, and if you do not know morse, you cannot utilize those bands.

Sorry friend, but we no longer live in the 1920s. There are many other modes available than just morse. Amateur radio does not revolve around morse code anymore, it hasn't for years and years.

If it was decided to include some basic questions about morse in the theory tests, nobody would bat an eye. But to continue to force absolute knowledge of one mode of operation which is being used less and less upon all applicants while ignoring testing for proficiency on all other modes for access to the HF bands is bordering on stupidity and insanity. In another view, its like requiring every driver to be able to do an engine repair to a model T Ford before they can get a driver's license.

However, morse will still be used, both as a pleasurable mode to some and in weak signal work and low power work. But it should no longer be necessary for every ham to know morse code.

Finally, I have to ask this: How many higher class licensees have learned morse just to pass the tests and then have promptly and happily forgotten all of it and don't ever use it? I'll make a bet that the actual number is way over 50% of those licensees.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by NOCODING on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur >service through
>rules which provide for advancing skills in both the >communication and
>technical phases of the art.

hmmm..

rules which provide for advancing skills.

So if someone does not do packet radio then they are not "advancing skills"

Or are there some basic skills that all amateurs must have...and some other skills are more advanced?

I mean you start out at one skill level, then the rules provide you a means to advance your skills.

Well everyone that can physically talk and hear...have that ability. so a more advance skill would be to be able to convert those thoughts to pressing on a button...or for some, typing on a keyboard, and have the machine do the tones for you.

OK

Basic skill, voice

advancing skill, morse using computer for encoding decoding

even more advancing skill, morse using hand keyer from memory

and even more advancing skill, flying a remote controlled helicopter using datalink over the HF freqs over long distances beyond LOS. (and no fair using repeaters)


Years ago (13 or so) a good friend of mine was able to get his ham licence and ran some mobile rigs as well as an autopatch at his house. He could get the licence because the code was dropped to the low limit (5wpm I don't know what it was). Ham looked interesting, but not so interesting to make me study code...

Now that I can get a nocode licence, I am really thrilled to get involved...but I'll be honest, I have no desire to meet any of the hardcore coders...they all sound like jerks, based on what I see here.

You know, folks that really knew computers there way around computers were isolated because of their image...now people that can use computers and technology are considered hip...and look at the advancements in that field.

HAM radio better get on the ball. I haven't seen a Heathkit ad for years, Radio Shack dropped their HAM line, unless you can increase the popularity, HAM will disappear off the face of the earth.

That my friends will be a tragedy. Because like many other professions, it takes experience to be good in all parts of radio. But if you don't have anyone to show you how, or help you, then the knowledge will not be there to lead to the experience.

You need to be able to motivate the average person to pursue this hobby. You aren't born a HAM (unless your parents abused you), however you developed a taste and desire, and that allowed you to advance your skills.

But you have to start somewhere. I listen to these arguements, and the procoders actually try to belittle me. I assure you that I am as qualified as you are to be an operator, I just will not learn code. I haven't started studying yet for the test, but I have been taking the practice tests. Just from my experiences alone I have passed every practice test.

...ok hopping off soapbox now...
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,


>I was taught in my Freshman Debating Class that an “Appeal to established authority” was poor debating form. In keeping with that thought, I have a challenge for you:….. Respond WITHOUT referring to “Title 47, Part 97, Section 97.1” or any other federal document. (Not even once!)

It's poor form unless you are debating whether the governmental agency covered by the rules and regulations are meeting the letter and spirit of the regulations. Then it becomes paramount to understand what the rules and regulations are.

>1) What were the actual, practical reasons for mandating a Code Test element ?

To provide encouragement and improvement to the amateur service through advancing skills in the communication phase of the art.

There are two major areas that distinguish the Amateur Radio Service (ARS) from other services available to the public. These areas are the art of communication, i.e. being able to generate intelligble information, transmit it via a medium, and to be able to receive it and act upon the information. The other area is the technical phase of the art. The technical phase of the art is involved only with the development of the medium used for transmission.

These two phases are equal partners. One without the other would totally redefine what the Amateur Radio Service is. If the ARS ever lets itself be defined as a totally technical art, it's usefulness will be tragically limited. At that point it risks being dissolved by those arguing that research into technical matters is better handled in other research avenues. If the ARS ever lets itself be defined as a totally communication art, its usefulness will be tragically limited. At that point it risks being dissolved as less efficient monetarily than existing telecommunication means.

>2) Are those reasons still of practical value today?

Absolutely.

>3) Should these the current requirements be altered or expanded to deal with the myriad of technical advances that have occurred since the introduction of Code?

The current requirements have been altered in that the technical tests have had questions concerning some of the advances integrated into the questions pools. This only addresses, however, the technical phase of the communication art.

In order to keep amateur radio a vibrant, useful service, we need to insure that growth and advancement in the communication phase of the art also occurs.

This could be done by moving to an "endorsement" paradigm for the amateur service much like the commercial service uses for its technicians. This would, however, severely complicate the licensing scheme associated with the service and would present significant difficulties in designing tests suitable for actual implementation by a Voluntary Examiner Corps. We know from previous proceedings that the FCC wishes to streamline the licensing scheme as much as possible and, in order to provide minimum intrusion, to allow as much testing as possible by the VEC organizations. These two competing issues will be difficult to resolve.

Until they are resolved, the existing Morse testing provides a viable encouragement to the amateur service for advancing skills in the communication phase of the art.

>Before responding, please understand that I am not interested in another recitation of Federal Codes and Statues. Using only the actual technical merits of Code and it’s usage today, I want you to explain to me (and everyone else reading this) why, in your own words, Code should still be important to each and every licensed operator.

I've done that multiple times. If you expect to win the argument by wearing me out, think again.

We are at a crossroads with the ARS. If we want to redefine it we need to carefully consider the political fallout that will result. If there is anyone here who thinks the monied interests in the power industry will not take the BPL issue to Congress if they fail with the FCC then you are doomed to repeat history because you don't understand it. I ask you to consider carefully how YOU would justify the existence of the ARS to a panel of Senators grilling you. Would YOU stand up and say that the ARS is technical service and deserves to continue existence because the technical advances it offers are of a higher value than providing internet services to the poor and under-privileged in this nation? Exactly what technical advances are you going to offer that has any bearing on the public good that a Senator getting political contributions is going to listen to?

*I* would rather be able to get up and say: :Mr. Senator, the ARS is a vibrant service providing incentives via government regulations for its operators to advance both their comminication skills and technical skills. Our communication skills are unparalleled during periods of natural disaster and communication emergencies and are used at every level of governement. Our technical advances continue to provide ever increasing methods to communicate while making maximum use of both old and new as required. The synergy provided through the combination of commmunication skills and technical advances cannot be replaced what BPL offers. This synergy doesn't occur through happenstance or because the FCC hopes it will happen. The synergy is insured into the future through the positive rules and regulations the FCC has in place providing encouragement and improvement of the amateur service in both the communication and technical phases of the art and these provide the maximum benefit to the public at large".

As I said, you won't wear me down. I've spent a lot of years in this service and I've seen (or read about) several of the crossroads the service has bridged over the past 40-50 years and the challenges it has survived over the same period. Not one single time were the challenges overcome by dumbing down the service or by redefining it to be less than what it started out to be, not once. Down that road lies the ulitimate goal of dissolution.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AE6IP on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
> Please, the test is a Morse code test. The purpose of the test is to
> demonstrate a skill in communicating. You can't even admit that Morse
> code is used to communicate or your argument falls apart. What is the
> purpose of any test? It is to test proficiency in something. A driving
> test is to test a person's skill in the art of driving. A Morse code
> test using a simulated QSO is to test a person's skill in the art of
> communicating using Morse code. It is a positive measure of advancing
> skill in the communication phase of the art.

Guess you decided to not accept the mission, then, since nothing in
the above paragraph speaks to the topic: "Your mission, should you
decide to accept it, is to show how element 1 does any of the things
you think are necessary."


> It is really quite an pathetic argument that a test and the purpose
> of the test can somehow be separated.

Work with me here, Tim, I'm sure we'll get you up to speed this time.
The *purpose* of the Morse code test is to test whether one can
receive enough Morse code to pass the test. That's it. That's the
test's purpose.

Your "concerns" are about emergency communication. Notice that the
test doesn't test any aspect of emergency communication.

Person passing the test can walk out of the examination room, and
never touch Morse code again. So the test doesn't do anything to
further anything.

If the test goes away, there will still be people who learn Morse to
use it, and not just to pass a test. No harm will have been done to
the ARS.

So, it is obvious that the test does nothing to further any of those
things you are so concerned with.

 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
K1CJS

>What you are actually saying, Tim, is that you have to show proficiency in just one MODE of communication in order to use the HF bands, and that one mode is morse code. Extended, you say morse code is the key (pun intended) to being on the amateur bands, and if you do not know morse, you cannot utilize those bands.

>Sorry friend, but we no longer live in the 1920s. There are many other modes available than just morse. Amateur radio does not revolve around morse code anymore, it hasn't for years and years.

What I am saying is that testing for ONE is sufficient for the FCC to meets its charge under the current rules and regulations. And it doesn't matter when the mode was developed. CW and Morse is still used during modern propagation studies - so it is a modern mode by definition.

If you want to expand the testing, I'm all for it. But I have to warn you that the last person that did that caught a LOT of flack from the no-coders. You see, they don't want ANY testing for communication skills.

What would YOU suggest the Morse code testing be replaced with that would better represent the communication modes of today? Perhaps requiring applicants to listen to a tape of a DX pileup and pick out a certain number of calls in a certain time period? Perhaps show they can set up a Pactor modem, tune in a signal, and complete a QSO?

Be specific in what you would replace the testing with. It must be something that the VEC organizations can implement easily and which can be graded objectively.

Can you meet the challenge? So far no one else has.

>If it was decided to include some basic questions about morse in the theory tests, nobody would bat an eye.

Morse code is a communication skill, not a technical skill.

>But to continue to force absolute knowledge of one mode of operation which is being used less and less upon all applicants while ignoring testing for proficiency on all other modes for access to the HF bands is bordering on stupidity and insanity.

Not if it is still the easiest skill to learn and test for. That makes it the most efficient method for the FCC to meet its requirements under the rules and regulations. The rules and regs don't say advancing skill in "modern" methods of communicating. If you can come up with something simpler, something more germaine, and something easier to test for I'll be on your bandwagon in a minute. If you can't then you are just agitating for the "I want it now, I want it all, and I want it with no effort" viewpoint.

>In another view, its like requiring every driver to be able to do an engine repair to a model T Ford before they can get a driver's license.

Engine repair is a technical skill. We still require testing for proficiency in the art of driving even though its an "old" skill, right?

Just because something is old doesn't mean it isn't still useful. (gosh! I hope that applies to me too!)


Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
NOCODING,

***********************
hmmm..

rules which provide for advancing skills.

So if someone does not do packet radio then they are not "advancing skills"

Or are there some basic skills that all amateurs must have...and some other skills are more advanced?

I mean you start out at one skill level, then the rules provide you a means to advance your skills.

Well everyone that can physically talk and hear...have that ability. so a more advance skill would be to be able to convert those thoughts to pressing on a button...or for some, typing on a keyboard, and have the machine do the tones for you.

********************************

This seems to be a reasonable post. Each and every one of us in the ARS should make a regular effort to advance our communication and technical skills. The rule that "If you don't grow you die" applies to hams also.

I can only suggest to you that you develop a different method of testing for advanced communication skills that fits your world view of the amateur service and send it to the FCC for their consideration. It may be a method of testing for skills at packet or Pactor, it may be a method of testing for skills using psk31. It doesn't really matter. I would buy into any serious proposal that is implementable.

Heck, even tell them you think that testing for communication skills in the ARS should be abolished totally, that it should be a purely technical service.
I won't agree with you, but that's ok.

What I would hope you don't do is propound the view that you shouldn't have to do anything because it just isn't right or fair.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim,

I think you've demonstrated to us beyond a shadow of the doubt that you yourself have no skill in the art of communication on an internet forum. I sincerely doubt you could have any greater skill using *any* mode over the air waves. The art of commnication means you can understand and comprehend what the other person is saying and you can reply with relevant words that are within context and address the issue being discussed. Communication is a conversation between two or more people. We've said it so many different ways but you still haven't understood what is being said--

to wit: a single test of 5wpm Morse code which essentially involves about 25 words sent over five minutes doesn't prove that a person passing that test can (a)participate in emergency communication (b) will his increase his speed in the future, i.e. advance (c) can operate a ham radio (d)is willing to follow rules or regulations (e) is technologically inclined (f)... (g)... all the multiplicity of empty "reasons" to keep the test.

25 words translated from a taped source (no information exchange, you just receive) is a ludicrous definition of communication.

Tim, I challenge you. Can you repond with an relevant response to any of the postings on this forum USING JUST 25 WORDS?

KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K1CJS on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim,

I know what you are referring to about making the technical testing harder. I was one of the people who suggested that and I did get a lot of flack for it. BUT, I still stand by it. Toughen up testing, eliminate part of the multiple choice, include some essay type answers and some diagramming of various radio stages. The answers (as you indicated) were "We want testing easier, not harder." It doesn't matter that this is primarily a technical hobby, the out of the box, plug it in and talk people are trying their darndest to take over the entire hobby instead of finding their niche in it.

Also, morse is both a communication and a technical skill. How, you may ask? You have to know how to have modern keys and paddles properly adjusted to your 'fist', don't you? You also have to know the basic spacing of the characters, letters and words. Those are technical skills, just as knowing how close to a band edge you can go to, or where the bandplans place the various modes.

In the meantime, talk to you on the bands!

Peace and 73, Chris K1CJS

 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KD5YDY,

>25 words translated from a taped source (no information exchange, you just receive) is a ludicrous definition of communication.

>Tim, I challenge you. Can you repond with an relevant response to any of the postings on this forum USING JUST 25 WORDS?

Sure.

*************

The requirement isn't to operate with *advanced* modes, it is to advance your communications skills. Learning Morse is advancing your communication skills. QED

***********

23 words. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K6BBC on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
You guys who want to make the requirements more difficult are going to be the death of this hobby. We need more people in this hobby with other interest than radios and electronics. Another words – people with something to say.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
K1CJS,

>Also, morse is both a communication and a technical skill. How, you may ask? You have to know how to have modern keys and paddles properly adjusted to your 'fist', don't you? You also have to know the basic spacing of the characters, letters and words. Those are technical skills, just as knowing how close to a band edge you can go to, or where the bandplans place the various modes.

We had a guy who had been off the air for several weeks during a house move start checking into our NTS cw net again recently. He didn't have his key unpacked yet so he was using his mobile mic and the PTT key to send. It wasn't very modern and there wasn't much to adjust but he did a credible job with it! <grin>

I agree that there are technical things to know about the Morse code. There are technical things to know about the English language if you wish to use it to its maximum potential.Babies can learn to communicate with the English language without much technical training, however. The same applies to the Morse code. You don't *have* to know the technical parts of the spacing in order to copy it, it is just another sound. It's kind of like someone learning to play the guitar by ear, you don't have to understand the scales, octaves, etc in order to copy sounds on it. I'm not saying that's the best way of doing it but learning it by counting dits and dahs is worse. Like English, to use Morse to its full potential, you need to know the technical details of the equipement used to send and receive it.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim;

I didn’t respond immediately, because I wanted to go back and re-read this thread.

In your previous post you said: >>>”If you expect to win the argument by wearing me out, think again.”<<<

No Tim, that was not my intention. Although I will confess that I had been trying to think of a diplomatic way of charging you with the exact same tactic!

In my last post, I challenged you to discuss the actual, practical merits of Code and it’s current implementations, without quoting Title 47, Part 97, Section 97.1” or any other federal document.

AND YOU COULDN’T DO IT!

The following quote appeared as the third sentence of your response!

: >>>”To provide encouragement and improvement to the amateur service through advancing skills in the communication phase of the art.”<<<


Tim, I came to this discussion with very little opinion on the matter. I learned Code a long time ago, and I do not use it currently. Further, I have no “HF Band Aspirations”. This debate simply interested me. I was looking for a factual, logical presentation that would convince me that there was still a practical reason to demand a base level Code proficiency from all operators. (Particularly in light of the fact that no proficiency testing is required for any other “Mode of Communication”.)

I should have been your easiest convert, but you have utterly failed to make your case with me! I asked for concrete examples, and you came back, time and time again, with quoted Federal Regulations. That’s not what I was looking for, and I told you so. If I wanted dogma, I would go talk to an evangelist friend of mine who keeps trying to save my soul!

If you, or any of the other “Pro Code” posters had shown me anything real, I would be firmly seated on your side of the aisle!

And no Tim, I don’t regard Federal Regulations as “eternal truths”, or the final line in an unshakeable logical argument……. Consider that up until the middle 1970’s the State of New Hampshire had a law on it’s books that made Weather Forecasting punishable by Burning at the Stake!....... Just because a Law or regulation is still on the books does not automatically mean that it is credible.

Tim, I’m no “spring chicken”, but I don’t believe that I’m any more senile than you are. The fact that I remain un-swayed by the “Great American Novel” you have written here is not due to severely limited mental abilities on my part. Judging by a number of other posts, there are others who remain un-convinced as well.

I’m done here:……..I guess I’ll just keep on “Sitting on the Fence”.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL


 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,


>In my last post, I challenged you to discuss the actual, practical merits of Code and it’s current implementations, without quoting Title 47, Part 97, Section 97.1” or any other federal document.

>AND YOU COULDN’T DO IT!

>The following quote appeared as the third sentence of your response!

: >>>”To provide encouragement and improvement to the amateur service through advancing skills in the communication phase of the art.”<<<

Did you somehow think that because the above statement also appears in the federal rules and regs that it is any less true standing on its own? If so, then you are exhibiting an extreme rigidity of thought. Does the statement "The common curse of mankind, - folly and ignorance" mean any less because someone else said it first and it is written down in a book?

>If I wanted dogma, I would go talk to an evangelist friend of mine who keeps trying to save my soul!

Does it being dogma make it any less true? Not to most people.

>Tim, I’m no “spring chicken”, but I don’t believe that I’m any more senile than you are. The fact that I remain un-swayed by the “Great American Novel” you have written here is not due to severely limited mental abilities on my part. Judging by a number of other posts, there are others who remain un-convinced as well.

The problem I have is that no one against the code testing has anything else to offer in its place, nothing, absolutely nothing! Without something better to offer, advocating removal of the code testing really *is* nothing more than dumbing down the test. It's stating that advancing skills in comminication is unimportant and can be ignored.

You can remain sitting on the fence, but in truth that is truly an abdication of responsibility. It is letting someone else decide your fate for you. It's like the people who don't vote because they don't like any of the candidates. If you don't like any of the candidates, then the right thing to do is to get out, get involved in the process, and get candidates to run that you do like.

BTW, I reread the thread also. I notice you didn't bother to take up my challenge of how you would defend ARS in front of Congress. Very, very disappointing. But to be expected I guess. The paucity of ideas and the lack of creativity shown by the fence-sitters and the nocoders on this forum is amazing. If this is what ham radio has to offer the public then I guess the ARS deserves to be dumbed down till it disappears.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Gee………..I guess I’m not quite finished yet!

Tim, I see that there are still three points that need to be addressed: The first has to do with the following quote;

>>>>>”The problem I have is that no one against the code testing has anything else to offer in its place, nothing, absolutely nothing! Without something better to offer, advocating removal of the code testing really *is* nothing more than dumbing down the test.”<<<<<<

If something, anything, is shown to be irrelevant to a current situation, why do you insist that it must be replaced with something else? This is not necessarily true…….Back around the turn of the century (103 years ago) a number of states required that a flagman precede an automobile through an intersection. Today, the majority of automobiles do quite well without this service…….no replacement required!

Please note that I am simply pointing out that in many cases, a replacement isn’t always required. The relevance of Code today is the subject of this debate, and in my mind the jury is still out on that issue.


The second point relates to the following quote:

>>>>>>” I notice you didn't bother to take up my challenge of how you would defend ARS in front of Congress. Very, very disappointing.”<<<<<<<

No Tim, I didn’t answer that challenge at that time. I was rather more interested in what you had to say. I think that if the need arose I could do a credible job of defending and justifying the ARS. It would go something like this:

“Mr. Senator/Mr. Congressman, The United States needs the ARS. The ARS provides this country with a widely distributed network of both mobile and fixed radio installations that are able to step in and provide critical communications in the event that the conventional infra-structure is crippled by either Natural Disaster, or National Emergency.”

My work with the College has already shown me how necessary this “backup net” really is. We work with the local OEM, and the College is one of the information hubs for the Multi-County Skywarn Organization in our area. Additionally, my field experience with Severe Weather Events, and the related Emergency Response activities has shown me first hand what the “Front Lines” look like.

Yes Tim, I think I would be a credible witness if called in front of a Congressional Committee.

In any event, I don’t think defending the ARS is even the issue here.


The third point relates to the following quote:

>>>>>”….. But to be expected I guess. The paucity of ideas and the lack of creativity shown by the fence-sitters and the nocoders on this forum is amazing.”<<<<<<

Tim,…..two more comments like that, and you will qualify for the title of “Sir Mucho Pomposo”!

I hold four patents……I must have been really lucky to accomplish that, considering the “paucity of ideas and the lack of creativity” that you so clearly feel I suffer from.

A final note……….I have strived to keep this discussion on a logical level, and have strenuously avoided the tactic of “Insulting the Opposition”:……….I’m disappointed to see that you chose not to observe the same guidelines.

NOW I’m finished here!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,

>“Mr. Senator/Mr. Congressman, The United States needs the ARS. The ARS provides this country with a widely distributed network of both mobile and fixed radio installations that are able to step in and provide critical communications in the event that the conventional infra-structure is crippled by either Natural Disaster, or National Emergency.”

Sorry, Kent. This doesn't cut it. As a representative of the power utilities I merely have to say: "Senator: I would like to point out that there are no positive guarantees in the rules and regulations requring any expertise in communication skills for Amateur Radio Service operators. Without rules and regulations providing encouragement and advancing skills in the communication phase of the art the ARS is exactly equivalent to the Citizen Band Service and the Family Radio Service as far as communication skills are concerned. Emergency communications could just as easily be provided by those services. In fact REACT organizations made up of Citizen Band Operators provide exactly this service in many locations of the country. If ARS operators want to volunteer for emergency communications they can do so under the auspices of the Citizen Band Service. That being the case, the spectrum reserved to the ARS will be much better used to provide internet service to the poor and disadvantaged in this country."

And you wouldn't have a rebuttal because it would be the truth.

>>>>>”….. But to be expected I guess. The paucity of ideas and the lack of creativity shown by the fence-sitters and the nocoders on this forum is amazing.”<<<<<<

>Tim,…..two more comments like that, and you will qualify for the title of “Sir Mucho Pomposo”!

Someone else on here referenced their old debate coach and what he taught them. This is an ad hominem attack. Not an acceptable way to debate.

>I hold four patents……I must have been really lucky to accomplish that, considering the “paucity of ideas and the lack of creativity” that you so clearly feel I suffer from.>

So what have you done for the ARS lately? Your accomplishments in the past are not relevant here. Can you tell me what logical fallacy you are using here?

>A final note……….I have strived to keep this discussion on a logical level, and have strenuously avoided the tactic of “Insulting the Opposition”:……….I’m disappointed to see that you chose not to observe the same guidelines.

I made no attacks against you personally. If you think I did then you are projecting the paucity of ideas on here and the lack of creativity onto yourself. That is *your* problem if you are doing so. It *is* quite telling concerning your view of yourself. *Do* you think you have exhibited a paucity of ideas and a lack of creativity in this debate?

I *can* tell you this. This debate *has* crystallized one obvious fact concerning my view of the ARS. If the FCC decides to go as far as to abandon encouraging advancement in the communication phase of the art, thus changing the entire basis of the ARS, then I am going to contact the ACLU to see if they would be willing to review the existing rules and regulations in light of the Affirmative Action and Equal Protection laws. Since the airwaves are a public resource, access to those resources must meet all applicable laws for diversity. It is not obvious, based on any of the hamfests I have attended, that Hispanic and African-American membership in the ARS reflects their percentages in the population as a whole.I can't find where the FCC even collects any statistics concerning diversity in the ARS. That's almost enough prima facie evidence to justify a review of a government agency all by itself. Does the format and content of the technical testing constitute an undue hurdle for persons of color? Perhaps we need to find out. If we are going to change the bases and purposes of the ARS, including abandoning adherence to part of the existing rules and regulations, in order to bring it into the 21st century then perhaps we need to consider changing *all* of the bases and purposes of the ARS in order to provide equal opportunity for all and bring it all the way into the 21st century.

Does anyone know if there has been any work done in this area in the past? I know the FCC has formed an Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age. While not formed to look at the ARS, perhaps they could include the ARS in their portfolio.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
AB0WR said in a recent post:

>>>>>"I *can* tell you this. This debate *has* crystallized one obvious fact concerning my view of the ARS. If the FCC decides to go as far as to abandon encouraging advancement in the communication phase of the art, thus changing the entire basis of the ARS, then I am going to contact the ACLU to see if they would be willing to review the existing rules and regulations in light of the Affirmative Action and Equal Protection laws. Since the airwaves are a public resource, access to those resources must meet all applicable laws for diversity. It is not obvious, based on any of the hamfests I have attended, that Hispanic and African-American membership in the ARS reflects their percentages in the population as a whole.I can't find where the FCC even collects any statistics concerning diversity in the ARS. That's almost enough prima facie evidence to justify a review of a government agency all by itself. Does the format and content of the technical testing constitute an undue hurdle for persons of color? Perhaps we need to find out. If we are going to change the bases and purposes of the ARS, including abandoning adherence to part of the existing rules and regulations, in order to bring it into the 21st century then perhaps we need to consider changing *all* of the bases and purposes of the ARS in order to provide equal opportunity for all and bring it all the way into the 21st century."<<<<


Hmmmm........I'm wondering if, through the "Smoke of Battle", we have caught a glimpse of your true colors.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,

>Hmmmm........I'm wondering if, through the "Smoke of Battle", we have caught a glimpse of your true colors.

It is apparent from your postings that you have no idea of what my true colors are. I've agreed with the one person on here who had a creative idea. It involved moving to an endorsement type of testing scheme, i.e. *adding* tests. On another thread I agreed with a proposal to have an entry license with code testing and with rules only testing (and a small allocation on all bands) with the technical testing applied to higher level licenses. I even agreed with a proposal for a no-code entry license with a small bandwidth on all bands and code testing for the higher levels. But I've never agreed with changing the bases and purposes of the ARS. If we are going to change the bases and purposes to bring the ARS into the 21st century then I will do what I can to bring it all the way in. If we are going to change it a little we may as well change it a lot.

If you have a problem with bringing true diversity to the ARS, then I would suggest that you review your own position. If you don't have a problem with bringing true diversity to the ARS, then you should endorse a review of the entirety of its licensing practices and procedures.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by NI0C on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
To Tim & Kent: you guys sure know how to QRM a thread. Who has the time to read through your quarreling remarks? I don't. So I pass over them, just like I pass over QRM with my vfo dial.

Now to address something KD5YDY said on Sept. 27. Your analogy between Morse code and driving is a pretty good one, I would say. However, there's something you are overlooking. Before we put people in a driver's seat and let them practice on even a quiet street, we make sure that they know the difference between the accelerator and brake pedals, that they know how the steering wheel works, how to adjust the mirrors, and how to turn on the wipers if it starts raining. Similarly, before we let amateurs practice code on the air we make sure they know how to form the characters. That's what a 5 wpm proficiency means-- that you have memorized the characters. Memorizing the characters is best learned off the air, just as learning the location of the brake pedal is best learned with the car at rest!

By the way, I understand you have learned the code and will soon be taking the test. Sincere congratulations, and if you choose to pursue CW further when you get on the HF bands, I'll be glad to set up a schedule with you for some code practice. Or, another option is to check out the FISTS CW club "code buddy" program, or just tune around the bands to see what you can copy.


The following is to the No-Code International crowd out there:

Now you can argue that I don't ever want to send code, I just want to talk on a microphone or use a keyboard to communicate using one of the digital modes. That's an argument that makes sense to me; however don't start coveting my CW frequencies when you get hoarse or run into QRM! Don't tell me my favorite language and mode of operation is antiquated and obsolete just because you haven't invested the time and effort to learn it, because if you don't "know code," you are in no position whatsoever to make judgements as to its usefulness! Got it?


73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Tim;

You can back-peddle and spin-doctor your previous post all you want. I’ll leave it to the other readers of this forum to draw their own conclusions.

Here at the College, we embrace diversity in both principle and policy, and all I know for sure about your post is what all the other people in my department thought when I showed it to them. To a person, they felt that your “If – Then” phrasing carried entirely the wrong connotations.

Perhaps you are not the skilled wordsmith that you think you are.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KB9YZL on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry Chuck;

Looking back at it, you’re quite right!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL


 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by AB0WR on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Kent,

>You can back-peddle and spin-doctor your previous post all you want. I’ll leave it to the other readers of this forum to draw their own conclusions.

Absolutely, let them decide.

>Here at the College, we embrace diversity in both principle and policy, and all I know for sure about your post is what all the other people in my department thought when I showed it to them. To a person, they felt that your “If – Then” phrasing carried entirely the wrong connotations.

You are right. I have filed a comment with the FCC associated with one of the no-code petitions that they need to review the barriers to people of color caused by the current technical test.

I hope you and your "College" will embrace the issue of diversity and join with me in petitioning the FCC to perform this review. You have till midnight to file a comment on RM-10781 joining with me to accomplish this review.

>Perhaps you are not the skilled wordsmith that you think you are.

I guess we'll see if the FCC takes up the issue. They have already formed an Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age. While review of the ARS is not currently on their agenda I'm sure it could be added to their portfolio.

If the FCC doesn't see fit to take up the issue I will contact the ACLU to see if they wish to.

Thank you for providing me the impetus for following up with this issue.

Tim AB0WR
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Chuck,

I'd be feel honored to have a s l o o o o w QSO with you if I pass this next weekend.

Yes, you understood my vehicle training before testing analogy very well. Unfortunately, such a scenario would be impossible to implement for ALL MODES and then testing for each mode to obtain credentials to use them on the air. There aren't enough elmers around to even show me stuff. I just teach myself by reading alot of books, magazines and articles. And I finished the driving analogy with the idea that the statement this is done solely for safety reasons. Such "safety" precautions are unwarranted in ARS communication modes.

It was really cool yesterday watching a RTTY QSO with my rig hooked up to Thinkpad. (I guess there was a RTTY contest over the weekend. The idea of contesting sounds fun to me. I was goint to participate in the Sept. VHF QSO party but couldn't find anyone on the air within range of my QTH, not even on 6m). I didn't understand all the RTTY abbreviations (what's TU mean?) but it was amazing the number of QSOs that guy in Windsor, Maine had in matter of minutes and that I could "hear" him (my antenna and computer could) all the way down in Mississippi. That's what makes HF so appealing to me.

I have expended an extraordinary amount of effort to learn to code when I probably will rarely use it. I want HF privileges so I can have QSOs with my blind friend in Utah. She's an extra from 15 years ago, but I won't be having any CW QSO's with her. She's never done a CW QSO and hasn't used the code in years. She learned code to 20wpm just to be an extra. HandiHams helped her alot and now she teaches at HandiHams every summer. She is SSB all the way but does use ECHOLINK.

BTW. I'm not going to change my callsign with my upgrade. It think "Yankee Delta Yankee" is great for a native Californian living in the Deep South ;) Don't you think?

KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by NI0C on September 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KD5YDY:
Best wishes to you on the code test; I'm sure you'll do fine. Take some deep breaths as you begin the testing session.

It seems a shame your friend worked up to 20 wpm but gave up CW. I recall two blind YL hams from Missouri who were regular net controllers on the CW traffic net. Their calls were K0ONK and W0OUD.

It's nice to hear you have RTTY capabilty. I need to get back into RTTY as it is a fun mode also. "TU" is a CW abbreviation that means "thank you," just as "CUL" means see you later.

I should have mentioned my only antenna is a vertical for 40m, 80m, and 160m due to limited back yard space and no tower. So if you can operate 40m or 80m, that should work out okay for a CW scheduled contact. Let me know.

Your callsign is fine. My old callsign was a blur on CW: K0VSH. I don't miss it. Last time I checked, it was still available!

My e-mail is (my callsign) at earthlink dot net.

73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by KD5YDY on September 30, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Chuck,

I've had two previous callsigns. The first one was horrible: N7XHZ. Just saying that twice in a row is hard, then try doing it in MORSE. (too many dits and dahs). I tried to learn Morse back then but just couldn't put the time in while I was writing dissertation and finishing grad school. When I moved to Milwaukee I got rid of that N7XHZ asap and got N9RVD. Maybe I should have kept N9RVD but I didn't operate (left the hobby for 10 years, sold all my gear and was going to never come back to it).

When I started volunteering for the Red Cross this summer and they discovered I held an amateur radio license they really wanted me to get back into it and upgrade to HF. So I asked for a new systematic callsign that represented that I live in "5 land" where I've been the past 9 years. I made some big expenditures to outfit my shack completely along with the ability to operate with emergency power. (Gel cell deep cycle battery with Solar Panel).

I started learning Morse about two months ago. I'm on Gordon West's 5th cassette of 6, my second time through the course. But still pretty shaky. I get nervous when I don't immediately recognize a letter and have trouble moving on and usually miss about 5 more letters before I can get back in sync. It's not easy learning code for the first time when you're five decades old. ;)

I have a Force 12 flagpole antenna 20 feet tall with an SGC antenna Coupler at the base and an ICOM 706IIMKG. I pick up 160 down to 15 real well. But 12-10 meters is bad. I'll send you an email after this weekend. If I don't pass, I can try again in 2 months (just hate to have to wait with all my shack set up and ready to get on the air, etc.) Maybe I'll get lucky and the FCC will rewrite the rule by then but then I won't be having CW QSO's. I plan to be mostly a digital SSB ham.

Previously I stated that I detested Morse code. That's because I had a very bad experience with one of the VE's at last testing session when I tried to pass code the first time. He publicly humiliated me in front of all these young guys taking the test and ranted and raved that I must be STUPID to not be able to pass 5wpm code test. He lectured me for 10 minutes on why Morse MUST BE LEARNED (hence my anti-code testing stance). I didn't tell him I have a Ph.D. so I'm not stupid. The experience has had a lasting effect on me and I always get this awful feeling in the pit of my stomach when I first start hearing the dits and dahs. I have to deep breathe and relax so I don't get the jitters with GORDO. It was a very humiliating experience. I think VE's like that should not be allowed to do testing. It almost made me want to never be a ham again.

This coming weekend Mississippi is having SET jointly with Louisiana and Texas so I'll be participating in that. I'm also signed up for JOTA with the cub scouts later in the month. It would be great if I could let the little guys operate HF but the code test might make that impossible. I don't know if I can pass. If that same VE is there, I might just freak and say, "forget it".

73, KD5YDY
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by NI0C on September 30, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KD5YDY:
I looked up the Force 12 flagpole antenna, and saw that it has 40m capability. So 40m is probably a good band to schedule a contact. Last year, for Christmas, I gave my son a Force 12 Sigma-5, which covers 20-10m nicely. He lives in an antenna restricted neighborhood, so he has to keep it hidden in his garage most of the time, dragging it outside when he wants to get on the air.

What an abusive VE you encountered! He should be "fired" for what he did to you. One of the consequences of the deregulation of amateur radio that took place during the Reagan Administration is having to take pot luck with whatever voluinteers are available. There are, of course, many good volunteers, but there is always someone who takes on such a committment in order to demonstrate authority over others.

I'm not sure what recourse you have or who to complain to, but I would not let one jerk keep me from obtaining a license.

Good luck to you & 73,

Chuck NI0C
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by ZEROTWO on October 4, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Hi

Well there is a pretty representative bunch of letters here. First of all I do not agree Amateur Radio is unarguably for the "common folk" and it certainly IS for the man who can build his rig in a cigar box. Amateur radio has lost its way and in part that in through weak leadership and weak followings.

Governments did not give us radio nor the airwaves. All the experimental work was done by amateurs. The radio stations were amateur, the experiments and progress were done by experimenters. Antennas were designed by amateurs and by and large,still are.

Spark coil Radio moved into the WW1 scene, shipping and Commercial radio, Governments didn't have a clue about bandwidth or sunspots or even much about the ether. What they did have an idea about was an awareness of the potential looming for tax and licence fees.You might recall that we even had to pay for a licence to LISTEN to the radio. Its still the same today in France so that radio 5 stays afloat.

The work done by scientists on IFF and Radar was largely individual brilliance. Amateurs were a respected group of EXPERIMENTERS and featured strongly in the scientific world of design and construct. Just get some old Radio and Hobbies and read through them to make that point sound. Certainly government funded advances like the 954 and 955 and 717A valves and the cost to the people, in the race to design better sytems, was the loss of life of thousands of men each day in Battle and women and children were lost too.

We have allowed the Governments, since 1950, to think that they have some divine right to control the airwaves.We have seen the mess of commercial radio and TV and see that there is a resulting case for licensing and band allocation but....Helloooo..this is not Amateur Radio but a son of Amateur radio.

All these profitable exercises rode into town on the back of Amateur radio and yet the Ham Hierarchy goes cap in hand to the Governement to cravenly beg we are left some bandspace so as not to stir them up now that Government is out of the control of the people. Governments have high faluting names for the licensing branches like Spectrum management Authority but at the end of the day the Amateurs created the spectrum and investigated and tamed it and the Governments feast of us.

We now are on notice that the Government can take Amateur bands or share them with commercial radio. Look...bad luck !!If there is not enough space then let the commercials go jump. I believe its 50 years overdue to say...hey..this is OUR space, we created it and we created what you call "yours", We earned it, we need to be guaranteed the space forever and never again have to go and beg the shiny pants tax gatherers to let us keep our space, Our space by the blood sweat tears, late nights, mathematics, fitting skills, persitence and brilliance that created radio. We have little enough of it left and I don't give two hoots about digital radio or packet radio other than its potential to give and lose security. Let the commercials go packet and ssb.I believe the use of power line data could be the end but then it will be up to Amaturs to design anti intrusion devices.

If the Government wants to license never ending tax gathering of the airwaves, tell them to do their licensing on fibre optics. If commercials miss out because Amateurs jack up then that's just too bad,,,this space is amateur space and the old ploy of keeping Ham operators coming back and back always under threat until they crack has to be finished.

If Ham numbers fall and the Amateur fraternity as a group decides to lease some space to the Government then so be it but on the undeniable and indisputable condition that when we want it back it comes back with in a year.

Some people think analogue is passe and has had its day...well lets get rid of the museums and the churches and the public schools and anything else that holds onto the past and uses up space. Digital has some merit but the merits add up to one thing for the Government TAX. A lot of people I meet who spout off about "digital"have not a clue about the technology use or implications.

The fact that the Government loses sight of the relevance of historical building blocks whether it is Radio or Iraq should be dealt with with the flick of a hand. Here we are arguing about Amateur radio on the defensive...let's go on the offensive and say "you already have thousands and thousands of megahertz to gather tax from, an in particular through the disgustingly overpriced and dangerous mobile phone system and you got this because amateurs dicovered the ether and line of site communications".

We have I don't know and I cannot be bothered to add it up...say 20Mhz. You Government bludgers knocked off the wonderful 288 Mhz band with a minmum of objection because amateurs welcomed were just too decent to say no and just keep using it.50 is in crowded territory. The Government wouldn't know what was happening in RF territory excepting that amateurs, like Don McClurcan here in Australia ran radio and kept records of flares and terrestial conditions long before you did, You, supposedly OUR representatives in Government are attacking 1200Mhz upwards...its just not on....we want these frequency allocations set in stone.

Their "ownership" of the airwaves is quite illusory and relies on goodwill and overwhelming force.The other "you" ....the amateur hierarchy.... is kowtowing all the way. There are many analogies with then middle east and Israel but I won't go there.other than to say there is an advantage in being hated,you just keep on taking because you can only be hated so much and care so much about it. To prevent this we have to demand our unassailable permenance of spectrum BEFORE the Goverment becomes too insensitive.

Suffice it to say that our use of the God given radio spectrum, which is always under threat of retraction by mammon has been ab initio and has earned its place.

Finally Federal Government, though one would be forgiven for thinking it is sovereign as it becomes more an more intrusive when in fact the State is sovereign, has in my opinion no inalienable right to ownership of anything.

To some who write scoffing at aspects of Older amateurs and their ideas. I say yes I respect that you have a view but your view has nothing to do with the activity "Amateur Radio"'s life. Some Amateurs continue to experiment and to create and to build and modify. If you don't want to do that and you don't want to or are unable to learn enough morse speed to learn to tap out dah dididah in 2 seconds or di dah in the same time then I am sorry but I do not believe you have a place in Amateur radio. If you cannot understand the essence of Amateur Radio then you demean its roots by mocking it and sounding terribly daring about backing up on amaturs. More importantly you cannot contribute to total spectrum use as an amateur because you are only "half" an amateur.

As I said in my other letter, I believe that every amateur ought to have to present 25hours per year of cw QSL on top of any other format whether it personally makes any sense to you or not.Every amateur should be able to operate the entire bandwidth without just dumping the beginnings of Amateur Radio into a time capsule. If Amateur radio moves into digital format only then without absolute guarantees of spectrum ownership by and for amateurs, then will experimentation will fall off and the spectrum will be taken because amateur radio will be no different from anything else.Amateur radio has a right to spectrum because it created it but you do not have a right to be using that spectrum unless you truly are an accomplished and fully competent amateur radio exponent and experimenter.

73
Tony
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K6BBC on October 4, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
What a pack of nonsense.
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by ZEROTWO on October 4, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KB11UB
To KB11 UB sure I agree with you in most of that. I think guidelines for essays would like any essay area have to be examined sympathetically, as not everyone writes well or can be definitive espacially under exam conditions, but there has to be a system where suitability is determined over an above q anA. That's not at all uncommon and infact essential in scientific levels. Amateur Radio set out as a science which some use as a hobby..not the other way around. . .

They will be by examiners who can see the stream of thought, decide it if it is looking at the support of Amateur ideas and history and then requiring evidence, 12 months later, that the proposals have been carried through.This would require some attendance over the ensuing 12 months at say 8 shacks of local or distant more traditional Hams who will report on the ideas and performance on and off the air of the candidate and two local club meetings. This would be presented to the local chapter 12 months later, for the licence to be confiirmed if the applicant has been suitably recommended.

Views change and people are not all the same but an apprenticeship into amateur radio is a better idea than this open slather "I don't want to do this or that, we have all moved on, Cw has no substance and you are a silly old goat approach"

You want to become an amateur..fine.. then you earn the right and then if you decide to go your own way after kiddng the system then you can lose your licence pronto through adverse reports to the ARRL or the local Amateur radio club or you can be required to re-present yourself on the responsibilities of the licence and be on probation again..

You see, JB, Whilst a very free spirit, I truly believe that the lack of discipline and self discipline and love of the basis of Ham Radio and the continuing of it (like the consecration atthe Catholic's mass or the rituals at tthe masonic lodge or Alpa Phi Gamma or some such I suppose in a way, its always there and you partake if you want to be a member and have been selected and passed the tests but if you decide you don't want to do it well..."see you later"!.

Those instituions all have vast scope to place your individuality but they all want to retain credibility and recognition of their roots in ceremony and in your presentation to the world. This means that you agree to perform certain essentials. Lions Club, Rotary, Pioneer womens groups ...its all the same thing. How would rotary be if thousands wanted to take the Kudos but decided that helping kids and making parks and giving presents at hospitals and buying vans and medical equipment through hard work was a bit of a bind and monthly dinners was too much trouble and decided it should become a debating society or a biennial talkfest at the expense of donors in the community .

Would Governments and private people still give it land and money and assistance . No'''you'd say to these new chums sorry, you don't fit in ...goodbye" and if they didn't go back to the roots or just buzz off the form oif the group wuold disappear.) Am I sort of answering what you asked of me?

73


K6BBC
Well don't be shy K6BBC, you must have a great deal of wisdom there to be able to be so concise in your dismissiveness. Perhaps you are the source I need to set me straight and I am pleased to be educated, I prefer not to go through life always making mistakes in judgement.

Let's hear about YOUR plans to ensure that amateur radio deserves to have a future. Perhaps you can save the rest of us a lot of time and anxiety.

Perhaps we can hear about your view as to why Amateur Radio does not deserve to aggressively demand its permenance.

Perhaps you can tell me why the billions of hours spent listening to sunspot activity and searching for a hole in it, or using moon bounce or building repeaters long before they were used commercially etc etc etc doesn't entitle this fraternity in this so called "hobby" of scientific experimentation to hold bands inperpetuity and to demand an adherence to the things which make Amateur radio different from CB.

Perhaps you can tell me about why there should be an amateur band at all once even the majority of amateurs deny that the extraordinary results their experimental history is the most fundamental claim a to small portion of available spectrum. (as we presently know the spectrum)

Perhaps you can tell us all why holding an amateur radio licence is the absolute right of people who see testing as just an obstacle to be overcome to come on board.

Maybe you can tell us all why retrictions other than procedural are needed at all since it's off-the-shelf gear and autotune antennae and cut length coax, chrome plated plugs fitted while you wait, and antennae bought in the box today for possibly the vast majority of "Hams".

All one needs is the ability of a minor handyman or you can just employ one and turn on the rig, press the presets and start talking away saying cq cq K6BBC calling Cq. Now that's a tough call and its no wonder Amateur radio has lost respect...it deserves to have lost it under the para CB raiders who have comme aboard.

Maybe you are the US cultural doyen of AR for all I know K6 but that doesn't alter the fact that Amateur Radio has gained little when numbers are used to save the bands whilst destroying its credibility at the same time.

Sure many fled HF to the more experimental 6, 2, 1, and up to 70 cms many years ago to avoid this plague of cb operators who wanted less crowded bands and amateurs who decided to cut the phone bills by using their entitlement to switch on and start prattling about their social life for hours on end. As a result of the humility, caring, generosity and survival efforts of that earlier Amateur radio fraternity....a fine and extraordinarily caring and learned and generous bunch in most cases, gave access to their precious bands and tiny bandwidth to people who could pass the simple novice,and couldn't do cw other than under 5wpm conditons. They didn't mean it to license people who couldn't see the point of it all or why they had to take any notice of these old fogies and egg heads and had no intentions of ever doing cw or experimentation.

It was not for the bored and avaricous just wanted a forum and a cheap std and international phome line and a soap box. Soap boxes are for forums like this one. Politcal and Religious and Social soapboxing was BANNED from amateur radio by consent.But this is now the brave new world of bordom seeking entertainment at any costs mediocrity fighting to establish dominance over excellence.

Other Novices went on to become wonderful exponents of operating, Cw, experimentation, construction and repairs to commercial and military gear it but these are Amateur Radio's heros. The others, the disinterested, were just pests when on the air.

Sadly the VHF groups become so protective they became obnoxious in their dealings with those who were not at their level as they saw it. They didn't have to know which way was up and which way down on Amateur radio's primary historical device. They had 4 megs to gallavant around inside, simpler equipments, an influx too of ANAPX6's, SCR522's and a whole array of finely crafted military tuning, low noise valves, later fets and IF systems to experiment wih and they often did great things but they were so often very very full of themselves...sort of more amateur radio than amateur radio itself.

Still...their essential protection of the birthright and life of Amateur Radio served it well. Today the arguments are still around HF and the desire of so many operators to believe that the right to hold an Amateur Radio Licence is based on minimalism.

Unfortunately the 2M boys and the 500cm types lost out to a sort of VHF A/R CB'er with the huge production of cheap hand helds. Two things are missing more in this world than ever...respect for excellence and empathy with the traditions and Amateur radio is suffering from that too.

Well, that's our fault for being "too" liberal and kind. That's why I raised the two "missed requirements" at the outset of my letter.

You should not, under these present conditions of confusion and anarchy, join this scientific fraternity just through passing an exam... you ought to be required to be evidently mature in your thinking and to have a goal.You must be prepared to bring other people through and encourage them to respect the conception of Amateur radio by example.

The goal and method must be clearly expressed and it must be enacted. That 90% of Hams might be just social butterflies on the air has no impact on the validity of that need nor its imperative for survival.

Would you disagree K^ or agree that if you don't care for the basic scientific grounding and lifeforce of amateur radio that you should not be licensed to partake of it and that there are lots of other activities around which you can join .

Perhaps you can tell me K6 what is the point of Amateur Radio if not for the maintenance of experimental radio?

Perhaps you can explain, just a little more fully for me why all of us who look behind the scenes and try to explain what right amateur radio has to exist and be secure is producing comment so intelligently precised as a "lot of nonsense".

I have mutual argument and agreement and frustration with the virews of with many who have written, but at least they tried to offer something to chew on...could you help there too.?

Tragically we are all affected by what happens in the USA and that includes in the Amateur radio spectrum raids which the ARRL has often to resist and lose ground on for reasons best known to its political advisers.

It has held the ground it has held so largely on the historical, commercial, experimental and creative aspects of Amateur Radio. The civil defence aspects which several have dismissed here are as valid today as ever and Amateur radio is rarely not the first to report crisis nor the service which hold the system together until and if ever commercial or government communications take over.

In the light of the nefarious context of greedy commercial and services lobbyists which have been seeking to displace us the last 35 years (in particular) through lobbying a government which has undue influence all throughout the world and which has a gluttony for money, can you offer some solution K6?

Perhaps you can explain why as Bubba thinks, it should not all just be turned over into public access,If not for the ideas being held which I hold, I'd agree with him although actually I think I'd get rid of CB at the same time, truckers, the lot.They all can use mobile phones too can't they?

Amateur radio has a certain special place because it has held a situation which exists largely on its tax and licence value AND because of the affection it has been held in for its services in both world wars, the civil defence and within the community...such as Jamnboree. However courtesy of your pervasive fiscal systems becoming "rationalist" ,the more complicated the system the more the costs to collect the tax and the more the opposition's commercial possibilites seem attractive and so the less likely we are to survive owning (or being grugingly permitted to use) our small remaining spectrum.

Perhaps you can explain why those who use a spectrum gained through an historical achievment for the immense benefit of the whole world should not require exacting test in and the maintenance of (actually very unobtrusive mode) cw before people can partake of the benefits early hams gained for you and me.

Buying rtty or packet or a Kenwood and a mic and plugging it together is not experimenting. Chatting away on the amateur bands as though it was a telephone or public access radio has traditionally been regarded as NOT experimenting nor as an essence of amateur radio whereas chatting about a mod or some part of the skills of it always was so considered. The day to day chit chat existed but was not ever intended to be predominant.

Those who will not experiment or construct or evn contribute ocasional cw want and amateur radio to be another but more exclusive telephone service, where they swap and change equipment seeing what they like or what they can make money on and using the bands as a trading post purporting to be "Hams" is what it is all about, I'd say they do not deserve the title nor the facilities of amateur bands.

On the other hand someone who is forever changing transceivers and antennae and tuners and professionally modifies his gear by home brew or off the shelf filters etc and keeps scientific records of his findings may be held up to be a prime example of the spirit of Amateur Radio today.

He may never go on a fox hunt or a Dxediton nor QsL on the worlds rares call sign but he is possibly far more an amateur than those others.should he still contribute to cw using at least 5wpm for a total of half an hour per week (even as an SWL at worst case who sends a QsL) . I think so and because this is a fraternity.

Naturally those who are genuinely driven by the dreams of amateur radio's beginnings get turned off and the bands become like another pesky cb radio turnout. Should we put the foot down and demand the historical standards be enforced? well...I say YES.Don't freeload on the hard earned bands and assist in destroying their uniqueness which saves them at the same time.

So...Delving into coaxial impedences and conductivity and terrestial capacity certainly is experimental.Not everyone is a technical giant but every amateur should be able to design and build modules which support the craft and hobby. You may not be the most brilliant at that but then try something else like delving into the ionesferic conditions once a week and recording those conditions scientifically and perhaps sharing them. Thats a valuable experimentation.

Trying different antennae and keeping records of noise and signal strength and determining gain and why a certain antenna works better than another...maybe even through adverse oxidisation or material properties ..is experimenting. You are carrying on an art which joins past and future as do all artisans who are not just interested in what the art can do for them as easily as possible.

When you Americans put your hand on your heart at the playing of your anthem you are joining a tradition which has long been superseded to a present and a future. That's Amateru radio.

So is involving one's self in cw (and the use of the first principle of amateur communication. Cw is not something needing justification in terms of Government perception or commercial advances and is in fact still a skill which can be used in all of the body's sensory modes which no other mode can.

In fact if morse was not just too boring for those who think it is all nonsense anyway, morse actually could be used in crises by semaphore and by light or reflected light because somebody might have enough skills to read it. Even non licencees can understand ..._ _ _... because it is a part of living history.

The Novice Licence seems to be quite misunderstood by newcomers. It was introduced, against a great deal of objection and wisely so, to make it easier to get an entry level into a full licence. Amateur radio lost many adherents through WW1 and WW11 and Vietnam (SK's) and irreparably injured vets....and to other hobbies which were more attractive to women, more active physically (a good point), required less mathematical brainpower and which were less under constant threat through lobbyists and band blockers. Its understandable after trying toi Dx and having their pants bored off. These serious experimenters, somtimes couldn't get into serious chats other than through late night scheds.

Homebrew was becoming a little more complex under ssb and frequency stability being more important than in 1939 perhaps sure, but kit set manufacturers played a big part in solving that problem. Amateur Radio really was something unlike any other licensed activity. The short wave listener, too, who often became a Novice had some repect too in contributing to the big picture on conditions and activity.

The Novice licence really was not intended to have people sit out their lives on it but it was restricted to give them a goal to aim at and to expose them to the experimental amateur methodology and science block. Cw was downgraded for the same reason, to give these new chaps a chance to get on the bands and grow into good experimental amateur operators and experimenters...none of this was intended to phase out or demean cw but to add to it. The current arguments, like all arguments involving the denying of the maintenance of roots tend to be precocious and damaging to the terrain that holds the landscape together

Perhaps K6 you can logically explain to me why Amateur radio operators old and new should not require a full ability and use of the essentials of its history as well as partaking in new modes and why they should not be required to do something they do not like just because they don't like it.

Bye for now.

Tony
 
RE: Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by K6BBC on October 5, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Dear Zerotwo,

I assume you have a call. Why anonymous?

Let me be brief. Mores code is ham radio’s form of hazing. A rite of passage if you will. I would draw this analogy: Learning Morse code to obtain an amateur radio license is analogous to being required to drive a stick shift to pass a driver’s license test. Can I be any clearer?

You are correct in your praise of the accomplishments of hams throughout the years. Unfortunately, those days are gone. At it’s best, ham radio is a stepping stone or at least a diversion on the road to higher research. Unfortunately, for some reason, younger people are not entering the hobby as they once were. I believe, in part, it is due to the code requirement. It is also a result of distractions that were not available in 1968 when I passed my Novice exam at the age of 12. Are there any homebrew clubs left? That world is gone.

I recently purchased an FT 8900R – a true marvel of a radio. I live in the Los Angeles area. I believe every repeater pair is taken. I discovered very few people talk. They listen. It’s bazaar. Year ago I operated on the first repeater, K6MYK, in Los Angeles. On that AM repeater, with my little Heathkit Twoer, I discovered a community. I made friends. Met interesting people. That world appears gone. Is it that discussion other than technical is discouraged? Is it that many interesting people are not attracted to ham radio? I think it’s a lot of both. Ham radio has taken on a anachronistic / nerdish quality with the public over the past 20 or so years. Is this image problem solvable. Perhaps, but not by requiring hams to show proof of 25 hours of CW a year. With all due respect, that is really a bad idea.

Ham radio needs youth. Unfortunately, with the Internet, video games, etc., this is going to be a difficult challenge. I do suggest a little thinking out of the box here. But unfortunately, that is difficult for some. For instance, why are eQsl cards not valid for ARRL awards? Why must qsl cards pass through the post to be valid? This, in microcosm, is what I believe the problem with the hobby.

K6BBC
 
Slam the Exam & Survival Techniques  
by WA2JJH on January 11, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
A high carb.meal before any test will help.
Get a good nights rest.
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Editorial Articles
Project 'Take Back 146.52'