|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
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
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
William J J Hoge (I go by my first middle name "John") (W3JJH)
on
September 19, 2003
View comments about this article!
There's an old adage among lawyers that when the facts are against you, stress the law; when the law is against you, stress the facts; and when the facts and the law are both against you, yell and pound on the table. I'm getting a bit tired of listening to the table pounding about the future of the telegraphy testing requirement for US hams. I thought I'd put some of the facts and a bit of the law on the table.
First, it's a fact that as of 5 July 2003, the ITU Radio Regulations no longer require that the various national administrations assure that all amateurs operating below 30 MHz are proficient in the use of Morse telegraphy.
Second, it is a fact that the FCC has already examined the evidence and found that telegraphy testing of amateur operators no longer serves a legitimate regulatory function. The relevant paragraphs of the Commission's Report and Order 99-412 are:
"5. The amateur service is one of the radio communication services authorized by the Radio Regulations and was one of the first non-government communication services. Regulation of the amateur service in the United States dates from the early 1900's as a result of the U.S. Navy's concern about interference to its stations and its desire to be able to order amateur radio stations off the air in the event of war. As part of this regulation, proficiency in Morse code was mandated to ensure that amateur radio operators could recognize and avoid interference with government and commercial stations as well as maritime distress messages, and to ensure that the U.S. Navy could communicate government orders to amateur radio operators. This mandated telegraphy proficiency was continued by the Federal Radio Commission and then by the Federal Communications Commission. Telegraphy proficiency remains one of the examination elements that, by international treaty, an examinee must pass to obtain an amateur service operator license that authorizes operating privileges in the portion of the radio spectrum below 30 MHz.
"22. Background. In the early days of radio, communication by radiotelegraphy was the primary means used to exchange messages between radio operators at all radio stations, including amateur radio stations. Proficiency in telegraphy using the Morse code was mandated to ensure that operators of amateur radio stations would not cause interference to Government and commercial stations and that amateur radio stations would be able to stay clear of maritime distress messages. ... Today, as opposed to the early days of radio, radiotelegraphy is just one of numerous diverse modes of radio communication.
"25. Decision. We have considered the comments on this issue and conclude that the public interest will best be served by reducing the telegraphy examination requirement to the minimum requirement that we have found that meets the Radio Regulations and that has been accepted as proving that the control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that station. ... In reaching this decision, we note that one of the fundamental purposes underlying our Part 97 rules is to accommodate the amateur radio operator's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. We believe that an individual's ability to demonstrate increased Morse code proficiency is not necessarily indicative of that individual's ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. As a result, we find that such a license qualification rule is not in furtherance of the purpose of the amateur service and we do not believe that it continues to serve a regulatory purpose. Consistent with our decision to eliminate 13 wpm and 20 wpm Morse code proficiency as licensing requirements, we also are streamlining Section 97.503(b) of our Rules to reduce the number of telegraphy examination elements from three to one -- specifically, a 5 wpm telegraphy examination. We also conclude that, due to the Radio Regulations, we cannot grant the request of the ARRL that we authorize privilege on all amateur service bands below 30 MHz to Technician Class licensees who have not passed a telegraphy examination. While we do not disagree with the ARRL's belief that the best way to learn telegraphy is to use it on-the-air, and that actual use of telegraphy to communicate is proof of the ability to send and receive telegraphic texts, the Radio Regulations provide that the telegraphy requirement may be waived only for an operator of a station transmitting exclusively on frequencies above 30 MHz. In this regard, we also note, as the ARRL states, that the Radio Regulations remain an obligation of the Commission that can not be waived."
Third, the FCC has an affirmative legal obligation promote the effective use of the radio spectrum. It does not have authority to use an obsolete criterion from keeping otherwise qualified users off the air. 47 USC 303 states: "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall ... (g) ... generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest ..."
Fourth, it is a settled matter in US law that regulations cannot be arbitrary and capricious. They must be based the general public's interest and have some basis in the factual, real-world situation.
My reasoning goes like this:
It is a settled matter of fact with the FCC that telegraphy testing for amateurs' no longer serves any legitimate regulatory purpose and is no longer in the public interest.
It is a fact that there is no longer any international treaty requirement that obligates the FCC to continue to test amateurs for proficiency as telegraphers.
It is a settled matter of law that an agency may not maintain an arbitrary and capricious licensing requirement.
It follows that the FCC should move quickly to abolish its Rules that require telegraphy testing for amateurs.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It actually says: We believe that an individual's ability to demonstrate increased Morse code proficiency is not necessarily indicative of that individual's ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. As a result, we find that such a license qualification rule is not in furtherance of the purpose of the amateur service and we do not believe that it continues to serve a regulatory purpose.
The key word there is "increased" It doesn't say a Morse requirement does not serve a regulatory purpose.
We also conclude that, due to the Radio Regulations, we cannot grant the request of the ARRL that we authorize privilege on all amateur service bands below 30 MHz to Technician Class licensees who have not passed a telegraphy examination. While we do not disagree with the ARRL's belief that the best way to learn telegraphy is to use it on-the-air, and that actual use of telegraphy to communicate is proof of the ability to send and receive telegraphic texts, the Radio Regulations provide that the telegraphy requirement may be waived only for an operator of a station transmitting exclusively on frequencies above 30 MHz. In this regard, we also note, as the ARRL states, that the Radio Regulations remain an obligation of the Commission that can not be waived."
Here it says that Radio Regulations require that Operators below 30Mhz are still required to be proficient in the use of telegraphy. It also states that these Regulations are an Obligation of the Commission.
Am I misunderstanding something?
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8OB on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey anybody catching anything yet? Looks like the big outboard motors are tilted up and the trolling one is down and riding up and down ole man morse river yet again. Why don't you guys quit working on a heart attack and let the powers that be decide what is going to happen after they receive all the comments. Am I the only one thats SICK of reading this same old crap? Doris Day summed it up in a song "whatever will be will be". GIVE IT A BREAK!!!
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8VOM on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is a "Higher Law"...we have the right to voice our "own" standards in the amateur radio service! If the majority of amateurs desire to retain or remove code testing in this country so be it. The USA should not bow to the rest of the world.If code testing must end it should be by our own decision. The FCC serves us, we pay their salary and the will of the people must prevail whatever the people choose in this issue.
We should keep things in the proper perspective.
Government serves the people not the other way around.
This amateur will accept whatever the majority decides in this issue. If we have no voice in the matter then our govenment has become the Organ Grinder and we play to his music. Let they that provide sevice via the air waves make the decision.
No decision on the Morse testing issue should be made without our input and consent.We will not serve without representation!
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W8OB .... Just a thought here ... Remember the old adage "People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks"? Did you read the article?? Did you post a reply? Then YOU are a part of the very problem you profess to be sick of. If you were truly sick of it you would ignore it and let it die. I posted my reply because IMO I felt the writer had misinterpeted what he had quoted. So yes I am part of the problem too but no I am not sick of it yet. See I feel there is more to this whole push then the removal of the code requirement. Actually I could live with that, I think. It's what might happen after that concerns me.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by STATICXD00D on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why don't you guys quit working on a heart attack and let the powers that be decide what is going to happen after they receive all the comments."
Do you feel the same way about other things in life besides code/no code? Do you just sit back and let the government make all of the decisions and just live with it?
Regardless of your position on this subject, if you care anything about the hobby, you need to let your opinion be heard. You need to tell them how you feel. What you want.
If we just "let the powers that be decide", what will happen next? Should we just continue to "let them decide" to take bandwidth away from the hobby without putting up a fight? Should we "let them decide" authorize BPL and just deal with the resulting interference without saying anything?
I understand what you're saying... yes, this topic has been beaten like a $2 mule on this site. However, that does not mean the solution is to just leave it up to the "powers that be" to make decisions for us. That line of thinking frightens me WAY more than any result of whether the code requirement stays or goes.
73,
John N1JAC
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow!!!..............I'm having the strangest feeling of "DEJA MOOO" (That weird, inexplicable feeling that you've heard this bull before!)
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by N2HBX on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally, I've always found it a little odd that of all the modes of operation available to hams, the only one the FCC considered as qualification to hold a license is CW.
At the risk of sending my late elmer spinning through eternity, I believe it IS time to drop the Morse requirement. Does that stop anybody from using and enjoying CW as an operating mode? Of course not. Not any more than the advent of digital communications has killed off RTTY. And the arguement that CW proficiency testing keeps the alleged "low-lifes" off the bands? Har-dee-har. That might have been true back in the days of having to go before the steely-eyed FCC engineer for your code test (as many of us did), but since the advent of the VEC program (many of them having passed THEIR CW tests at the hands of other VEC's), I question the legitimacy of the CW certifications anyway. I have known VEC's that couldn't decipher the CWID on the local repeater, and some of the worst offenders on the air are 20 WPM Extras.
I, like many others, would be in favor of a more stringent technical exam for licensing (this IS a technical hobby, I thought) in lieu of a CW requirement. Maybe if we up the technical requirements, we can drag the hobby (kicking and screaming all the way) back to somewhere close to the 21st century, and hams can be pointed to again as leaders in technological advancements.
Larry, N2HBX
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It is a settled matter of law that an agency may not maintain an arbitrary and capricious licensing requirement."
Interesting. ITU regulations state that regulatory bodies "must verify" the qualifications for an amateur radio licensee. It doesn't say that you "must test". It just says "must verify".
In my response to NCI's petition, I stated that *any* testing, to be effective, is a burden to the applicant.
Similarly, *any* testing, to be effective, must contain arbitrary and capricious licensing requirement. It's called having standards.
How long will it be before someone files an petition requesting suspension of testing all together? The philosophical foundations of the argument has already been laid.
If it ain't broke don't fix it...and be very careful what you ask for...if you get it, it might just start something that you don't want.
Steve, KE4MOB
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh boy here it comes again, the "Tastes Great -- Less Filling" debate. Ok, it tastes great. Now can we move on to something that's a little more interesting, like which hemorrhoid preparation works best.
KG6AMW
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I aways found Preperation H to be the most effective. The others don't seem to work as long. :)
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K0BG on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's a thought. I was just wondering. How many hams can still copy CW at the same speed they got their licenses with? Or maybe, how many have never used CW again?
Alan, KØBG
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W5LSD on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder how you'll like the result
of this next dumbdown.
Within a few years 20m will sound
like channel 19 CB and the phone bands
will need to be increased in size untill
the digital modes are squeezed out of
existence.
Next it will be LESS THEORY.
Then it will be NO THEORY.
Then phone band expansion.
There will be no turning back once
we go down this road.
It's going to be like thermal runaway,
only this will be dumbdown runaway.
I never wanted to be a CBer so I think
I'll leave the hobby to those of you
who think CB is something to be proud of.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BG:
In fact, I can copy MUCH faster than I did when I got my extra in the 80's.
Philip
CW Snob
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8OB on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2TQC I was not in reference to your post. I have the same thoughts along the line as you do. I was referring to the orginal poster. All this article is, is yet another code-nocode debate waiting to fire up.
Agreed that if code goes next will be the sub-bands etc its going to be a never ending thing.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8OB on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I guess I am guilty of letting my code speed drop. I passed the 20 per to get extra, during the time I was a telegraph opr for a coastal land station I peaked at 43 per but through the years I got lazy and now can only do about 38 per. I guess I better put a little more effort in to the Morse part of it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8OB -- I wasn't trying to be harsh or anything it's just that there are alot of posters who post just to say they are sick of reading the same story over and over. To them I say "Then put down the book" You don't have to read it and if you do, then you certainly don't have to reply. Everytime someone posts about this damn CW issue they are expressing their opinion. They may feel that the other topics didn't fit what they wanted to say so they post a new topic with different words that say the same thing to everybody else. I want to keep saying I'm concerned about where we are heading. When the FCC makes whatever decision it makes I want them to Know how this Operator feels about the issue. The concerns you voiced are exactly the ones I am worried about. Sub-band reduction, etc.
I try hard to read all the posts because I truly want to understand and I keep voicing my opinion in order to gleen more input. I just don't want to go quietly into the night :)
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NI0C on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems to me that most of the "table pounding" has been done by the "No-Code International" followers who insist on having it their way, all the way. They're not content with "slow code" exams, they really mean no-code. All this despite the fact that today there are more ways than ever to learn the code, and that waivers have been available for years for those individuals for whom learning the code is truly an insurmountable barrier for entry to the hobby.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, code is not a mode--it's a language. Passing a five words per minute exam proves that one has become a student of that language. One can choose to go on to mastery of the language, or not, as he or she sees fit. However, someone who hasn't even memorized the code characters is not qualified to have an opinion on the usefulness of the language.
As a college professor of engineering, I sometimes encounter students who object to the math pre-requisites for my courses. They're looking for an easy way to a degree in engineering. Fortunately, they haven't yet organized the "No Math International" society!
For what it's worth, I have filed my opinions on the subject of amateur radio code testing requirements with the FCC. I don't agree with the poster who, content to let others do his thinking and speaking, made reference to Doris Day's inane song from the 1950's.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am still much better than when I was first licensed (barely 5 WPM) in 78 but not as good as when I was handling Traffic. At one point I was comfortable at slightly over 20wpm. Today somewhere between 15 and 20 is comfortable for me. I really don't try to increase it anymore. Though I am guilty of listening to the really high speed guys and getting jealous :)
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PLEASE!!!! Let's give this a rest!!
If we didn't reach a consensus in the last 47 threads that dealt with this issue, we are not likely to reach one here!
If your feelings on this issue are really so strong that you are willing to post endless rhetoric on the subject, why don't you put your opinion into the form of a letter, and send it to the FCC?
That course of action at least holds the possibility of accomplishing something other than endless ratchet-jawing.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
William:
While your reasoning is better than the dribble usually spouted by hams advancing your cause, you must not over look the real language of the decision.
The FCC actually said:
"We believe that an individual's ability to demonstrate INCREASED Morse code proficiency is not necessaraly indicative of that individual's ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art"
Use of the word "increased" was not by accident. Thus, it follows that reducing, but not eliminating, the requirement is consistent with the FCC's role.
The code fufills an important and legitimate government purpouse, namely to avert another 11 meter debacle. Not that all no-coders would be like 11 meter guys, just that the code is rationally related to the legitimate purpouse of protecting the spectrum from another 11 debacle.
The FCC went on to say that the code "... IS part of a legitimate insentive system of progressive priveleges". And frankly, given the 11 meter expirence, I agree.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8OB on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I better clarify my earlier post. What I meant was we do what we can, write, file comments etc after that its up to the powers that be to decide what the outcome is. This forum hanging and fighting gets old, we as the masses are susposed to have the final say but it never seems to work out that way. I am saying do what you can but don't waste time on here or other places raising cain with people who have no power. Prevent giving yourself a heart attack, I had one at 49 and since then don't waste my time with worry about things I really have no control over, if I can honestly say I have done all in my power to prevent it. Give me a break the my first post was early this morning and I already had 60 hours into the work week.Thank heavens for the soggy weather or I would be hitting 75 hours after today.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8VOM said:
"There is a "Higher Law"...we have the right to voice our "own" standards in the amateur radio service! If the majority of amateurs desire to retain or remove code testing in this country so be it. The FCC serves us, we pay their salary and the will of the people must prevail whatever the people choose in this issue.
Let they that provide sevice via the air waves make the decision.
No decision on the Morse testing issue should be made without our input and consent.We will not serve without representation!"
Ok, VOM, using your line of reasoning, The FCC has no input on the broadcasting/media ownership rules that are on the table now regarding cross-ownership caps of TV, Radio and Print media per market. That question then, should be resolved by a panel of Broadcasters and Newspaper magnates.
By the way, the Amateur Radio service contribution to the FCC bottom line is absolutely insignificant compared to the fees levied upon Broadcasters and Commercial radio services.
I think the well seasoned OP has calmly and carefully noted the pertinent facts and it seems the scales are teetering towards ravamping the Radio Regulations to fit the present state of Amateur Radio, not adhere to what is now an arbitrary and capricious requirement, the retention of which would be solely to appease a minority of operators who rely upon that requirement to satisfy their desire to feel special and exclusive. I really don't care about feeling special and exclusive. I got into the hobby to play with radio, not to bolster my ego.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BTW, I wasn't aware the ARRL had asked to bump Techs down onto HF. I don't support that at all. The written element requirements for HF should remain.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Geez man give YOURSELF a break or you'll work yourself to death......I honestly enjoy the banter sometimes. As long as it's civil. When it gets into name calling and belittling(sp) then I drop out. I don't consider it stressful at all. What I DO find stressful are the people trying to stomp on my right to voice my opinion. I should stop just because someone doesn't want to hear it anymore???? Again, tired of reading .. put down the book. Want better topics ... Start some. I'm communicating here. That's all I'm doing. Sitting here listening to 40m cw and reading the posts. Nothing evil. To those people who keep shouting "GIVE IT A BREAK" I kindly say GIVE IT A BREAK telling me to GIVE IT A BREAK :) (Hi Hi)
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NI0C on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8OB;
Thanks, for your clarification. I apologize for my misunderstanding of your previous remarks. You are 100% right about letting go of things once we have done all we can do to shape the future.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KG4WHL on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
THIS IS TO W5LSD WHO SAID THAT HE DOES NOT WANT 20 METERS TO SOUND LIKE CB . DO YOU USE 75 METERS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE CB RADIO DOWN THERE. SO ALL YOU OLD TIMERS WHO SAY THE CODE IS A TOOL TO KEEP THE UNWANTED PEOPLE OFF OF HAM RADIO NEED TO GO DOWN TO 75 METERS. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT CAUSE TROUBLE ON 75 METERS ARE GENERAL CLASS OR HIGHER THAT PASSED THE 13 OR 21 WPM CODE TEST.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by FJGH on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hams are strange people. I wonder what could be accomplished that has some real value if hams voiced their opinion (assuming you might have one)concerning the condition of the social security fund that has been robbed by Congress for the last 40 years and is now scheduled to go broke in about 10 years. Or perscription drug cost reform or medical care costs control or ???????.............. Instead, the CW issue has totally consumed every one of ham radio's young and old fart's agenda.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All social security taxes go into general revenue.There is no seperate "social security fund". That is a Fat lie propigated by Democrats!
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by LNXAUTHOR on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Personally, I've always found it a little odd that of
> all the modes of operation available to hams, the only
> one the FCC considered as qualification to hold a
> license is CW.
IIRC, there are questions in the Element 2, 3 and 4 exams regarding digital communications and other modes?
Element 1 is an (IMHO) essential part of incentive licensing, which i believe will be retained for U.S. amateur radio operators.
There is a new draft of the upcoming Element 3 examination, which you can see here:
http://www.arrl.org/arrlvec/gp-syllabus-2004.html
If there is no significant change in the breadth or depth of the question pool, could one assume that Element 1 as part of the licensing will be retained?
I do see some give and take here though. If the FCC makes any change, I'd be willing to bet $5 that the Tech Plus privileges with access to the following freq ranges will be granted to any potential ham taking and passing the Element 2 exam:
Novice and Technician Plus classes:
3.675-3.725 MHz: CW Only
7.100-7.150 MHz: CW Only
21.100-21.200 MHz: CW Only
28.100-28.300 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data
28.300-28.500 MHz: CW, Phone
Do you see a picture here?
I'd also be willing to bet the FCC would first want to see what happens to that slice of 10M for Phone if such privileges were granted.
just my $0.02
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W5AU on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Hams in the UK are Pre-Qualifying before they
will enter into a QSO. If the other station is a
No-Code operator, they are refusing to enter into
a HF QSO with them. A Pitiful mess indeed. I dont
seem to run into these problems on 40 CW.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8VOM on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KC5NYJ: Who said the FCC should have no input? I never said that,this juvenile comparison took place in your mind. Yes..I believe that amateurs should have INPUT both Pro and Con on this issue! The ARRL and NCI should be heard and have a voice in the future of the service. What is wrong with voicing ones opinion on the standards we prefer to prevail in our hobby and service? : W8VOM
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
That's great! I'm hoping it will be that way here as well. No use wasting breath on elitist professional amateur radio ops.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, VOM- you said:
"Let they that provide sevice via the air waves make the decision.
No decision on the Morse testing issue should be made without our input and consent.We will not serve without representation!"
The key word there is "consent". If you don't understand word usage, let me spell it out for you. "Consent" in the context of your post indicates the final word comes from the Amateur community. My comparison, was based on your use of that word.
In closing, your rant sounds like some pseudo-nationalist, anti-government, secret Idaho compound drivel.
Just my opinion, "juvenile" as it may seem to you...
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by N6AJR on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is no Hell, purgatory is having your computer stuck on EHAM and reading the same whine over and over and over and over.
I posted an artcle discussing the options of this back in 2001 called the last word in the code - nocode debate.. here we go again and again and again...I'd rather talk about elmers search and fan dioples.... di dit
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NI0C on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N6AJR:
Code testing is very much a current issue, given the string of petitions before the FCC on the subject. I'll look for your article, as I'm curious as to why you think that your comments on the subject should be the "last word."
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by N2HBX on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To LNXAUTHOR:
Yes, you are correct. The exams are chuck full of questions related to other modes. My statement SHOULD have been that CW is the only mode that the FCC requires DEMONSTRATED PROFICIENCY as a licensing requirement.
Larry, N2HBX
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WELL GUYS THE POOR CRAZY HORSE IS GOING TOWARDS BEING SHOT UP TO AT LEAST 3000 TIMES WITH THE SAME ISSUE.so have fun pound away at it.(t m r w g a) 73 de n2nzj tom.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NI0C on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N6AJR:
Tom, I had trouble finding your 2001 article, but I did find your August 2, 2003 article on the subject. I was away on vacation when it was posted. You contributed some good ideas and it looks like your article generated some useful discussion too. Nice job!
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8VOM on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To:KC5NYJ..Again amateurs have a right to voice their opinions on this issue Pro and Con! Do you dispute this also? The FCC has always listened to input from the amateur service and will continue to do so in the future. We have representation and our input will be heard. The amateurs will decide it's "Input" by consent of the majority who use said service.ARRL-NCI-FISTS and other proposals will be heard.We make the decision on the standards we wish to be upheld or amended by listening to the opinions of our fellow amateurs. The decision ultimately is up to the FCC,the thrust of my post was to point out the fact that the FCC has an obligation to at least consider input from the amateur radio service. Like it or not the FCC has a long history of granting some latitude in what we believe to be best for the service.
KC5NYJ your rant sounds like more of the-"I Cant Learn the Code Daddy Drivel". Whay take pot shots at people who were willing to do the work? Your perception of us being "Elitist" is a poor excuse for your lack of Motivation and poor self image. It is Class Envy pure and simple! If testing is eliminated,we will always know that we made the grade and YOU did not. Better a has been than a never was like you!
The Government has a responsibility to listen to the input of it's people. I know that the FCC will listen to our input,we may not be their primary concern but the petitions will be heard.W8VOM
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If international treaty no longer requires morse code proficiency to access HF bands, there's little sense in still testing for it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I submitted an aritlce for eHam that gave actual counts as of two days ago, for and against NCI's petition. The editors apparently haven't decided to post it. In the mean time, here's what I found out personally by reading EVERY posted comment (all 278) to the FCC on NCI's petition. Over 70% of the comments SUPPORT eliminating the code test as a requirement for license. Less than 30% wanted to KEEP the requirement but about 1/5 of those only wanted to keep code testing just for EXTRA CLASS.
So those that think the FCC should follow what the majority hams want, we will see code go away, period. The majority have spoken. It makes me really laugh is that some hams actually want MORSE CODE proficiency to be required for the most advanced class in the hobby--a oxymoronic conundrum.
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One more comment to add to above. ARRL HAS NOT posted an opinion on ANY of the petitions to the FCC on eliminating the code requirement. Does that obvious omission have significance?
To me it says the ARRL doesn't want to express an opinion. To support the elimination of code testing would alienate many of its "life members". To NOT support would alienate the 70% that believe it's time to let Morse RIP. They want to holler and yell about what the FCC did and blame the FCC when it's all said and done. The ARRL should be expressing an opinion, one way or another, as it represents its dues-paying members. I paid my dues and I think it's inexcusable for them NOT TO POST A COMMENT on this issue.
The only other way I can interpret the deafening silence from the ARRL on the code issue is that code testing is so insignificant, it wasn't worth their time to post a comment. Let the FCC speak then and do its duty.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While one may believe that the law's an ass, the law is the law, and the United States is country ruled by laws.
Regulatory bodies such as the FCC must work within the framework of the statutes passed by Congress and the case law resulting from court rulings. The only thing that the Commission is allowed to do on its own is investigate the facts that bear on how it applies the law.
Consider this recent example from the news. The FCC was sued, and a court ordered them to review their rules concerning media ownership. The Commission looked at the facts and the law and changed the rules. Some folks don't like the new rules. The Senate has voted to change the law so that the FCC can keep the old rules, but until the law is changed, the Commission is bound by the facts as they have found them and the law as it is.
Over three years ago, the FCC found as a matter of fact that telegraphy testing was not a proper regulatory requirement for hams. That's now taken as a fact.
At the same time, the Commission found that it could not suspend testing because of the law. They were bound by the treaty requirements to enforce ITU Rule S25. They explictly stated that this rule was the only reason they were not eliminating testing.
That rule has changed. This means that the facts demand, US law probably requires, and international law allows that telegraphy testing be dropped.
If this is a nation of laws, then the end of telegraphy testing is a done deal.
If you don't like it, either get over it or write your Congressman and try to get the law changed.
Meanwhile, if you like Morse code, get on the air and use it--and if you love ham radio, use some of your energy to fight a real danger to our hobby. Fight BPL!
P.S. I wish that the those who insist that the government overregulate the hobby with obsolete testing requirements would realize that they are no different from those who want the government to overregulate any other activity.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
P.P.S. I would have responded to comments earlier, but a bunch of us were up all night in the County EOC working with ARES during the storm. I just woke up.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W9JJS on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Did anyone notice there were facilities in NC yesterday that had radios but STILL needed operators ?
I noticed it while following the storm on the internet at work. Why were they looking for a few more operators ? My quess would be because they were pissing and moaning about the code requirement.
Without unity, we are doomed gang. Let's move on and play nice together.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The most "enlightened" comment I found in my perusal of the 278 submitted to the FCC on NCI's proposal is this one:
Proceeding: RM-10786 Type Code: CO
Date Received/Adopted: 09/03/03
Document Type: COMMENT Total Pages: 1
Filed on Behalf of: ROBERT PHIPPS - N1KBZ
Complete Mailing Address:
31 DUBUQUE ST
MANCHESTER, NH 03102
You have to go read it yourself. Did Robert Phipps really post this to the FCC?
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
None of the people on this thread, including the author himself (except for myself) have even bothered to post their "precious opinion" to the FCC about the NCI's petition. The petition's been open for comment for over 30 days now.
W8VOM, you haven't
WB2TQC, you haven't
W8OB, you haven't
KB9YZL, you haven't
N2HBX, you haven't
KE4MOB, you haven't
W9JJS, you haven't
W3JJH, you haven't
KA3RFE, you haven't
If you all have enough umph to post on eHam, what's your excuses for not "sounding off" to the FCC?
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sorry, NI0C, you did post. My mistake. Only two of us on this thread have posted.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8VOM on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KD5YDY: Oh but I did file a comment!
My confirmation number is 2003828123570
Date received by the FCC was Aug 28 2003.
This was on the NCVEC,no I did not comment
on *every* single petition out there but at
least I filed one for NCVEC! This is more than
what most on your scarlet letter list did!
Oh BTW...have YOU filed comment on all the petitions?
If not why not? Perhaps like me you dont have the time to file on all of them.W8VOM
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I only tallied comments to NCI's petition and only commented on NCI's in support of it. It seemed the only petition that seemed worthy of my comment. It was thorough, relevant, and right on target. Although I agreed with the underlying goal of the NCVEC petition, it contained some pretty ridiculous statements I could not in all honesty support. Like testing being too difficult for the VEs. That's not a good basis for abolishing the code test requirement.
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W5EEX on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why all this wasted energy? Sure, write the FCC, better yet write the ARRL......the FCC is looking to
ARRL to make a recommendation......and ARRL is trying
to walk the tightrope to not lose members. If you believe keeping the code is right.....tell them so, and also tell them you will be mailing back your next
dues renewal notice (WITHOUT DUES!) if they don't recommend to your satisfaction.....this about money!!! To the radio manufacturers and to the ARRL....anyone who thinks the ARRL isn't in it for $$$$ missed the boat somewhere.
I am pro-code....but each to his own choice.....write the ARRL and let them know what you will do. The potential loss of $$$$ is going to sway their decision.
73,
John
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would hope ARRL would make recommendations based on their "expert" opinion of what is best for the future of the hobby. If they're more concerned about money, then why should anyone, even the FCC, bother with what ARRL thinks.
Withholding dues from membership only hurts me, IMHO. I value the subscription to QST and look forward to great technical articles each month. (Example: an article within the past 2 months on how many radials do you really need for a good ground for vertical antenna).
If the ARRL doesn't have an opinion or is terrified to express one, then let the ARRL die with Morse. RIP ARRL and CW.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by 2INTEREST on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A well thought out article that points out the FCC thoughts on the matter of code testing. It points out plainly that the FCC would have dropped the code requirement if not for the international treaty. Now that the treaty has been modified, the FCC is free to do just that. Just the testing, mind you, not the CW band allocations. Those should be preserved, because CW is still a legitimate and widely accepted mode of operation. It is just not nearly as important as some hams think it to be.
As far as the operators that insist "the sky is falling", just keep on insisting removal of the code is only the first step, elimination of the CW band allocations will most likely come next. If YOU push it enough, there will be some operators that will pick up on it and try to do it. Then YOU will be responsible for the loss of the CW allocations.
From an earlier post:
""The code fufills an important and legitimate government purpouse, namely to avert another 11 meter debacle. Not that all no-coders would be like 11 meter guys, just that the code is rationally related to the legitimate purpouse of protecting the spectrum from another 11 debacle.
The FCC went on to say that the code "... IS part of a legitimate insentive system of progressive priveleges". And frankly, given the 11 meter expirence, I agree.""
I wonder how many times the know code people are going to harp on that one. Code testing didn't stop 11 meter operators from getting on the amateur HF bands. It didn't even slow them down. They are there now--just listen to 75 meters sometimes.
Posts like that also make me wonder if those people can send understandable code. If they make as many mistakes sending code as they do spelling, its a wonder they're understood at all.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by 2INTEREST on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find it somewhat strange that the survey on this site about morse code testing was replaced so early. First the pro code side was ahead, but then the no code side caught up. Now the survey has been replaced with another one and the results show the pro code side ahead by a few votes. It seems strange, doesn't it?
I realize that votes can still be made by those that had not yet voted, but why was the survey only on the site for six days while other surveys have been left up on the main web page for an average of a month?
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I DID file a comment on the NCI proposal. I didn't write a coinfirmation number down but I remember getting one.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY:
In fact, I have filled comments in this matter with the FCC. Because of a quirk in the FCC's system, they were filed against the NCVEC petition. I did not file a redundant comment in support of the NCI petition, but I did express support for the NCI position in my comments. Those comments and the filings concerning BPL may found on line search for comment and reply comments by "W J J Hoge." If you can't find them, I'd be happy to email you a .pdf of the filing.
I expect all of the petitions asking of the end of telegraphy testing to be consoldated under a single Notice of Proposed Rule Making--unless the Commission agrees with my comments (and those of several others) pointing out that they have the authority to issue a changed rule without further proceedings in this case.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by N6AJR on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C I did file comments on a code petition for the fcc, so perhaps not this one but yes i did file and also on the power line foolishness. There have been 10 or 15 petitions filed. Not just this one...
K5YDY Sorry about the poor date recall.. I post often and don't remember what I had for breakfast today :)
this will go on till something els comes up.
I read the same doom and gloom in a 1971 march "as we see it" article in the good old QST saying all of this and more, but talking about how incentive licensing would ruin ham radio. some things never change. before that it was ssb will ruin ham radio ( AM )as we know it, before that is was tone cw will ruin spark gap ham radio as we know it, and so on for ever.
my guess is that ham radio will be here in a nother hundred years, and folks will pull this antique form of communication up and laugh at our doom and gloom..
tada.. tom N6AJR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anyone know how long the FCC must kept a topic open for comment before proceeding? Is it 60 days after filing petition? If consolidation of the various petitions occurs, what happens to all the peripheral "extras" thrown in with some of the petitions. Like FISTS asking for a speed increase instead of removal. No way they could consolidate FISTS petition with NCI's or NVECC.
I believe you are correct that the FCC has all the authority they need to make a rule change. They probably didn't even need to ask for public comment. But since they have done so, when will all this mayhem on the ham forums go away? People have made up their minds and no amount of time, discussion, or comments will ever change any attitudes.
I would hope as most petitions state, that the FCC would expedite the rule changes so we can all get back to enjoying the hobby. I wouldn't be on the Forums if I could be on HF but until rules change, I can't even though I've passed elements 2,3, and 4. It's the waiting that continues to fan the flames on the forums.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W9JJS on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK. You shamed me into posting comments with the FCC.
I just left a comment with them. Guess that means I'm not on the 'list' anymore.I still contend that the service is on the path to doom without unity.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W5AU on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like to know how many REAL POSTS were made
to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System. I
think you would find about 1 in 10 is a real comment.
Funny what some people can do with a Computer.
They can make things look any way they want them
to and to heck with the truth.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY:
I just looked up WB2TQC's comment in the FCC ECFS. It's a brief comment. It's wrongheaded. But it's there.
While this subject is not as significant as, say, fractal analysis of DNA, this matter and the facts that bear on it should be approached with a certain rigor. My point in the original posting is that there are facts and law that bear on this matter. We should stop the arm-waving, mouth-frothing infighting and realize that the issue is pretty well settled.
If I understand your comments in the ECFS, we both agree that telegraphy testing should be eliminated. Telegraphy testing as an entry requirement to HF will soon go away. I look forward to chatting with you on HF when that happens.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The normal process for a federal agency rule making is defined by the Adminstrative Procedures Act. Public notice and comment periods are required with only a few exceptions.
We may have such an exceptional case here. During the comment period in the late '90s, the amateur community's range of views concerning Morse code testing were fully aired, and the FCC arrived at a decision following an extended period of fact finding. They announced that they could not take the preferred action soley because of an international obligation. The amateur community has be given and has taken notice of the recent change in ITU Rule S25. If the Commission does what they announced that they wanted to do three years ago, no one will lose any operating priviledges. Against that special background, the Adminstrative Procedures Act could be interpreted as allowing the Commission to make a "technical" change to its Rules with no further public notice.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I would like to know how many REAL POSTS were made
> to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System. I
> think you would find about 1 in 10 is a real
> comment.
That's a fairly strong comment. Would you care to back it up with some evidence?
> Funny what some people can do with a Computer.
> They can make things look any way they want them
> to and to heck with the truth.
Yeah, like by spreading malicious rumors about false filings.
If you have any real evidence, I suggest you take it to the FCC, which will act on it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
to W5AU: When I did my reading of all 278 comments on NCI petition, I eliminated duplicates, more than one posting by the same ham. Most have a callsign listed so I didn't do all the work to confirm as their comments appeared to address the topic. There were a few by non-hams (could not find a callsign for that name), and the silly one I pointed out by supposedly a Robert PHIPPS with a callsign.
So I came out with 251/278 "legitimate" comments (that's alot more than 1 in 10). 179 supported removal of the code test requirement and 72 opposed. Of the 72 opposed, 80% (58) were Extra Class hams, the class least likely to be affected if Technicians were given access to the Novice HF bands. I don't know why eHam didn't post my article but the numbers were very interesting. 130 of the 179 supporting removal of the code were Technician level hams, the ones that have not abandoned the hobby and wait anxiously as I do to have their first HF QSO. Most of these technicians seemed to have had their license for 5+ years so are not newbies to the hobby. Many stated they had tried to learn the code but just couldn't or were so uninterested in code that they refused to learn it and stayed on VHF, UHF. I also noticed that a significant number (didn't actually count) of the EXTRAS opposing the code testing rule, had received upgrade from Advanced to Extra when code was dropped to 5wpm for all classes of licenses. So these are supposedly "Extra Light" hams opposing the rule change.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY:
I'm not going to waste the FCC's time with a one-sentence filing.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K0RGR on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wish to thank W3JJH for his original post. I had not reviewed the actual wording of that FCC decision, though I generally remembered its content, and I think I agree that FCC may have set a precedent for itself here. The FCC's history of the requirement was most interesting - it was put in place primarily so hams would recognize Navy stations and avoid interfering with them. It's a bit ironic that the Navy no longer uses Morse, but the requirement is still there!
Did Kansas ever repeal the law requiring drivers to stop and fire a gun three times before entering an intersection?
I have no idea if other ARRL Directors are doing the same thing, but our director conducted an email poll of all ARRL members in his division. I believe there were only about 350 replies and a large majority of those responding favored granting some HF priveleges to Techs. A slim majority favored keeping the code test for General Class. Most favored keeping it for Extra Class. The majority favored giving Techs 250 W on HF.
We need to remember, however, that FCC's ruling in that case was in response to an ARRL petition that asked primarily for two things. First, it asked the Commission to 'refarm' the existing Novice/Technician bands, in some cases expanding the phone allocations and in some splitting the frequencies between phone and CW/Digital modes. Second, it asked the Commission to grant Novices and Technicians all HF CW priveleges, on the theory that to use the priveleges, they would need to learn the code!
In my comments to the Commission, I have asked that they revive ARRL's request, and grant it immediately. I have also stated my opinion that the requirement should be dropped for General Class and retained for Extra Class.
Why drop it? I think FCC will find it impossible to justify keeping it in place , for many of the reasons that W3JJH has stated, plus the fact that most of the world's leading nations have already abolished code testing. And, there is another issue : the current licensing scheme is inequitable, because the utility of a Technician license is much different in highly populated areas than in rural ones, whereas with HF capability, the location of the ham is relatively unimportant to his enjoyment of the priveleges earned.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K6BBC on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Fourth, it is a settled matter in US law that regulations cannot be arbitrary and capricious. They must be based the general public's interest and have some basis in the factual, real-world situation.
Is the public interest served by making a few egocentric hams feel safe to discuss the weather on 20 meters?
There is a "Higher Law"...we have the right to voice our "own" standards in the amateur radio service! If the majority of amateurs desire to retain or remove code testing in this country so be it. The USA should not bow to the rest of the world.If code testing must end it should be by our own decision. The FCC serves us, we pay their salary and the will of the people must prevail whatever the people choose in this issue.
WRONG - We do not live in a democracy – we live in a representative republic. Our laws are meant to protect the minority from the majority. A majority of hams may want to keep CW but they are certainly not considering the serving of the public interest. Its just snobbery. The airways belong to all the people folks. Being forced to learn an obsolete mode is certainly not in the public’s interest.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WD0CT on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w3jjh, congrats on a fine article. The code requirement will be history soon. The gloom and doomers will find out that ham radio will continue to thrive, just as it has through all the other changes it has been through.
Let's move on to the next important issue. We need to refarm the bands. Let everyone run any legal mode [for the band] anywhere. CW snobs don't need half a band for three qsoes. Hee Hee!
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yet, another discussion about the "semantics" surrounding recent FCC regulations.
KC8VWM
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
He Said,
"Did Kansas ever repeal the law requiring drivers to stop and fire a gun three times before entering an intersection?"
Reply,
Now that is the best summary and commentary that clearly depicts the recent FCC regulatory issues surrounding CW if I ever heard one. Except they should fire 4 times, not only 3 times. It makes a difference.
KC8VWM
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY;
(I’d really prefer to address people by their first name….but you haven’t shared that with us.)
You wrote:
>>>>”None of the people on this thread, including the author himself (except for myself) have even bothered to post their "precious opinion" to the FCC about the NCI's petition. The petition's been open for comment for over 30 days now.
W8VOM, you haven't
WB2TQC, you haven't
W8OB, you haven't
KB9YZL, you haven't
N2HBX, you haven't
KE4MOB, you haven't
W9JJS, you haven't
W3JJH, you haven't
KA3RFE, you haven't
If you all have enough umph to post on eHam, what's your excuses for not "sounding off" to the FCC?”<<<<<
I can’t answer for others, but in my case, the reason is that I really don’t care what you guys decide about “Code/No Code” ! The only reason I posted on this thread was to generically comment “Oh No…. not another one of these threads!”
My interests are mobile communications and Fast Scan TV, so everything I’m working with is happening in the VHF/UHF world. If the FCC dropped all code requirements tomorrow, and granted full HF privileges to Tech Licenses, it wouldn’t affect me in the slightest. I have no interest in your precious HF Bands.
As a side note; when I consider the attitude expressed on these forums by many of the “Elite”, (No-Code Tech = Snot Nosed Punk) I really can’t see why anyone would want to socialize on those bands.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In defense of Pro-coders...
Personally, I feel about immigrants who don't strive to learn English language or become "legal" the same way Pro-coders feel about no-coders. However, I've watched as legislation has bent over backwards to accomodate non-English speaking residents and legislation towards allowing "undocumented" aliens the right to have state drivers licenses for use on public roadways. There is no plan to construct a separate "immigrant" lane just for these folks. The reasoning for allowing this integration is the immigrants are perceived to be a resource which should be welcomed, and allowed to make whatever contribution to our society they may be capable of. In light of that, it doesn't seem out of the realm to compare "undocumented" aliens to "un-coded" hams.
Bad analogy? Perhaps.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AG4DG on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< To me it says the ARRL doesn't want to express an opinion. To support the elimination of code testing would alienate many of its "life members". To NOT support would alienate the 70% that believe it's time to let Morse RIP. >
This seems appropriate for the ARRL. It IS supposed to represent all hams, and it wouldn't be appropriate for the ARRL itself to take a stand, just as it wouldn't be appropriate for most clubs to do so. I don't think it was appropriate for FISTS to take a stand favoring an INCREASE in Morse Code testing requirements. FISTS is dedicated to Morse Code itself, NOT the testing requirement. FISTS was NOT intended to be the pro-code-testing version of No Code International.
< They want to holler and yell about what the FCC did and blame the FCC when it's all said and done. The ARRL should be expressing an opinion, one way or another, as it represents its dues-paying members. I paid my dues and I think it's inexcusable for them NOT TO POST A COMMENT on this issue. >
I'm willing to bet that the ARRL leaders privately argue among each other. I think it is appropriate for the ARRL to be neutral even though I personally support the elimination of Element 1 and have sent in my comments on one of the petitions.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seen Previously;
>>>>>”…….. The reasoning for allowing this integration is the immigrants are perceived to be a resource which should be welcomed, and allowed to make whatever contribution to our society they may be capable of. In light of that, it doesn't seem out of the realm to compare "undocumented" aliens to "un-coded" hams.”<<<<<<
OH SWEET JESUS,…WHAT NEXT???!!………Now you don’t even want to consider “No-Coders” to be American Citizens!!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
P.S.
Come on guys……. Admit it! This is all a big plan to make sure that no new Ham will ever WANT to get on to the HF Bands to talk to you; Isn’t it???
I’m laughing so hard that I have to sign off………….
KC
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K6BBC on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Personally, I feel about immigrants who don't strive to learn English language or become "legal" the same way Pro-coders feel about no-coders. However, I've watched as legislation has bent over backwards to accomodate non-English speaking residents and legislation towards allowing "undocumented" aliens the right to have state drivers licenses for use on public roadways..."
what an ass
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC5NYJ:
Your analogy fails for two reasons. The first is factual. The second is moral.
First, Morse code telegraphy is not the lingua franca of ham radio any more. Certainly, most US hams have passed a telegraphy test, but that does not mean that they use it. I made an A in Latin forty-some-odd years ago. I can use it still, but it isn't my common tongue. If you look at the survey results at arrl.org, you'll see that only a minority of hams responding said that they used Morse code for more than half of their QSOs. Roughly equal numbers said that they never used it as those who said they use it more than 76 % of the time.
Second, Morse code telegraphy is no more the language of ham radio than Tsalagi (Cherokee) is the language of Oklahoma. Yes, Morse code was used before other means of communications on the ham bands just as Tsalagi was more widely spoken in Oklahoma before the use of English was common. Were the Sooners required to learn a new language when they moved in? No. Why not? Because the Indian people in the territory did not possess the sovereign authority over the land and settlers to enforce such a thing. Similarly, we hams have no sovereign rights to our bands. We enjoy the use of them at the sufferance of the FCC. The FCC, as a trustee for the American people as a whole, makes the rules. We don't. We can't require anything.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4MOB:
Standards that are based on real world facts and requirements are, by definition, not arbitrary and capricious. The law considers a regulation to be arbitrary and capricious when it is not based a fact or public need.
Consider the port and starboard navigation lights on aircraft. They're red and green and each color always goes on the same side of the aircraft. In some sense, the selection of the two colors is arbitrary. Yellow and blue would work as well. However, the marker colors conform to the color that have been used by mariners for years before aircraft used such lights. Conforming to previous use is not arbitrary.
Consider the original Morse code requirement for hams. It was for International Morse code rather than American Morse. That was not arbitrary because the Navy used International code, and the Navy was the concerned government agency. They wanted to be able to communicate with hams, and it was reasonable for the hams to know the same code as naval radio operators.
Now, suppose there was a rural road in your home county that was narrow and winding and had a speed limit of 35 mph. Suppose that the state came along and used the right-of-way for a 4-lane divided highway and left the speed limit 35 mph when the road was reopened. If the normal speed limit for such a highway is 60 mph in your state, whoever set the speed limit must have a compelling reason to keep it low. If it's just because the regulator doesn't like fast driving or wants to operate a speed trap, then he's using a bogus reason. The regulation is arbitrary and capricious because there is no good public purpose for it. When the facts supporting a regulation change, the rule should change.
The FCC has already determined that there is no good regulatory purpose for telegraphy testing. They explicitly stated that the only reason they were retaining it was because of the ITU Rule that has subsequently been eliminated. That being the case, there is no longer a reason for the testing requirement. Retaining telegraphy testing is therefore arbitrary and capricious.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W2BSA on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gentlemen, Yes, at that time of 99-412 the FCC had an obligation to test for Morse Code proficiency. That is no longer the case. Therefore, there is NO regulatory reason NOR any legal reason to maintain the testing. In fact it is now arbitrary and capricious to do so and even a violation of U.S. Law. The specific law is the Americans with Disabilities Act. It states that any regulation that inhibits a disabled person from getting a license or permit must be removed unless the regulation is for the safety of others. Amateur Radio is not rendered unsafe if a disabled person uses it. Therefore, the Morse Code Testing provision must be removed. Yes, some will say just get a physicians waiver. That has been abused so the best way is to eliminate the test altogether.
Morse Code Testing is no longer in the public interest. So, abolish it.
No guys, the sky is not falling. CW IS NOT GOING AWAY AND IN FACT EVEN THOUGH I DON'T KNOW CW YET, I SUPPORT SEPARATE CW SUBBANDS. Yes, I'm going to learn. But, I don't believe that testing CW proficiency is needed any more.
73,
Bill, W2BSA
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2BSA:
Unfortunately, the ADA does not cover this particular aspect of the FCC regulatory function. The Commission is governed under the Access to Communications Act of 1996.
If you believe that part of Chapter 126 of Title 42 of the US Code does apply to the FCC, please cite the relevant section.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by N6AJR on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WOW tthissss iissss ssstttiillllll gggoooiinnggg ooonnn. Iitt mmmaaakkkeess mmmeee ssttuuuttteeerr. ggiivvee iitt aa bbrraakkee ppppuuullleeeaaassseeee.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W5AU on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It may surprise you to discover just how popular a mode CW is. A recent multiple-choice survey on the ARRL web site, which was open to all amateurs (not just ARRL members), asked the question “what percentage of your operating time is spent using CW?”. The results were as follows:
Poll date: March 10, 2003
What percentage of your operating time is spent using CW?
I do not operate CW at all 32.6 % (1002)
Less than 25% 17.1 % (525)
26-50% 6.2 % (192)
51-75% 8.6 % (265)
76-100% 35.4 % (1089)
Total votes: 3073
So if this survey is accurate then it would appear that 44% of amateurs spend more time on CW than on all other modes put together.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W6TH on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee, I missed out on that one.
Please add me to the 100% list of my time on cw.
W6th
---------------------------------------------
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It may surprise you to discover just how popular a
> mode CW is. A recent multiple-choice survey on the
> ARRL web site, which was open to all amateurs (not
> just ARRL members), asked the question “what
> percentage of your operating time is spent using
> CW?”. The results were as follows:
It would be nice if the ARRL poll meant anything, but it doesn't. First the question asked is not neutral, and so one would expect a skew in favor of Morse. Second, no question is asked about other modes, or about how much actual time the people spent on the mode. Third, there is no way to calibrate the sample against the population of hams, so there is no way of knowing how accurately the sample represents hams in general. It is certainly skewed in favor of those hams who are active on line, for example.
But it doesn't really matter to the question at hand. The issue isn't whether morse code should be eliminated. The issue is whether morse code *testing* should be eliminated. If the choice of modes to test on was based on popularity, then the morse test should be replaced by a phone test.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
d00d, I just don't get it. If you're not interested in the topic, why do you read the threads? If you are interested, why do you keep trying to get people to stop?
We're all just bike-shedding anyway. Nothing will be decided here or on qrz. Eventually the FCC will rule one way or another and we'll just find something else equally trivial to argue about.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone said,
"In light of that, it doesn't seem out of the realm to compare "undocumented" aliens to "un-coded" hams.
Bad analogy? Perhaps."
Reply,
However, as an "immigrant" myself,(well documented by the way) how do you compare 13wpm hams that come from one country that suddenly enter the US and become FCC
"no-code" hams once they are here in the US?
After all, ham licenses are not exactly transferable from country to country.
Gee, and you all wondered why I have such a new call...
Now riddle me that paradox of a question?
KC8VWM
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Has anyone had a QSO with a foreigner here on reciprocal agreement that has access to HF because their country dropped the code requirement? That is one of the ironies right now. Foreigners have more privileges than American Citizens in our own country. Want to explain why that is fair?
As far a undocumented aliens, that comparison is totally invalid. They are like freebanders, that have no right to be here just like nonlicensed people have no right to be on ham bands.
It gets pretty poor when the only way one can support their view is to grab an unrelated, totally inappropriate comparison and then believe it's valid!
For those that hate this discussion, nobody is forcing you to log on or even come to this forum. Don't complain if the subject is obvious and you don't want to read it. You keep reading so you must have a need to "stay in the fray."
Kent, if you want to know my first name, just look up my callsign--pretty simple don't you think?
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W8VOM on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We do not live in a democracy – we live in a representative republic. Our laws are meant to protect the minority from the majority. A majority of hams may want to keep CW but they are certainly not considering the serving of the public interest. Its just snobbery. The airways belong to all the people folks. Being forced to learn an obsolete mode is certainly not in the public’s interest."
WRONG: We *do* live in a democracy! Yes it is a representative republic ie not perfect democracy as that would be impossible. Our laws are *not* meant to protect *only* the "minority from the majority" they are meant to protect ALL of us! I view the insults here by the no coders as Class Envy. Many of the CW Ops are a tad worried abut the Sub-bands! That is my main concern.We cannot set policy but all of us have a right to make our voice heard on Standards!
I have had 23 years of fun in this hobby and service.I believe that CW is a great Skill that *anyone* can learn. Should people be forced to learn this skill? Perhaps not but I am glad that I had to learn it because if it were not required I never would have bothered. The funny thing is this...Many who cry about the CW requirement will in the end USE CW often! They will use translaters-keyboards and readers! In many ways I hope the code requirement is struck down just to prove a point. 2009 will be interesting,you want SSB and you will have it. By then it will be a joke...we had our fun and what we leave you will not be worth having. This is what you wanted and you shall reap what you sew. Good for you!!!
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY;
If you leave your personal profile blank, with all that that omission implies, why would I make the baseless assumption that you are using a real callsign?
Pretty simple, don't you think?
BTW, to answer your other question: Even though the outcome of these discussions has no bearing on me, I have come to realize that they do provide a useful insight into the kind of people I share this hobby/activity with. Very sobering!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8VOM:
The US is a democratic country, but it is not a democracy of amateur radio operators. Hams are a tiny minority. The FCC does not manage the amateur bands for our benefit. They allow us to operate in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."
If the Commission determines that a telegraphy testing requirement is no longer in the public interest, perhaps because it is a barrier to too many members of the public becoming hams or for some other reason, then they have a legal obligation to end the testing. That's the way the laws passed by our democraticly elected Congress work.
You have the right to lobby the FCC to try to presuade them that they have made a factual error in R&O 99-412. You have the right to lobby your Representative and Senators to change the law. You have the right to run for Congress to try to change the law. You can even run for President and, if elected, get to appoint members of the FCC.
What you can't do is expect the FCC to ignore the facts that they have already found and the law as it is. The US is not only a democratic republic, it is a nation of laws.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Those that see code proficiency as part of a legitimate incentive program, how about coming up with an incentive that is actually linked to the new privileges you earns. I think years gone-by the incentive to do Morse at higher speeds was meaningful as it was the primary method of communication and half the new spectrum you got was directly associated with what you had to do to earn it. Now code has far less association with the privileges you earn and is less valid as a legitimate incentive. Incentive privileging, to be meaningsful, must have some connection with what you're earning. The faster code incentive became more of a hindrance than a motivator once code became less common replaced by phone and digital modes.
So if an incentive program is even needed, a new incentive program needs to be put in place to provide a reward that is directly linked to what you must do to earn the new privilege.
Maybe, to become an EXTRA, you need to elmer at least two hams from beginning up to General Class. Or you must put in a certain number of hours of documented public service using ham radio. Then the EXTRA means something. It recognizes your commitment to the hobby and you must do something to obtain new privileges that advances the hobby or least the public perception of the hobby. Any other ideas about what a valid incentive program might be to satisfy those the believe that privileges earned are more valued and thus keeps the "unmotivated and less likely to follow the rules" people out of the higher ranks as many claim the code does?
73, KD5YDY
Cheryl
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K6BBC on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC will drop the code requirement. There is no justification or practical reason or service to the public interest to require anyone to communicate at 5 WPM. In the 21st century, THAT’S JUST SILLY.
Secondly, what is with the term ELMERING? This is a new one on me and I’ve been licensed 35 years. No offence to folks with that name, but associating it with hams makes us all sound like a bunch of hicks – an image we already suffer.
So, drop CW, then find a better word that ELMER.
And finally, don’t ware those silly hand-helds in public.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"don’t ware those silly hand-helds in public"
Yeah, what he said. And while you're at it, don't bedeck your SUV with all those silly screwdriver and giant bugcatcher antennas. The horizontal 6m/2m/70cm loop array has to go as well.... As a matter of fact, speaking of ungainly metal, what's up with that 70' tower and all the wire strung out across the backyard???
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KA5S on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Does that stop anybody from using and enjoying CW as an operating mode? Of course not. Not any more than the advent of digital communications has killed off RTTY.<,
Well, maybe. MARS quit using CW some time ago - and it is not only no longer used, but _forbidden_ to be used, even when it would get through the racket.
Cortland
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by N6AJR on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Folks, if you want to use cw on the air, please do, you have my permission. Use of cw ant testing are two seperate items. you can use cw as you please...and only cw if that is your "thing", but testing will not make it stay or dissapear its just a different requirement. I feel it may actually increase use of cw when the requirement is dropped.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gentlemen,
Like what I posted on "CW vs Electronics" earlier is very applicable here!!! It's the only logical statement to be made PERIOD!!!
****************************************
RE: CW vs. Electronics Reply
by NN6EE on September 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Really Gentlemen if you look at the FACTS of Human learning and retention of that knowledge that learning Intl. Morse-Code is something that you'll NEVER FORGET while in the case of Electronics knowledge EVERY person typically forgets the majority of it if it is not utilized on a daily basis!!!
Does anyone forget how to SWIM after he or she learns it??? Of course not!!! Even if you don't swim but once or twice in your lifetime, and that goes for the learning of CODE as well!!!
Why cry about it as you only have to learn it ONCE!!!
JIM/nn6ee
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN6EE:
The question is not whether or not it is easy to learn Morse code, nor is it whether or not one usually remembers it once it is learned, but rather whether it serves a legitimate regulatory purpose for hams pass a telegraphy test before they may operate below 30 MHz.
The FCC has already determined that the answer to the question is, "No."
Given that fact and the Commission's legal obligations under the Communications Act and other law, it's time for telegraphy testing to end.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH,
With all due-respect Sir I disagree!!!
You obviously abhorred the idea of LEARNING something as EASY as Intl. Morse. That's your opinion but mine is to make SURE that it stays as a "TESTING ELEMENT"!!!
Plain and Simple!!! So let's forgo a "PISSING match" and let the damn chips fall where they may!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN6EE:
With what do you disagree?
Do you disagree that I correctly stated the content of my question in my original post?
Do you disagree that FCC R&O 99-412 contains a decision?
Do you disagree with the FCC's decision in the R&O?
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K6BBC on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nn6ee:
In other words, I had to learn it, so do you, so there.
WHY? WHY?? WHY???
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W5AU on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone made a comment that is a very good comparison.
To take Morse Code out of Ham Radio and Ham Radio
testing would be like taking Baseball or Football
out of Sports. Same thing..... It would go on, but
would never be the same again.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN6EE:
Huh? What do you mean I have to learn Morse code? I know Morse code. I learned International Morse in the Boy Scouts and American Morse from my grandfather who was a railroad telegrapher. When I was in the Signal Corps, I could do about 30 wpm. I can't any more; I'm out of practice. I don't use telegraphy much because I find it boring. I do have an Amateur Extra class license, so you can assume that I passed at least the 5 wpm test.
Just because you and I had to pass a particular test to be licensed is no reason to require future licensees to do the same. When I got my First Class Radiotelephone license back in the '60s, I had to know the difference between Hartley, Pierce, Clapp, and several other oscillators as implemented with tubes. That's no longer a reasonable examination question for a General Radiotelephone licensee.
Similarly, the FCC determined over three years ago that telegraphy testing should be ended. They explictly stated that the only reason it was being retained was because of ITU Rule S25. That rule no longer requires the FCC to do the testing. Thus, the FCC should take what it said was its preferred course of action and eliminate telegraphy testing for amateurs.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC Regulations, Part 97.1 have this to say:
Basis and Purpose: The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an Amateur Radio Service having a fundamental purposed as expressed in the following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the Amateur Radio Service as a non-commercial service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications......
There are three basic modes used in emergency communications: CW, Voice, and digital
CW needs the simplest, most power efficient equipment of any of the three modes and is very close to the best mode in noisy environments. While voice and digital certainly have their place, so does CW. There just isn't anything out there yet that can take its place.
So if you are looking for regulatory reasons for the the FCC to continue mandating some kind of demonstrated CW proficiency for US Amateur Radio Service operators, look no further. It is covered under the charge to the FCC to "enhance(ment) the value of the Amateur Radio Service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
Other countries may not have this requirement expressed in their laws for their regulatory agencies. They are, therefore, free to eliminate the CW requirement for their operators. The FCC, however, is going to be hard-pressed to show how total elimination of the CW requirement for Amateur Radio Service operators will enhance the value of the Amateur Radio Service when CW is still a vital mode in emergency communications.
Remember, ham radio isn't just a hobby. It is defined as a Service under government regulations. Our existence is based on what we can provide to the public. If we let operator requirements deteriorate to the point where we cannot meet the charge the Amateur Radio Service has received under FCC Regulations, then we will have a hard time hanging onto our spectrum at all, let alone the CW subbands.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR:
Unfortunately, the FCC has already considered the reasoning you put forward and rejected it in their R&O 99-412. The burden is now on those who wish to keep telegraphy testing to show the Commission how they erred in their previous finding.
The fact is that telegraphy is no longer used in disaster communications. For example, all communication by our state and county ARES operations during the recent hurricane was via 80-m SSB, 2-m FM, 70-cm FM, and 2-m packet. The national nets were on 20-m SSB. CAP doesn't use telegraphy. MARS operators are forbidden to use Morse code.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W5AU on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some interesting info I ran across today.
In regards to RM-10787
....the VECs overwhelmingly agreed.....
The ARRL, which accounts for 70 percent of all exams given annually, is NOT a signatory to RM-10787. Use of the word "overwhelming" is misleading and a false statement.
....countries have already begun discontinuing Morse exams.....
It should be noted that, as of this writing, only five of all the countries of WRC have discontinued Morse testing, a small minority. The decision at
WRC-03 does NOT recommend the elimination of Morse examinations, it simply offers the choice to each individual regulatory agency. Thus this argument carries little or no merit.
....the International Maritime Organization adopted the Global Marine Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).....
This information is often cited in the argument against the use of Morse but it should be noted that the abandonment of Morse use by the military is due
to their access to a billion dollar high-tech satellite based system. Amateurs have no access to such systems so this argument is without merit and should not be considered.
.....The amateur radio operator examination process does not require a practical demonstration in the ability to use any other mode......
As a VE, I am able to review the various current
elements in use for exam purposes. I have found questions regarding a number of modes, RTTY, AMTOR and packet for example. This seems to render this statement false and not worthy of consideration
.....Experience has shown that it is more often than not a very stressful experience for the examinee......
It is obvious that ANY exam could be stressful. Is that an excuse to eliminate the exam? Should we eliminate the SATs or driver license exams,
for example, just because they are stressful?. It is obvious that this argument is unconvincing and should not be considered.
.....demonstrate this antiquated skill..
This wording was clearly chosen to give the impression that Morse is a mode not in use today. In fact, just the opposite is true. In a recent survey of operating preferences conducted by the ARRL with 3073 responses only 32.6 percent said they never use code. Of the remaining respondents 44 percent indicate code is their primary mode. It is clear that this .antiquated.
mode is still in use today by a majority of amateur operators. This misinformation should not be considered.
.....The administration of a CW examination imposes an unnecessary burden on the VE teams.......
I hold credentials from one VEC and they have never surveyed myself or any of the VEs with whom I have spoken. How do they suppose to speak for the VEs when they haven.t asked them if the CW examination if
a burden or not? Speaking for the VEs on my very active VE team the CW examinations are NOT a burden. Since this argument seems to have no foundation in fact it is unconvincing and should not be considered.
.....unsettling to other examinees who are taking one of the written examinations within the same room..
This is true if it was widespread but I believe our team is a good example of practices that are generally in use. If it is necessary to confine all examinees
to a single room we use headphones for the CW examinations. Normally we have access to a separate room for the Morse examinations. This argument
has little merit.
In summary, the words of those who initiated RM-10787 actually support the retention of Morse testing when they say:
.....In short, the Commission should ensure that the amateur examination elements are appropriate for the types of operation that will be performed by the licensee......
As long as Morse code continues to be an authorized mode of amateur communications it should remain an examination element. The specific set of skills required for operation of this mode should be demonstrated by those who will be authorized to use it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry, 99-412 only speaks to the need for higher speed requirements, not to the need for basic skill. You are reading into it what you want to see, not what it actually says.
You may not have any emergency CW nets in your area, that doesn't mean they don't exist. I believe you will find that Michigan has emergency CW nets and I know for a fact that Kansas does. As a member of SATERN, I can assure you that my Heathkit HW-9 and portable setup is considered as a resource for use in areas with long term power outages, no telephone service, and no gasoline supplies. It can be run with a solar panel indefinitely.
I can also tell you that we had at least two stations in the hurricane area lose their HF SSB communication capability to the SATERN net when their power went off and conditions got bad. A low power CW station with a minimal antenna and a gel cell would have still been communicating.
If your area has made no provisions for use of CW links in emergencies then you have limited your capabilities for no reason. Frankly, it is my opinion that it is rather short-sighted. One of the ARES Principles of Disaster Communications is: Select the mode and band to suit the need. CW advantages are - some semblance of secrecy to minimize intercept by the general public and the starting of rumors, simpler transmitting equipment, good accuracy in record communications, longer range for a given amount of power. If you can get by with limiting your capabilities in your specific area, that's fine. The FCC needs to include all concerns - such as states west of the Mississippi where daytime 80 SSB, 2m packet, 2m FM and 70cm FM can't always handle the distances involved between disaster sites and control sites.
The fact still remains that the FCC is going to have a hard time convincing people that eliminating basic CW skills for Amateur Radio Service operators is ENHANCING the value of the service for emergency communications.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K6BBC on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I can read packet. Perhaps we should test for that too.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim/AB0WR,
I was the first person to answer his original post and I said exactly what you said regarding it. I agree that he is seeing only what he wants to see. Nothing in his original post gave me any indication that the FCC felt they should do away with the minimum test requirement. 73,
John (WB2TQC)
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the portion of R&O 99-412 in the original post: "We also conclude that, due to the Radio Regulations, we cannot grant the request of the ARRL that we authorize privilege on all amateur service bands below 30 MHz to Technician Class licensees who have not passed a telegraphy examination. While we do not disagree with the ARRL's belief that the best way to learn telegraphy is to use it on-the-air, and that actual use of telegraphy to communicate is proof of the ability to send and receive telegraphic texts, the Radio Regulations provide that the telegraphy requirement may be waived only for an operator of a station transmitting exclusively on frequencies above 30 MHz."
While I did not post the complete R&O, it clearly states Commission's view that telegraphy testing is obsolete. It does not state that telegraphy per se should be eliminated from amateur radio, but that, since interoperability with military and maritime operations no longer requires telegraphy, there is no longer a rational regulatory requirement for testing.
We will be free to use Morse telegraphy; we just won't be tested for it before we can use the HF bands.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NY7Q on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It just cracks me up, how you guys compare a "hobby" licensing requirement to professional enities. Learn CW, forget about IARC, they dont run our hobby, or go away. CW is Ham Radio. learn it, meet the basic requirements or go away. We dont need you guys/gals. I dont care if you are a PHD, BZ with a job, all of us have been there, done that, and met the CW requirements. There are a few medical reasons to not copy code (althought I cant think of one), but if you have a physical problem so be it, but anyone can learn the code, especially a mere 5 wpm. (that is a disgrace to our hobby) It all boils down to "LAZY'. Face it, you are lazy now. Go knit. we dont need you.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can only point you to the Commission's own words:
"Given the changes that have
occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy
proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract
technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to
prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise."
This says nothing about the Commission feeling that the Morse element needs to be -eliminated-. It says that there needs to be reduction in emphasis. That is exactly what they did in going to a single 5wpm element.
Again, you are reading what you want to see - not what is actually in the R&O.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When I passed my “No Code Tech” exam, both of the VECs present shook my hand, and told me that they wanted to welcome me to a “Great Fraternity”. When I read some of these posts, like the one from NY7Q, I observe that the welcome seems to be conditional at best, and that the “Fraternity” is one in name only.
Consider the following quotes:
>>>”CW is Ham Radio. learn it, meet the basic requirements or go away.”<<<
>>>”…….anyone can learn the code, especially a mere 5 wpm. (that is a disgrace to our hobby) It all boils down to "LAZY'. Face it, you are lazy now. Go knit. we don’t need you.”<<<
Is this really the face we want to show to New Hams? Is it any wonder that many new Licensees fail to renew?
My areas of interest are mobile communications and fast scan TV: ……does that make me a “disgrace to out hobby”?
Those of you who share NY7Q’s opinions: Can you honestly say that you are as expert in all the other aspects of Amateur Radio, as you are in CW operations? If not, why not? Is it that you are simply not interested in those modes? Probably,……..and I have no problem with that. But how would YOU feel if a NY7Q came along and told you; “It all boils down to "LAZY'. Face it, you are lazy now. Go knit. we don’t need you.”? ……… I can guess that it wouldn’t set well.
Now…..before the “Snot Nosed Punk” flames start, I should mention that I learned Code 45 years ago as a Boy Scout (10 wpm), and I haven’t used it since. I can still remember most of it without even trying. I don’t use it, because it has no bearing on what I am doing in the hobby.
In the past two years, as part of my job at the College, I have helped 12 students get their Tech Licenses. Each of them are bright, enthusiastic kids, and they are excited about this new world of Ham Radio, and how it is used in our program. I can see now that my next task is to keep them away from Internet Forums like this. I don’t want to see them “burned” and discouraged.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR:
"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service."--FCC R&O 99-412 @ 30.
While I may be reading only what I want to read in the FCC's R&O, I am at least reading all of it. If you're going to quote paragraph 30, don't quote it out of context. You should also consider paragraph 31.
"30. Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded by the arguments of those commenters opposing reduction or elimination of the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a license requirement in the amateur service. To the extent that these commenters put forth arguments premised on personal preference or concerns regarding on-the-air etiquette amongst amateur radio operators, we reiterate pronouncements made in the Codeless Technician Decision. In that decision, the Commission stated that passing a telegraphy examination, for regulatory purposes, is no more and no less than proof of the examinee's ability to send and receive text in Morse code at some specified rate. Additionally, it addressed the issue of personal preference for telegraphy and claims that passing a Morse code examination would make for a better operator by stating:
"We do not concur with the comments alleging that the passing of a
telegraphy examination is an indication of the examinee's good character,
high intelligence, cooperative demeanor, or willingness to comply with our
rules. These traits are also found in individuals who have not passed a
telegraphy examination rather that being exclusive to those who have
passed such a test. With respect to comments that make claims for the
superiority of telegraphy over other types of communications, we do not
consider these arguments as germane to this proceeding. The Notice did
not propose to discontinue the authorization of telegraphy CW emission
types on any amateur service frequency. The amateur service in the
future, as it has in the past, can provide to those who personally desire to
do so the opportunity to communicate by telegraphy.
"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems, including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise.
"31. We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is one way to keep amateur radio operators ready to be of service in an emergency. In this regard, we note that most emergency communication today is performed using either voice, data, or video modes. We also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency communication do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of communication, in part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other modes of communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency services, such as police, fire, and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold amateur radio licenses or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude, therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to provide emergency communications."
Paragraph 30, the last sentence of which you cite, gives the reasoning for elimination of the 13- and 20-wpm tests. It does not speak to whether or not the Commission believes testing is a good idea. Rather, it gives the justification for which test will be retained because of the ITU Rules.
The Commission's findings on the value of telegraphy as an emergency communications skill are covered in Paragraph 31.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR,
It goes to show all the dits and dahs have clattered in your brain so long that you can't understand plain English when you read it. No, it is NOT a professional service, it is a voluntary hobby. To place a filter on who can enter a hobby is virtually unknown. Yes, some golf clubs can be exclusive (Augusta) but there are plenty of other places to golf.
I just don't understand how spending 3 months become proficient in an archiac form of communication could possibly be best the hobby. Those 3 months could be used honing on air skills, learning how to track satellites, and experimenting with DIY antennas. Very few build transceiver nowdays. So I'd much rather spend my time learning something useful rather than just enough code to pass a 5wpm test that proves nothing--not even the premise that I have Morse proficiency anymore. It's a hindering requirement that very few get excited about learning and most do so with drudgery and even disdain for the humiliation of learning a 100 year old, obsolete mode of communication. Period. There are better digital modes than CW that take up less bandspace and are much more accurate than CW. So CW has no qualities in and of itself and should be viewed as an obscure mode used by old-timers that enjoy it but release those of us that despise it to learn what we enjoy.
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Friend,
You are still reading what you want to see. Exactly where in this sentence does the FCC address whether or not basic CW skills should or should not be a license requirement?
"We conclude, therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to provide emergency communications."
This only addresses whether or not CW proficiency is an indicator of an individual's ability or preparedness to provide emergency communications. It says nothing about whether or not requiring basic CW skills are involved in the FCC's charge to enhance the capability of the Amateur Radio Service to offer emergency communications.
Understanding AX.25 packet header components is not a significant factor in determining an individuals ability or preparedness to provide emergency communications. An understanding of how SSB signals are generated in a filter-type transmitter is not a significant factor in determining an individuals ability or preparedness to provide emergency communications. An understanding of the difference between Phase and Frequency modulation in modern 2 meter FM transmitters is not a significant factor in determining an individuals ability or preparedness to provide emergency communications.
Your rationale would lead to the total elimination of any testing beyond the ability to read the scale on a power meter and/or frequency counter to insure the station is meeting power and frequency limitations. The FCC could even eliminate that requirement by mandating the use of channelized, type accepted equipment in the Amateur Radio Service. No more homebrew equipment!
Welcome to the Amateur Radio Service auxilary of the Citizens Band Service.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suggest you read the FCC Rules and Regulations pertaining to the Amateur Radio Service, especially Part 97, before describing the ARS as a "volunteer hobby". The government does not provide you access to valuable spectrum space to indulge your need for a "hobby". It is that kind of thinking that will allow Broadband over Power Lines to turn this spectrum we use into an unusable wasteland. Or perhaps the next threat will be broadcasting or paging or whatever.
Make sure your Congressmen and Senators believe that what we do is nothing more than a "volunteer hobby". Perhaps we can just eliminate all the debate by making sure all of Congress views us as just a "volunteer hobby". They can then allocate our spectrum to others who will use it for something more productive than use as a "hobby". Voila! No more debate!
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR:
Don't sneer at the distances we have to cover here in the East. It's a long way from Memphis to Bristol or Miami to Tallahassee or Buffalo to Brooklyn, and none of those distance completely span an entire state!
As for the needs of the states west of the Mississippi, I feel that the locals should define their own requirements. Here are some of the state nets out west (according to the local ARES/RACES or state emergency management web sites):
Washington
80 m PACTOR
2 m packet
80 m LSB
10 m USB
2 m FM
California
80 m LSB
40 m LSB
Hawaii
80 m LSB
No telegraphy.
BTW, my portable solar array will keep my FT-817 or my Argonaut V going with a laptop running PSK31 indefinely as long as I get 6 hours of sun per day. The rig can be backpacked and gets taken to the field several times a year. You can see it in operation at Field Day by clicking on my call sign link above.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY
"Very few build transceiver nowdays."
Really? I suggest you contact Elcraft and Vectronics to obtain their projected sales figures for this year and next. The majority of their sales are for - CW - transmitters and transceivers, many of which are for use in communication emergencies.
"There are better digital modes than CW that take up less bandspace and are much more accurate than CW. So CW has no qualities in and of itself and should be viewed as an obscure mode used by old-timers that enjoy it but release those of us that despise it to learn what we enjoy."
None of those modes are as power efficient as CW. In an emergency of any duration, power efficiency becomes a paramount consideration. I lived through an ice storm that took out most power in the area for three days and in some areas (such as mine) for over a week. Gasoline was difficult to obtain because pumps wouldn't work, cash registers wouldn't work, etc. What gas you had was saved for running the generator to keep the furnace and fan running - not for running a power hungry computer and commercial rig. My HW-9, a small battery, and a solar panel were quite happy for the whole week, however.
We still have a Hayburner Sheriff's Auxilary in existence here - just because sometimes the older ways are still more reliable and useful in adverse conditions.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NI0C on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YKY:
Some quotes from you are: "very few get excited about learning it," "disdain for the humiliation of learning," and "despise it."
The same things could be said about bicycling (another 100 year old skill), especially if the only bike one had ever seen was a 20 inch kid's bike with training wheels. However, some years ago, I got hooked on bicycle road racing when I watched a criterium race in a local park. I applied the basic riding skills I learned as a kid and got out on the road and trained. I entered local races and got left behind by the pack. But I stuck with it until I was actually winning some races.
Likewise, I got excited about CW when I heard (and saw) some high speed operators communicating effortlessly and beautifully. But I wasn't too impressed by what I heard on the Novice bands.
Would I have taken up bicycle racing if I had never learned the basics of riding as a child? I doubt it.
In fact, if I had never ridden a bicycle, I would not be qualified to make a judgement about the sport of road racing.
Likewise, I feel that anyone who has not bothered even to memorize the Morse code characters is not qualified to have an opinion on its usefulness in communications.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY suggests that "filters" on a hobby are unheard of. Untrue.
1) Scuba diving requires various levels of certification;
2) Flying a private aircraft has various levels of certification (single, multi, etc; and
3) Driving a large RV requires a special class of driver's license.
The list goes on and on.
Liberals in the democrat party have convinced large segments of our siociety that they don't need to work for things and that they are somehow "entitled" to government goodies without earning them.
In ham radio, like life, you get what you earn.
And what is wrong with rewarding effort?
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C wrote:
"...anyone who has not bothered even to memorize the Morse code characters is not qualified to have an opinion on its usefulness in communications"
I agree.
I place little credibillity in arguments propigated by those with little or no knowlege of what they say.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR:
I believe KD5YDY is correct when she describes amateur radio a volunteer hobby. According to Part 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: a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service ... " Sure sounds like a volunteer hobby to me.
Your agrument concerning telegraphy as a qualification for emergency services misses the point. You have set up a straw man by asserting that knowledge of AX.25 has nothing do with the ability to handle emergency communications. Well, yes, but so what?
First you argue that knowledge of Morse code is vital because it might be used in an emergency. Therefore, all hams operating below 30 MHz should have pass a telegraphy test. The FCC disagrees and explictly states that the only reason they have retained telegraphy testing is a ITU Rule. Then you proceed to argue that since understanding of the technical basis of communications is not really a prerequisite for being able to handle emergency communications, that one can eliminate all testing for a ham license. That's nonsense.
As the Commission has plainly stated, amateur radio is fundamentally a technical service. Clearly, testing for technical qualifications is a reasonable way to assure the public that its spectrum is likely to be used by competent experimenters and hobbyists. There is no rational basis to assume that the elimination of telegraphy testing should lead to the end of technical testing. That being the case, do you really believe that the average CBer could pass Elements 3 or 4?
Get a grip.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KD5YDY:
I didn't post my comments to the NCI petition. I figured the two pages of comments I posted to the first (NCVEC) petition were more than enough.
Make sure your reasearch is complete before you go off half cocked.
KE4MOB
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to net sources on the internet:
California:
Southern Ca.Net 3598
San Diego Section ARES 3720
Hawaii
Hawaii Emergency Net 7088
Pacific ARES Net 7080
Washington
Washington State Net 3658, 7038
New York
New York State County Net 3677
These are all shown as Emergency nets. I suspect you will find CW emergency nets in just about all sections of the country.
While I applaud you for having been able to afford getting an FT817, an Argonaut V, and a laptop setup for emergency purposes all driven by a solar array, many of us cannot afford such a setup. I picked up my HW-9 for about $50 non-working and fixed it myself (how much repair work can you do on your FT-817 or Argonaut V when it breaks down in the field?). The solar panel was about $50 and the two gel cells were purchased at an auction for $4 apiece. For just around $100 I have a setup that I can repair myself with a battery powered VOM, an rf probe, and a battery powered frequency counter if needed. With a small tuner, a slingshot, a piece of wire, a butane soldering iron, and a handful of parts I can go anywhere, anytime and be able to communicate and repair problems.
I don't mean to run down your equipment, I would very much like to have some, but when emergency equipment is being subjected to the adverse conditions of violent movement, temperature extremes, dusty environments, etc, I would rather have a simple HW9 that I can troubleshoot and fix on-site, especially when my family and neighbors well-being could depend upon my ability to communicate.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH:
You are right. However, there is no ITU requirement for amateur testing..there's suggestions on what an amateur licensee should know, but nowhere is it defined what exactly a ham should know.
And are there commercial services currently operating with no testing whatsoever? Yep. So there really is no reason to test hams. It's not mandated by the ITU, and there are other services getting along fine without it.
PS. I really don't think this, I'm just carrying the argument to it's logical (and absurd) extreme.
KE4MOB
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE:
My call sign's W3JJH, and I'm a recovering Democrat. I haven't voted for a Democrat for over 10 years now.
I believe that you are mistaken when you try to connect those who favor the end of telegraphy testing with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. I left the Democratic Party over 25 years ago when I realized that it was the party of overregulation.
Don't you realize that when a regulatory agency continues force an obsolete regulation on the public, it is doing exactly what the left wing busy bodies want?
I agree that one should have to demonstrate some level of technical qualification before being granted access to the public's spectrum. I disagree with the assertion that telegraphy testing is a valid test in the 21st century.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oops, my bad. My comments to the FCC on the NCVEC petiton were 3 1/4 rather than 2 pages:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514782726
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4MOB:
You reasoning falls apart because of a false premise. You seem to assume that the ITU Rules are the only thing that guides the FCC in amateur regulation. The Commission must also consider US statute and case law and the precedents set by its own fact finding.
It's a fact that the FCC said that they couldn't eliminate testing because of ITU Rule S25, and it's a fact that S25 has changed. It's a fact that the Commission has said that telegraphy testing serves no good regulatory purpose. It's the law that regulations cannot be arbitrary and capricious and should be minimally intrustive. It follows from this that the FCC should eliminate telegraphy testing.
It does not follow that any other qualification for a ham license should be changed. The Commission is obliged to manage the spectrum (and license users when necessary) in the public interest.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR:
Yeah, if it really hit the fan, I'd drag out a Tuna Tin 2. When the chips are down, I'd out MacGyver MacGyver if that's what it took to save lives. So what? That doesn't mean that every ham must be telegraphy tested.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH:
Congratulations on your "recovery". Liberal-ossis is a terrible affliction! I'm glad you are cured.
As you will see, us conservatives (unlike the liberal folks you abandoned)have room for disagreement and will not seek to destroy you just because you disagree. Suffice it to say I just oppose the "I'm entitled" mentality of some (not all) of the people advanceing the "daddy I can't learn code" crowd.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH:
You wrote:
"it's a fact that S25 has changed. It's a fact that the Commission has said that telegraphy testing serves no good regulatory purpose".
I have never seen any such official comment. If it exists, please point me to it. What the commission actually said was:
"We believe that an individual's ability to demonstrate INCREASED Morse code proficiency is not necessaraly indicative of that individual's ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art"
Those words, do not support your assertion. Your conclusion does not follow that statement.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR:
KD5YDY isn't too far off base when she says that very few build transceivers today. What do you think Elecraft's market share is compared to Yaesu's? Or even Ten Tec's?
Back in the '60s, I made some of my spending money by building kits for other people. Do you remember Eico, Heathkit, and Knight Kit? Have you ever built an E. F. Johnson radio from a kit? How about an Ameco? 40 years ago, I saw kit-built gear in almost every ham shack I visited. Except for boat anchors, I rarely see a kit radio these days. I haven't built a kit for years.
I still homebrew, mostly QRP or lowfer gear, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
40 years ago, we were able to tinker more with radios. Today, most of us don't have the test equipment required. So the main tinkering aspect of the hobby has moved on to software development and other areas.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE:
"30. Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded by the arguments of those commenters opposing reduction or elimination of the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a license requirement in the amateur service. ... We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service."--FCC R&O 99-412 @ 30.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH
"Sure sounds like a volunteer hobby to me."
You are equating "voluntary noncommercial communication service" with "voluntary noncommercial communication hobby"?
I suggest you go back to the Federal Regulations to see what a "Service" is as compared to a "hobby". They are not equivalent. For instance, under the Wireless Bureau, there are a Direct Broadcast Service, Fixed Microwave Service, Personal Radio Service, Radio Broadcast Service, Cable Television Service, etc. If you think these services are hobbies, you are only promulgating the disappearance of the Amateur Radio Service via the "let's get some revenue out of the spectrum" argument.
"Your agrument concerning telegraphy as a qualification for emergency services misses the point. You have set up a straw man by asserting that knowledge of AX.25 has nothing do with the ability to handle emergency communications. Well, yes, but so what?"
I didn't set up the strawman, I only extended the rationale set up by the original strawman. If knowledge of CW isn't a significant factor in predicting the ability of a person to provide or be prepared to provide emergency communications then why should any technical knowledge be useful? If we can abandon CW requirements because it isn't useful in predicting ability or preparedness then we can abandon technical knowledge requirements because they aren't useful in predicting the ability or preparedness for providing emergency communications. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to use the argument to justify dropping the CW requirement then I can use it to justify dropping technical knowlege requirements.
"The FCC disagrees and explictly states that the only reason they have retained telegraphy testing is a ITU Rule."
First off, let me point you to the three questions asked by the FCC in the R&O:
"23. In the Notice we sought comment on all aspects of the Morse code standards used in our examinations. We asked whether, in view of the technologies that amateur radio operators use to communicate today, the three telegraphy proficiency levels remain relevant to contemporary communications practices. We also asked whether we should continue to have three different telegraphy examination standards or whether the telegraphy standard should be reduced to one or two telegraphy examination elements -- and, if so, what the required speed(s) should be. With regard to the administration of the telegraphy examination element, we asked in the Notice whether we should consider specifying the method of examining for Morse code proficiency instead of allowing VEs to determine how to test for code speed if we were to reduce the required Morse code examination elements."
They did not ask if the Morse requirement should be eliminated. They asked if the three different proficiency levels remain relevant, if having three different proficiency levels is needed, and if testing procedures should be mandated.
Their decision was:
"25. Decision. We have considered the comments on this issue and conclude that the public interest will best be served by reducing the telegraphy examination requirement to the minimum requirement that we have found that meets the Radio Regulations and that has been accepted as proving that the control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that station."
Please note carefully the conjunction "and" in the sentence above. Even if the Radio Regulations are changed to eliminate the minimum requirements for telegraphy, the "and" phrase that "accepted as proving that the control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that station" still applies. That phrase has not been rendered moot nor has it be deleted in any way. The debate we see going on today is basically the debate that will be needed by the FCC to justify removing the CW requirement totally from Amateur Radio Service operators.
"Then you proceed to argue that since understanding of the technical basis of communications is not really a prerequisite for being able to handle emergency communications, that one can eliminate all testing for a ham license. That's nonsense."
As I said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to use the argument for eliminating the CW requirement then you have to accept the same argument for eliminating the technical requirement.
"There is no rational basis to assume that the elimination of telegraphy testing should lead to the end of technical testing. That being the case, do you really believe that the average CBer could pass Elements 3 or 4?"
REACT (i.e. CB radio operators) members provide valuable emergency communications services in some parts of the country. Apparently their lack of knowledge of technical requirements was not an indication of their ability or preparedness to provide emergency communications.
If the argument that CW doesn't need to be a testing requirement because people will learn and use cw on their own then it also applies to technical knowledge. People will learn the technical knowledge and advance the service because they want to, not because it is a licensing requirement.
"Get a grip."
Hoist by your own petard.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"KD5YDY isn't too far off base when she says that very few build transceivers today. What do you think Elecraft's market share is compared to Yaesu's? Or even Ten Tec's?"
Then why maintain the fiction that technical knowledge is a requirement for licensing?
"I still homebrew, mostly QRP or lowfer gear, but that's the exception rather than the rule. "
Then why maintain the fiction that technical knowledge is a requirement for licensing?
"40 years ago, we were able to tinker more with radios. Today, most of us don't have the test equipment required. So the main tinkering aspect of the hobby has moved on to software development and other areas."
Then why maintain the fiction that technical knowledge is a requirement for licensing?
Why not change the testing to knowledge of C or C++ or basic Unix system administration? Why not test for the ability to be able to read an appliance dial and set the proper frequency and power level and be done with it?
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"30. Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded by the arguments of those commenters opposing reduction or elimination of the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a license requirement in the amateur service. ... We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service."--FCC R&O 99-412 @ 30."
Perhaps you missed the words "the emphasis on"? This doesn't say that Morse should be eliminated, only deemphasized.
My dictionary does not show emphasize and eliminate as synonyms.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Amateur Radio Service has three sub-services. The amateur service, the amateur satellite service, and the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES).
Let me quote from the Civil Preparedness Guide published by FEMA:
" 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."
Some of these frequencies include 3.50-3.55Mhz, 7.079-7.125Mhz, 14.047-14.053Mhz, etc.
These are CW subbands. Is the government going to authorize voice operation in these subbands if the War Emergency powers are enacted? Are they going to make these subbands digital only?
Exactly how is the FCC going to meet its obligation with respect to "enhancement of the value of the Amateur Radio Service as a non-commercial service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications." when RACES is an integral part of the Amateur Radio Service?
Can the FCC meet the obligation by dropping all CW requirements? Would this risk lowering the pool of qualified RACES operators able to use the CW sub-bands reserved for the use of RACES stations in the case of a national emergency? If it risks lowering the pool of qualified operators then is the FCC meeting its charge to enhance the value of the Amateur Radio Service for emergency communications as far as RACES is concerned?
Is the FCC going to declare RACES as a voice and digital service only?
Are they going to go back to issuing RACES station licenses/operator licenses with having CW proficiency as a requirement to obtain a RACES license?
How does this square with the recent Memo of Understanding signed by the ARRL and Homeland Security?
Lots of areas haven't even been touched yet in this debate.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR:
It's clear from your posts that you do not agree with me. That's fine.
Here's my advice for what it's worth: You should file comments with the FCC against the NCVEC and NCI petitions. I wouldn't bother with the others. Explain your point of view to the Commission. Explain to the Commission why you believe telegraphy testing is all that stands between orderly HF amateur radio and an expanded, lawless Citizens Band. Explain to them how they erred when they determined "We do not concur with the comments alleging that the passing of a telegraphy examination is an indication of the examinee's good character, high intelligence, cooperative demeanor, or willingness to comply with our rules. These traits are also found in individuals who have not passed a telegraphy examination rather that being exclusive to those who have passed such a test."
Rather than just piss and moan on a internet chat board, I've filed my comments with the FCC. You missed an opportunity to file on BPL; don't fail to stick up for your beliefs this time.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
FEMA is authorized by the NTIA to use USB on all of its HF allocations. FEMA is not subject to regulation by the FCC.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"FEMA is authorized by the NTIA to use USB on all of its HF allocations. FEMA is not subject to regulation by the FCC."
RACES is not FEMA. FEMA is not RACES. What FEMA can do has no bearing on what RACES can do.
Per the CPG: Par 3-3(d) " Many other modes are available that could be used for emergency communications; however, the modes listed in subparagraphs 3-3c(1), (2), and (3) should be considered before other modes. Mode selection must be within the boundaries of FCC Rules and Regulations and the authorized modes for the frequencies listed in this plan. VHF frequency modulation could provide a reliable voice link between mobile units, pedestrians, and the EOC.
The CPG lists Voice, RTTY, and Packet as the three first choice methods of communication but states in 3-3(d) that "many others" are available, e.g. CW.
Since none of the RACES operators that I know of can operate HF packet, HF RTTY, or even HF psk31 on an emergency basis in the CW portions of the amateur bands, that really leaves only one other mode that is within the boundaries of the FCC Rules and Regulations and authorized modes for the CW portions of the band - i.e. CW.
In fact, I know of at least 2 state EOC's who do not have the capability of HF RTTY, HF Packet, or HF psk31. The only use they can make of the HF cw-subbands are CW. I suspect you will find a number of state EOC's that are equipped the same.
This is still a point the FCC is going to have to address.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Rather than just piss and moan on a internet chat board, I've filed my comments with the FCC. You missed an opportunity to file on BPL; don't fail to stick up for your beliefs this time."
Are you somehow operating under the mistaken belief that one has to have personally filed their comments with the FCC in order for their input to have been provided?
This isn't a voting contest. The FCC does not rule based on the "numbers" of comments received one way or the other. They rule based on the merits of the arguments.
If you think my views have not been input, you are wrong. But that explains some of your posts.
I suggest you ask how many of the comments that have been filed are the result of consenus among a group of hams and how many are strictly personal with no outside input or debate.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
FEMA is the proponent agency for the NCS under which RACES and other emergency services would operate in the event of war or national emergency. If amateur radio is shut down and RACES is activated, only stations that are part of the NCS may be on the air. In normal drills operators are limited to working under the terms of their license. If FEMA activates RACES into the NCS, then we will play by their rules.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well, folks, that pretty well pounds this one into the ground. There were some reasonable points raised, but, on the whole, the keep-on-testing crowd's posts reminded me of W. C. Fields on his death bed. He wasn't a religious man, but a friend found him reading the Bible. When the friend asked him what he was doing, Fields replied, "Looking for loopholes."
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Is testing mandated by the ITU? No.
Is testing the least intrusive method to ensure regulatory compliance? No.
Does testing ensure operator qualifications? No. We all know Extras who are technically incompotent.
Therefore, why should hams be forced to take tests period? Because that's the way we have always done it? After CW testing is removed, there stands precedent for the next logical step.
On a philosophical basis, all testing is irrelevant. Let's just hope no one realizes this and uses the arguments stated above.
PS..If it was relevant, then why did the FCC let go of the management of the question pool?
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
About RACES:
The FCC has long ago abandoned licensing new RACES stations. In many instances, RACES has been combined with ARES into an ARES/RACES contingent, and typically trains under ARES rather than RACES because of the restrictions on RACES practice air time.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I listened to 75m and 40m all weekend, wall-to-wall voice nets, with meaningless topics (grass needs cutting, we need some rain so I don't have to sprinkle the grass) rag-chewing, etc. If 99% of your operating time is spent doing what you want to do on the air and only 1% is emergency communications, this is a voluntary Hobby. PERIOD.
I think the best thing the FCC could do to clean up 75m is to bump everybody back to general, then make every one of you earn your EXTRA privileges through public service. To keep the privileges, you must remain active in public service. And just checking into a net does not qualify as public service. Then issue demerit points everytime one of you demonstrate behavior inconsistent with how a ham should behave. Some of you would never be extras again. Because you've forgotten how to be decent human beings. There are far too many extras claiming squatters rights to band spectrum that is owned by nobody and is allocated for primary use to Amateur Radio as a whole.
And remember, during an emergency even a non-licensed ham can use the airwaves to call for help using any mode anywhere on the spectrum. So if you think traditional bandplans require use of CW for emergencies, you've forgotten an awful lot of what was on your exam. There is a big thrust by ARRL for more hams over age 55 to get involved in ARES and emergency communications. Too many of you folks are wasting the bandwidth with your drivel and "organ recitals", and no longer active in any emergency communications whatsoever. This is not a hobby that excuses you from participation in public service once you're an Extra. In fact, Extra is supposed to mean something very different than the fact that you know Morse code.
Technical knowledge is required to operate on the air. How would you know if you're within PEP limits, splattering over the edge of a band, using more power than necessary--You know all those rules you must follow to not be in violation of FCC rules? You need to know how to fix a mismatch. You have to know the rules and then you need enough technical knowledge to know if you are within the boundaries of the rules.
The next time one of you grumpy old men tell me to "Go Knit and Get Lost", is time you're license should be suspended. The FCC will license anyone that is interested and passes the exam regardless of age, gender, political party, race, religion or health status. Every licensed ham should be treated with respect and courtesy like you should treat every other human being on earth.
The reason the FCC licenses pilots, and drivers of big RVs is not for the purpose of "filtering." It's because the potential for endangering other human life is very high if operated incorrectly. The license provides demonstrated evidence that you can participate in your hobby without endangering the lives and property of others.
I never said I didn't or couldn't learn code. Your assumptions are unfounded so just quit accusing when you don't know what you're talking about. What I did say is that I detested the code and felt humilitated that I had to learn an antiquated mode that I will never use. That says I have experience with the mode.
As for the bicycle riders: recent scientific findings show that 75% of male bikers (serious bikers) have suffered permanent nerve damage to a certain vital organ and are impotent. Policemen on extended bike assignments are complaining of numbness. This fact alone might make some want to think twice about taking up bicycling as a hobby.
73,
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim, AB0WR,
As you are very avidly pro-code in EMCOMM, perhaps you can answer a question that no pro-coders have answered yet: Find me *one* instance in the United States in the last 50 years, of a communications emergency, in which HF communication was required out of the emergency area, and code was used because conditions didn't allow voice propagation.
You have a lot of theoretic reasons for retaining code, but, as Peter Salus put the old saw: The difference between theory and practice is always larger in practice.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K1RFD on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Tremendously interesting and entertaining reading. I applaud the contributors to this thread for expressing their positions so elegantly. A refreshing change from the usual drivel.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The government does not provide you access to valuable spectrum space to indulge your need for a "hobby"."
Did the regs change when I wasn't looking? Does this mean I have to give up my R/C car and R/C planes? Do I have to stop using my GPS receiver for geocaching? Do I have to give up my R/C model railroad? Do I have to stop getting telemetry radioed from my model rockets?
Of course the government provides access to spectrum for hobbies. And the ARS is just one of many to which it provides such spectrum.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NI0C on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KD5YDY,
You came across in at least one of your posts as someone who had not put in the effort to learn the code, so I apologize if I was wrong about that.
If you learned the code, and still don't like it, then you have earned the right to detest it. I think I made my point with the cycling analogy, however. I feel it is important for prospective hams to learn the Morse language before forming an opinion about it. I am sincerely sorry that your experience with the code was apparently not pleasant.
If your statistics concerning cyclists are correct, then I guess I should consider myself lucky to be in the 25 percent category! Actually I gave up racing a number of years ago, after narrowly avoiding serious injury or death when I was sideswiped (purposefully) by a hostile driver in a pick-up truck on a quiet, flat road with no other traffic. Training ceased to be fun after that.
73 to you,
Chuck NI0C
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> KD5YDY suggests that "filters" on a hobby are unheard of. Untrue.
> 1) Scuba diving requires various levels of certification;
> 2) Flying a private aircraft has various levels of certification
> (single, multi, etc; and
> 3) Driving a large RV requires a special class of driver's license.
> The list goes on and on.
In the context of the code debate, a 'filter' is a test for one thing
that is claimed to demonstrate another. For example, it is asserted
that passing the Morse test demonstrates a committment to the hobby.
None of the tests you describe above or filters, they are tests for
proficiency in skills essential to safely participating in the hobby.
Scuba divers, for example, aren't required to pass a test on exotic
gas diving in order to get their basic certificate.
> Liberals in the democrat party have convinced large segments of our
> siociety that they don't need to work for things and that they are
> somehow "entitled" to government goodies without earning them.
Why is it that pro-coders so often descend to ad hominem attack?
There's no reason this can't be a civilized discussion.
> In ham radio, like life, you get what you earn.
Tell that to Sam Walton's heirs ;)
> And what is wrong with rewarding effort?
Nothing. Which is why the element 2, 3, and 4 tests should be
retained.
It's a funny thing. One part of the pro-code camp argues that passing
the code test is 'as easy as child's play' while another, overlapping
part argues that it is 'an effort demonstrating committment to the
hobby.'
And here I thought that all those years of engineering were what I was
being rewarded for. Who knew?
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC8SKX on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LIKE I SAID THE CODE IS DEAD
KILL THE CODE REQUIREMENT
OR KILL HAM RADIO
ALSO KILL THE ARRL FOR SUPPORTING THE CODE
KC8SKX
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> According to net sources on the internet:
> [various nets mentioned]
> These are all shown as Emergency nets. I suspect you will find CW
> emergency nets in just about all sections of the country.
While they may be emergency nets, they may not be active. I can't
speak to the San Diego area, but I know that in the Central Valley and
San Francisco area, many of the "emergency" nets, as well as many of
the NTS nets, are simply not happening.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I know of at least one instance this spring, associated with tornado relief, where the ham that was dispatched with the Salvation Army canteen could not make contact over voice with the SATERN net because of path loss, power, etc but could make contact using CW. (Was this a had-to-get-out, life and death emergency? I guess not, but it could have been).
It was in the late 80's when our week long power outage occured due to an ice storm (I would have to dig out the old logbooks to determine exactly when) when I personally used CW as the mode of communication because I didn't have a phone rig that was battery powered. The QRP rig worked fine on CW. (Was this a life and death, had-to-get-out emergency? No, but it could have been had someone been sick or injured. Telephone lines were down, power was out, roads were ice-covered and impassible)
I was personally involved in a state-wide drill that occured this spring where the state EOC locations just could not communicate reliably on SSB on either 80m or 40m because of propagation, signals were just too weak. CW worked even with the weak signals. Had this not been a drill, and had amateur radio communications been needed it would have been real bad without cw ops on both ends.
Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Then why maintain the fiction that technical knowledge is a requirement for licensing?"
Because tinkering isn't the only use for technical knowledge. The FCC should test for technical knowledge for the same reason that scuba divers are tested for certain technical knowledge: safety.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Did the regs change when I wasn't looking? Does this mean I have to give up my R/C car and R/C planes? Do I have to stop using my GPS receiver for geocaching? Do I have to give up my R/C model railroad? Do I have to stop getting telemetry radioed from my model rockets?
Of course the government provides access to spectrum for hobbies. And the ARS is just one of many to which it provides such spectrum. "
The regs must have changed when you were not looking.
Do you see anything in the statement and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service that even remotely mentions that the government is allocating this spectrum for "hobby" use? I don't.
TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
COMMISSION (CONTINUED)
PART 97--AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE--Table of Contents
Subpart A--General Provisions
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:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.
I would point out to those no-coders among us that the "basis and purpose" mention advancing skills in BOTH "communication and technical phases". It doesn't say advancing skills "in newly developed communication techniques". It doesn't say only in "technical phases" of the art.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Exactly how is the FCC going to meet its obligation with respect to
> "enhancement of the value of the Amateur Radio Service as a
> non-commercial service, particularly with respect to providing
> emergency communications." when RACES is an integral part of the
> Amateur Radio Service?
FWIW, the FCC doesn't subdivide the amateur service into separate
services. It does, however, define four types of amateur liicenses:
operator/primary station
club station
military recreation station
RACES station
The FCC stopped licensing RACES stations because "by eliminating RACES
station licenses, it would eliminate licensing duplication because
emergency communications that are now transmitted by RACES stations
also may be transmitted by primary, club or military recreation
stations." (ARRL FCC Rule book, 12th edition page 1-9)
Further, RACES station licenses are not held by hams, they are held
"license custodians" who *must* be the civil defense official
responsible for coordination of all civil defense activities in the
area concerned.
> Can the FCC meet the obligation by dropping all CW requirements? Would
> this risk lowering the pool of qualified RACES operators able to use
> the CW sub-bands reserved for the use of RACES stations in the case of
> a national emergency? If it risks lowering the pool of qualified
> operators then is the FCC meeting its charge to enhance the value of
> the Amateur Radio Service for emergency communications as far as RACES
> is concerned?
The question you are begging here is: does a one time test of
proficiency make any difference?
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> How does this square with the recent Memo of Understanding signed by
> the ARRL and Homeland Security?
The ARRL didn't sign a MoU with DHS, despite the hype.
They signed it with Citzen's Corp. CC also cooperates with REACT and
CERT, neither of which require any license at all to communicate.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Because tinkering isn't the only use for technical knowledge. The FCC should test for technical knowledge for the same reason that scuba divers are tested for certain technical knowledge: safety."
Safety testing is not the same as technical knowledge testing. If we want to test for safety we need to test for knowledge of how to handle high voltage circuits and how to avoid rf exposure. That's already done in the basic Tech test. So we can do away with all other Elements?
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wrote:
>> "Did the regs change when I wasn't looking? Does this mean I have to
>> give up my R/C car and R/C planes? Do I have to stop using my GPS
>> receiver for geocaching? Do I have to give up my R/C model railroad?
>> Do I have to stop getting telemetry radioed from my model rockets?
>> Of course the government provides access to spectrum for hobbies. And
>> the ARS is just one of many to which it provides such spectrum. "
AB0WR replies
> The regs must have changed when you were not looking. Do you see
> anything in the statement and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service
> that even remotely mentions that the government is allocating this
> spectrum for "hobby" use? I don't.
You claimed that the government doesn't allocate spectrum for hobby
use. I pointed out 4 hobbies uses that have spectrum allocated.
And you know what? the word "hobby" doesn't appear anywhere in
95.201-95.225 either, (the R/C rules) but every one who uses the
service knows that they're participating in a hobby.
meanwhile, back in the ARS, 97.3(4) defines the service as:
Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations
carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons
interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and
without pecuniary interest.
I can't think of a better litmus test for a hobby than "with a persnal
aim and without pecuniary interest."
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Safety testing is not the same as technical knowledge testing. If we
> want to test for safety we need to test for knowledge of how to handle
> high voltage circuits and how to avoid rf exposure. That's already
> done in the basic Tech test. So we can do away with all other
> Elements?
Safety testing *incorporates* technical knowledge testing. The
knoweldge necessary to behave safely in a technical hobby is technical
knowledge.
Safety knowledge isn't the only thing tested differently between the
elements, so no, I don't think it's time to do away with them --
unless you wanted to go one step further and have only one set of
operating priviliges and give the element 4 test (composed only of
saftey and regulatory matters, of course,) to everyone. I can
see that making sense.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seen earlier;
>>>"Safety testing is not the same as technical knowledge testing. If we want to test for safety we need to test for knowledge of how to handle high voltage circuits and how to avoid rf exposure. That's already done in the basic Tech test. So we can do away with all other Elements?"<<<
Tim, I've read your posts:........They started out as fairly well constructed logical arguments, but now you're beginning to loose it.
Is this debate really worth your credibility?
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"FWIW, the FCC doesn't subdivide the amateur service into separate services. It does, however, define four types of amateur liicenses: "
Actually it does subdivide the ARS. See the Sec. 97.3 definition below:
Sec. 97.3 Definitions.
(a) The definitions of terms used in part 97 are:
..............
(2) Amateur radio services. The amateur service, the amateur-satellite service and the radio amateur civil emergency service.
"The question you are begging here is: does a one time test of proficiency make any difference? "
I'm not begging it at all. It is my opinion that it absolutely does make a difference.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Red Cross gives certification for CPR and first aid but it expires and must be recertified every two years. Even nurses and physicians have to recertify (my sister's an emergency room nurse and helicopter nurse), but she must recertify according to hospital requirements.
So if a skill is truly vital, necessary to protect life and property, recertification is always necessary. If you have a clean driving record, you might be rewarded by not having to take the written rules of the road next time around. Some states require all people applying for driver's license in their state to perform behind the wheel test even if they've been licensed by another state.
But there are many known cases of "uncertified people" successfully saving lives with CPR. If the absolute only way a person had to send an emergency message was by morse code, anybody could get a message out with the morse alphabet in front of them. (maybe not at 35wpm but if all you want is the message to get out, it can be done by most anyone without memorizing the code and practicing.) And if sent slow enough, anybody could write down the dits and dahs and translate back to alphabet. There's nothing magical about Morse code. It is still a very slow way to communicate and is very prone to human error. That's the very reason it is so rarely used in emergency situations nowdays.
I heard alot of hams over the weekend talking about being without electricity due to Isabel's fury. Almost all of them were on their radios though. Emergency batteries and generators are highly recommended for this hobby. At our last ARES net, we were asked to a check-in to explain what type of emergency power system was available to each of us. I don't need a full-powered computer or even a notebook to do APRS. A simple PDA and HT will do the trick.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I can't think of a better litmus test for a hobby than "with a persnal aim and without pecuniary interest."
Really? The time I spend volunteering in the Boy Scouts, in the SATERN organization, Meals-on-Wheels and in church groups means these are all "hobbies"?
Participating in these makes me feel good, I learn a LOT, and I have no pecuniary interest in any of them.
I am not paid by the Boy Scouts, by the Salvation Army, by Meals-on-Wheels, or by the church.
That means I am not a paid professional Boy Scout, I am not a paid professional in the Salvation Army, I am not a paid professional social worker, and I am not a paid professional by the church for the services I provide.
The definition you provide is the definition of "amateur", not "hobby".
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I didn't say anything about money. I said, what is most of time spent doing on the radio? Ragchewing, contesting, checking into nets with friends, etc. None of these activities are emergency communications. But by engaging in these, you acquire skills to operate your radio under a variety of conditions and stresses, exactly what you need when doing emergency communications.
Volunteer "work" is separate and distinct from a hobby. I volunteer for the Red Cross and I developed and maintain their website. This isn't a hobby for me. It is a way of giving back to society the same as Boy Scouts, Meals on Wheels.
The distinction between volunteering to help others and just getting on the radio to chat with others, earn awards, contests, etc. are not done to help others. They are for your own personal enjoyment, self-satisfaction maybe. And when it requires the purchase of expensive equipment, you deserve to enjoy what you buy. There's nothing wrong with calling ham radio a hobby. I think that's how ARRL introduces it to newcomers. A hobby with an underlying purpose of having skilled operators in the event of an emergency. So as we enjoy our radios, we're continually improving our operating skills.
This is the first time I've ever heard a ham object to calling amateur radio a hobby. According to Miriam-Webster's online dictionary a hobby is "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation." That's exactly what we do in ham radio.
I sure enjoy it as a hobby. Better than the expensive mountain bike that sits in the garage with less than 20 miles on the odometer. :-)
73, KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>"Safety testing is not the same as technical knowledge testing. If we want to test for safety we need to test for knowledge of how to handle high voltage circuits and how to avoid rf exposure. That's already done in the basic Tech test. So we can do away with all other Elements?"<<<
>>Tim, I've read your posts:........They started out as fairly well constructed logical arguments, but now you're beginning to loose it.
>>Is this debate really worth your credibility?
I'm not worried about it. I have provided a significant amount of safety training to my wife and kids on how to handle things in the ham shack in case of emergency. None of them have a lick of technical knowledge concerning electricity or radio. BTW, they *can* tune a radio dial (learned from the FM tuner). If all we want is a safety test and to ensure someone can set the dial correctly, we can dumb the present Tech test down even further and still get by ok.
I can teach a farmer all about the safety procedures to follow when handling the high pressure hydraulic system on his new tractor but I don't need to teach him anything about the physics of hydraulics, the engineering behind the hoses that handle the high pressure fluid, the mechanics behind the high pressure pumps that move the fluid, or the chemistry of the hydraulic fluid.
The same thing applies to appliance operators in the Amateur Radio Service. If that is where we want to take the service, then so be it. It won't be long before the revenue producing users of the spectrum take it from us in that case.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Volunteer "work" is separate and distinct from a hobby."
"Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,"
I don't see the difference. You are saying "volunteer" participation in one organization providing service to the public *is not* a hobby while participation in the other another organization providing service to the public *is* a hobby.
The government established purpose and basis for the Amateur Radio Service is "service to the public". How is this any different than the Boy Scouts "service to the public" through the training of young men in character and citizenship?
It is obvious that how you view what you do and what the government had in mind when establishing the Amateur Radio Service are two different things. I reiterate, when the government reaches your viewpoint of the ARS we can plan on the "hobby" disappearing in favor of revenue producing "services" using the spectrum.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This propagation on this thread has degraded seriously. I'll check back when the "weather clears". The problem is that amateur radio is mostly a HOBBY and OCCASIONALLY a service. I don't know any hams that don't use their ham radios for the pure enjoyment of it. And we are encouraged to be of service when our skills are needed. There's no better thrill for me than to spend all day assembling and erecting a new antenna and then test it out. When all works well, it's a great day. Problems? Just another puzzle to be solved.
People that deny this is a hobby take themselves way too seriously. We would be insane to spend the amount of money, effort, and time with our equipment if it didn't fulfill a niche for our recreation/relaxation. But I'll bet there alot of spouses out there that see this as a fanatic obsession.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by NI0C on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY:
I agree 100% with your last post. I enjoy ham radio as a hobby, get a lot of pleasure from operating and trying to improve my antennas. I'd be deluding myself if I claimed that I invested in my station and operated it for mostly altruistic purposes. Before the Internet, e-mail, and cell phones existed, I used to handle traffic in my local and area-wide CW nets. Even then, the messages were of trivial importance and often arrived late. As you point out, we're mostly a hobby and occasionally a public service.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR:
As an english speaker, I take the word "hobby" to mean "a activity pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a principal occupation." I engage in several activities that fit that description. One is amateur radio. Another is Scouting.
I perform community service as a part of both of those activities, but I do it for the pleasure of serving not because that's how I earn my living. That makes me both an amateur and a hobbyist.
Given the tone of some of your postings, I encourage you to get down your ARRL and Boy Scout Handbooks and review the Amateur's Code and the Scout Law--especially the fifth point of the Scout Law.
Yours in Scouting,
W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP has asked one of the most significant questions on this thread: "Why is it that pro-coders so often descend to ad hominem attack?"
Why do some of us feel so threatened by the prospect of the end of telegraphy testing that we cannot treat one another as ladies and gentlemen?
What is it about the International Morse code that creates such a compelling hold over so many hams?
Do we think that learning the code is some sort of hazing ritual that all the newbies must submit to?
Are our accomplishments in life so limited that knowing the code is all we have to be proud of?
And why is it that the venom and vitriol comes almost exclusively from one side of the discussion?
It's obvious from my posts that I believe the Commission should drop the requirement for telegraphy testing of amateurs. I've argued my point with some vigor, but I don't think that I've written anything to personally disparage anyone. If anyone has taken personal offense from any of my postings, then I humbly apologize. I wish no one ill.
Let's debate our visions of the future of amateur radio as friends and colleagues, as ladies and gentlemen. Please.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Given the tone of some of your postings, I encourage you to get down your ARRL and Boy Scout Handbooks and review the Amateur's Code and the Scout Law--especially the fifth point of the Scout Law."
Not a single post of mine has done anything except reflect back the attitude I have received. If you can't handle civilized, courteous debate without accusing people of acting inappropriately then you shouldn't be in the kitchen where the heat is.
I'm sorry that your view of what we do doesn't jibe with what the government has defined the ARS as being. You are now trying to argue your point by killing the messenger that is pointing out things you don't want to see.
If you truly think this is nothing more than a hobby then I suggest you work with your Congresspeople to change Part 97, Sec 97.1(a) from "Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,particularly with respect to providing emergency communications." to "Recognition and enhancement of the value of the hobby to those involved in the amateur service".
We will see just how long it takes after that change for the broadcasters, paging companies, and power utilities to start crying about how the government is subsidizing the hobby of the "select few" to the detriment of the PUBLIC who could significantly benefit from the *services* that could be provided if they only had access to that portion of the valuable spectrum we are tying up for use in a hobby for the rich.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim,
It's clear from you last posting that you and I have been talking at cross purposes. Perhaps, we have been having separate conversations.
From what you've written, I'm convinced that you do not understand the way the regulatory agencies of the federal government are supposed to work; I'm convinced that you don't understand the meaning of the words "amateur" and "hobby;" I'm convinced that you are truly but unduly concerned about ham radio degenerating into CB or about loss of spectrum; and I'm convinced that you are a dedicated member of the ham radio fraternity. I do not believe that anyone, myself included, has responded to your posts in an inappropriate way. If anything I've written has offended you, I'm sorry.
We each think the other is wrongheaded on the issue of telegraphy testing. In the end neither of us will decide the issue. I believe that the facts and the law are on my side. Let's see if the Commission agrees with me.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Table pounding.....the image that comes to mind is that of Nikita Kruschev pounding his shoe on the table at the UN.
I love CW. I know it be eliminated as a requirement eventually.
I have accepted this and will go quietly into the night....
Be well, do good work, and stay in touch.
P
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KE2IV on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Same old, same old. Over and over again.
Get a life...each and everyone of you!
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> "I can't think of a better litmus test for a hobby than "with a
>> personal aim and without pecuniary interest."
> Really? The time I spend volunteering in the Boy Scouts, in the SATERN
> organization, Meals-on-Wheels and in church groups means these are all
> "hobbies"?
From an online dictionary:
Hobby: An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular
occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.
> Participating in these makes me feel good, I learn a LOT, and I have
> no pecuniary interest in any of them.
In other words, they give you pleasure.
> I am not paid by the Boy Scouts, by the Salvation Army, by
> Meals-on-Wheels, or by the church.
In other words, they are outside your regular occupation
> That means I am not a paid professional Boy Scout, I am not a paid
> professional in the Salvation Army, I am not a paid professional
> social worker, and I am not a paid professional by the church for
> the services I provide.
Good hobbies, one and all.
> The definition you provide is the definition of "amateur", not
> "hobby".
I didn't give a definition, I gave a litmus test.
A definition of amateur: A person who engages in an art, science,
study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
That is, amateurs are who do it, hobbies are what they do.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> "The question you are begging here is: does a one
> time test of proficiency make any difference? "
> I'm not begging it at all. It is my opinion that it
> absolutely does make a difference.
Then offer arguments about why it makes a difference. You are talking around the issue, not to it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by K6BBC on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Is the ARRL really in favor of keeping the code requirement? Very short sighted indeed. Well, the old boys network is alive and well. I guess it is the same logic that prevent their understanding why eQSL cards should be valid for awards. We are living in the 21st Century, right?
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by CODEBASHER on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>W3JJH While one may believe that the law's an ass,
>the law is the law, and the United States is country
>ruled by laws.
While the above statement is true, we once had prohibition as a "Law" but we don't anymore, do you know why?
Also once it was proper and delightful to "Own" persons of a certian race and "Legal" by laws, which we no longer practice (Thank God!)and are now Illegal.
Yes we are a country of laws, but it as system that modifies and changes them as the times and attitudes change.
I do not encourage the idea of "Giving" HF to Techs such as I am, But I also believe that the code should be for those who "Want" to learn/use it, Not to be a requirement or "Right of Passage". Upgrade to general to use HF
Make the written exams tougher, add more theory to them, this is good. Take away the Question Pools" and use questions from theroy. All the better, I could still pass them, for the Army Communications taught me enough thoery to pass even the "Extra" written exams.
I'm sure some one will want to "Flame" me for my opinion because it is not thiers, So be it.
73's de N0KLU, Mike
Rolla, Missouri
NCI-4743
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From seeing so much of the same-old, same-old debate surrounding the code exam and never seeing any sort of resolution, it appears that there will never be one offered here or anywhere else for that matter. I've ceased to care about the whole code issue as a result.
One thing is for certain, however: if the code exam is dropped for HF privileges in the US, and if I hear so much as *one* operator here doing what these UK hams are supposedly doing to their new no-code HFers (pre-qualifying their QSOs to exclude them) that's the day all my equipment goes up for sale. I will not shame myself by associating with such prima donna exclusionists. Even dealing with one or two on the air will be too many for me to suffer.
Wake up, people-- life's hard enough without having hobbies that perpetuate bad attitudes and encourage us to act like bullying children on a playground.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by CODEBASHER on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>...UK hams are supposedly doing to their new no-code
>HFers (pre-qualifying their QSOs to exclude them)
>that's the day all my equipment goes up for sale. I
>will not shame myself by associating with such prima
>donna exclusionists....
Unfortunately my friend, there will be those who will do this terrible thing to others, just as children in public schools torture other students....It makes them "feel" superior but ultametly showes them to be troubled souls..... Don't let the few spoil the fun the rest of us are having. Hope to see you on the HF bands some time.
73's de N0KLU, Mike
Rolla, Missouri
NCI-4743
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH
I will make one LONG final epistle on this. I have provided all the arguments I can make. If they are not sufficient to let people see the danger the ARS is in, there isn't much more I can do.
I *AM* deathly afraid of losing spectrum - ALL of the spectrum that we enjoy. In my almost 40 years of being an amateur radio operator I can remember at least four major instances of threats to our spectrum.
*In each and every case* it was not the number of people enjoying the use of the spectrum as a *hobby* that was the reason for our continued existence. It was because it could be demonstrated that we, as a service, were meeting each and everyone of the principles laid out in the basis and purpose for the Amateur Radio Service in Part 97.
We enjoy our reputation for two basic reasons.
First, membership in the community is based upon having to demonstrate some basic level of proficiency in the art of communicating, demonstrating a sufficient level of technical knowledge to insure that experimental equipement meets frequency, power, and distortion limits set for the service, and demonstrating some knowledge of the frequency, power, and distortion limits associated with the service (i.e. a code of ethics).
In other words, the Amateur Radio Service resembles other well-respected PROFESSIONS.
Second, the amateur radio community continues to demonstrate a committment to the public good through the communications assistance we provide during local, state, and national emergencies and disasters.
In other words, professional communications assistance. In this context professional means assistance that is planned for and trained for - and executed in a competent, efficient manner regardless of circumstances.
Anything, ANYTHING, that jeopardizes our ability to meet each and everyone of the elements listed in the basis and purpose of Part 97 or which jeopardizes our reputation with the public at large and, more especially, with future FCC commssions, puts us at risk of losing our spectrum.
Each and everyone of us needs to ask ourselves exactly what the difference is between the Citizens Band Service and the Amateur Radio Service. That service IS viewed as a hobby and it has MANY more people using the service than the ARS does. If numbers of people using a hobby were the justification for spectrum assignment, CB would not be limited to such a small piece of it and we wouldn't have such a huge chunk assigned to us.
When we signed our Amateur Radio License, we made an implicit agreement with the government to abide by the rules and regulations as embodied in Part 97 of Title 47.
The very first of these is in Sec 97.1(a) - value of the amateur service to the public..particularly with respect to emergency communications. We each need to review our committment to serving the public, not just ourselves.
The second is Sec 97.1(b) - the amateurs proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. The term "radio art" doesn't include just technical knowledge but also the ability to communicate. We each need to review our committment to advancing the radio art - even if it is as small a thing as checking into a different net on a different frequency band once in a while in order to advance our ability to communicate.
The third is Sec 97.1(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. We each need to ask ourselves exactly what method the FCC should use to provide for advancing skills in the COMMUNICATION phase of the art.
I think it is pretty obvious to most that a licensing scheme with increasingly difficult technical questions will meet the requirment for the technical phase of the art. EXACTLY how does the FCC meet the first requirement, however? Exactly what rules do they implement and we abide by that shows advancing skills in the communication phase of the art? In developing this we need to be very careful that we don't confuse technical knowledge with skills in communicating. Knowledge of how a packet header is put together is technical knowledge, knowledge of how a ssb signal is generated is technical knowledge, neither contribute to the skill of communicating.
We could, of course, have the VEC's (of which I am one) record DX pileups and require license applicants pick out a certain number of callsigns in a given period of time. We could record a formal traffic messages being sent in a noisy environment on SSB and require the license applicant copy the message. Perhaps we could even move to a typing test - since many of the new digital modes require keyboard skills. Perhaps a 40wpm with 5 mistakes typing test?
Ask yourself, which would you rather have, a 5wpm code test or a 40wpm with 5 mistakes typing test?
My final comment: Whether you are aware of it or not, the ARS is currently in the midst of its next big crisis as far as losing spectrum is concerned - and it isn't BPL. The ARS is being criticized in some venues as a national security risk. The existence of our service, and the equipment sold by vendors for our use, makes it easy for terrorists to communicate on both a world-wide and local basis with almost no chance of detection. God forbid that any terrorists are arrested while in possession of an ICOM 756ProII - the hue and cry to limit our spectrum and require us to use type-accepted, low power equipment, ala CB, will be tremendous.
Our only hope should this happen or should criticism of our service increase is to remain true to the basis and purposes laid out in Part 97 and to continue to be viewed as having more worth than harm.
That cannot happen if we propagate the view of the ARS as a hobby indulged in by people unwilling to pass even minimal tests in the art of communicating.
Tim AB0WR
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have not heard of the ARS being criticized as a security risk. Which venue(s) are critical of us as a security risk?
If this is true, then how ironic, especially since I've seen the ARS being lauded by many as a valuable resource for emcomms via the Homeland Security program.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ham radio considered a security risk? By whom? Kim Il Sung, perhaps, but not the US government.
People throughout the federal government have experience working with amateurs and trust us. There are hams througout the Pentagon, including many flag officers. There hams throughout the NSA, the FBI, FEMA, the Coast Guard, etc. There are ham who are members of Congress!
Even officials who aren't hams know us and trust us. That includes George Bush (a guy with some influence). He knows us from the support he received as a governor from Texas ARES. He knows us from our response at the WTC and Pentagon. And he's personally expressed his thanks for our service to community and country.
I can tell you from my military experience that transmissions such as we make on HF are trivially easy to intercept. Much easier than the cell phone and satellite phone traffic NSA scoops up every day. What's harder still is email encrypted with a product such as PGP. I look just lilke normal encrypted business traffic, and you have to crack it before its useful.
I'm sure some local cop somewhere has been suspicious of a ham with an HT. That happened before 9/11 and will happen again. However, we're considered not only good guy but useful by the folks who really count.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR said: "The third is Sec 97.1(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. We each need to ask ourselves exactly what method the FCC should use to provide for advancing skills in the COMMUNICATION phase of the art."
Communication can be accomplished in hundreds of ways using amateur radio. For the FCC to arbitrarily select just one (morse code), as the sole method of "improving the art of communication" would be the mistake of the century. There's not much enhancement that can be done to Morse to make it a more effective communication mode. If you increase speed of Morse, you automatically expand the bandwidth required to use it. For 13wpm Morse, you need 52Hz while PSK31 only needs 32Hz (From Extra License Study manual). Go 40wpm, the bandwidth gets wider.
The rules the FCC make to advance the skill of communication should be broadbased, flexible and attainable within a reasonable amount of training time. If I can learn to use PSK31 in weekend, isn't that much more efficient method than morse code that takes months to get to 13wpm.
Morse Code (or any other mode for that matter) WILL NOT save amateur spectrum. As long as amateur services continue to show their value (recently Hurricane Fabian on Bermuda and of course, Hurricane Isabel), our spectrum is not in danger of being eliminated.
Your paranoia of losing spectrum JUST BECAUSE many of us view amateur radio as a hobby, is extreme and unwarranted.
73, KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even
among people who should and do know better."--George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"
A profession is a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation. While amateur radio does require specialized knowledge, it does not require long and intensive academic training.
The learned professions--law, medicine, ministry, and engineering--all require years of study before one begins to practice. That's just not true of ham radio.
The phrases "professional athelete" or "professional driver" or "professional plumber" conveys no real meaning. While all of these occupations require skill and talent and training, they do not have the academic character required of a profession.
Since an amateur is one who does something other than what he does for a living and a professional is one who does something that requires a high level of academic training for a living, it is not possible for one to be a professional amateur or an amateur professional. The basic logical principle of negation (something can't be A and not-A at the same time) demand that.
Much of the lack of clarity in the reasoning in some postings comes from a lack of accuracy in the use of language.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDC on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To The author of this thread:
In legal terms, an arbitrary and capricious law is one which is not APPLIED equally. In other words, I am going to fine you $5,000 for an offence, but I am NOT going to fine Tom for the same offence, because I like him better. So much for your argument.
To those who claim they are tired of seeing this same argument over and over:
Why, then, do you click on the titles and read them?
You are not obligated to, you know. It's your choice. So much for THAT argument.
Have fun.
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wrong: Neither ARBITRARY or CAPRICIOUS have anything to do with EQUALITY.
Definition of arbitrary: (1) depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law; (2) not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority (3) based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.
Definition of capricious: governed or characterized by caprice.
Definition of caprice: a sudden, impulsive, and seemingly unmotivated notion or action; a sudden usually unpredictable condition, change, or series of changes; a disposition to do things impulsively;
The FCC would be ARBITRARY if it retained Morse Code testing as it no longer has a basis in law, is no longer a necessity for operation of amateur radio.
The FCC would be CAPRICIOUS if it suddenly made a law that required all amateur licensees to run a 50-yard dash in less than 5 seconds. A very sudden, unpredictable change.
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDC:
When a judge or regulatory body takes a decision without reasonable grounds or adequate consideration of the circumstances, it is said to be arbitrary and capricious and can be invalidated by an appellate court on that ground in accordance with 5 USC 706. We're talking about a clear error of judgment, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or taken without observance of procedure required by law. There can be a prima faciae assumption that an action taken contrary to acknowledged fact is arbitrary and capricious. Treating two similar individuals differently in similar cases is but one example of arbitrary and capricious behavior.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
Morse is not a mode.
|
|
|
by N2MG on September 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Morse is not a mode. Testing Morse is not testing a mode. CW is a mode. I have no "Morse" position on my radio. Morse is closer to an alphabet, but an aural one, and thus similar in some respects to a language (which are obviously quite aural).
Mike N2MG
|
|   |
|
Morse is a CODE
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BTW: what do the letters c w stand for anyway? I know it means using morse code but what do the letters stand for? Just curious.
Morse is CODE, like ASCII and BAUDOT. It's not an language but any stretch of the imagination. I always wondered why they call it "international" when the messages sent using it are in ENGLISH. Anyone want to enlighten me about that?
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by CODEBASHER on September 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>To those who claim they are tired of seeing this same
>argument over and over:
>Why, then, do you click on the titles and read them?
>You are not obligated to, you know. It's your choice.
>So much for THAT argument.
>
>Have fun.
But.....but...KD5YDC we just love to fuss and argue..
...can't help but to click on those hyperlinks that take us to those arguements, makes our blood flow and we feel like a MAN or something anyway we are addicted to the arguements... gotta get that "Fix", aaaaahhhhh soooooo gooood to flame someone, and then get mad at someone else!!! Its all entertainment! haha (darn wish we had those smile face thing-a-ma-jigs like on the QRZ.
Havin' more fun with this here 'puter than all them knobs on th' radio. kant seem to tune into my favorite music radio station.(fake hillbilly accent)
73's de N0KLU, Mike
Rolla, Missouri
NCI-4743
|
|   |
|
RE: Morse is a CODE
|
|
|
by NI0C on September 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YKY:
To answer your question, CW stands for "continuous wave" which means single frequency. Of course, as that single frequency is switched on and off with a key to form the code characters, the signal starts to occupy some bandwidth as you pointed out in an earlier post.
International Morse is a somewhat different code than the old American Morse which I understand was used by the very early telegraphers. During the 1960's there were still quite a few hams who knew both codes, and some of them used to hold forth in American Morse on 80 meters.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
|   |
|
RE: Morse is a CODE
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The word 'mode' is an odd sort of duck. It means both a means of modulation and the means of imposing information on it. People often use CW and Morse interchangably, because, currently, the only way to send Morse is on CW and the only means of imposing information onto CW is Morse. And, thus, we have A3A.
|
|   |
|
RE: Morse is a CODE
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on September 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not quite accurate. Morse can be sent via many modes besides CW. Any of the phone modes can be used to send Morse.It's not restricted to CW only. FM, AM, sideband come to mind as transmission modes and the audio tones can be fed to the transmitter with a keyer that has an audio output. Code practice oscillators would work.
Two techs could possibly use an FM simplex frequency to practice sending and receiving Morse between themslves if they wanted to, quite legally. And they could speak with each other in between sending the audio Morse back and forth. They'd only need to keep away from the locally designated simples calling frequencies and the repeaters, of course.
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
|   |
|
RE: Morse is a CODE
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
American Morse is legal on the air so long as station ID is sent using International Morse.
DIT = * DAH = - LONG DAH = ---- SPACE = /
AMERICAN MORSE
A * -
B - * * *
C * * *
D - * *
E *
F * - *
G - - *
H * * * *
I * *
J - * - *
K - * -
L ----
M - -
N - *
O * / *
P * * * * *
Q * * - *
R * * *
S * * *
T -
U * * -
V * * * -
W * - -
X * - * *
Y * */* *
Z * * * *
1 * - - *
2 * * - * *
3 * * * - *
4 * * * * -
5 - - -
6 * * * * * *
7 - - * *
8 - * * * *
9 - * * -
0 -----
Period * * - - * *
Comma * - * -
Question - * * - *
Note that "O" in American Morse is di-space-dit. "Y" is di-di-space-di-dit. The space is the same length as a dit.
|
|   |
|
RE: Morse is a CODE
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on September 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That probably explains what I heard last night. I found a station sending Morse so switched my ICOM 706IIMKG from LSB to CW and then I heard nothing. I switched back to LSB and there they were. I was mystified why obvious Morse code was being sent using single side band and when I switch the receiver to CW could hear nothing on that same frequency. Was the frequency for CW actually the carrier of SSB morse?
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Morse is a CODE
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wrote:
>> The word 'mode' is an odd sort of duck. It means both a means of
>> modulation and the means of imposing information on it. People often
>> use CW and Morse interchangably, because, currently, the only way to
>> send Morse is on CW and the only means of imposing information onto CW
>> is Morse. And, thus, we have A3A.
Pete KA3RFE replied:
> Not quite accurate. Morse can be sent via many modes besides CW. Any
> of the phone modes can be used to send Morse.It's not restricted to CW
> only. FM, AM, sideband come to mind as transmission modes and the
> audio tones can be fed to the transmitter with a keyer that has an
> audio output. Code practice oscillators would work.
Absolutely correct. I overstated the case when I said 'only
way'. Thanks for the correction. I guess the best fix would be to say
"most common way". I also spelled A1A wrong.
Two observations, though: feeding audio tone Morse to a transmitter in
sideband mode produces CW/Morse at the transmitter output. This is
technically J2A, but the produced signal is equivalent to A1A. Also,
MCW (tone over AM or FM)on HF is restricted to code practice only.
> Two techs could possibly use an FM simplex frequency to practice
> sending and receiving Morse between themslves if they wanted to,
> quite legally. And they could speak with each other in between
> sending the audio Morse back and forth. They'd only need to keep
> away from the locally designated simplex calling frequencies and the
> repeaters, of course.
Indeed. Again, thanks for the correction.
73, Marty
|
|   |
|
RE: kit building market share
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A while back, in this thread, the topic of kit building came up and someone suggested asking Elecraft. I did that, and I've just gotten the following email back:
Hi Marty,
I can't release specific figures, but I believe that the majority of hams in
the U.S. buy their radios assembled, especially VHF/UHF FM radios. (Almost all
radio kits are currently for the HF bands, except for our recently introduced
XV transverter line.)
While we and the other kit manufacturers are selling thousands of kits a year,
there are over 600,000 hams in the US and if only 10% purchase a radio, that
makes 60,000 radios purchased a year. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say
80% of those purchases are already assembled.
We at Elecraft have been growing steadily over the past several years, so we
hope to increase that percentage of kit builders! :-)
73, Eric WA6HHQ
Elecraft
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Fouts [mailto:fouts@fogey.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:11 PM
> To: info@elecraft.com
> Subject: Information on kit building versus transceiver purchasing.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently involved in a discussion about ham radio. A question came up,
> and I was wondering if there is any information you can share that would
> help answer it.
>
> Basically, we're trying to figure out roughly what percentage of ham
> transceivers built in the US are kits and what percentage is commercial. In
> effect, we're looking for information on market share between kit makers and
> commercial providers.
>
> I realize that market share is often sensitive information, but if you could
> help us find even approximate information, it would greatly inform our
> discussion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marty Fouts, AE6IP
>
|
|   |
|
RE: Morse is a CODE
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on September 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KD5YDY on September 24, 2003
BTW: what do the letters c w stand for anyway? I know it means using morse code but what do the letters stand for? Just curious.
CW stands for "Continuous Wave." It represents a mode of operation where the carrier is switched on and off (as in Sending Morse Code) to impart information transfer without any type of modulation of that carrier.
But do not be mistaken: while the Morse normally used is called "International Morse," it does NOT guarantee that a Morse conversation is in English. It could be in any number of languages, and there are additional characters for other languages to accomodate . The CHARACTERS sent in Morse may be recognizable, but if two operators are conversing in German, for example, it may mean little to you. And even if one operator (or even both) were a U.S. operator, as long as he identifies properly, it's all perfectly legal.
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD4TOQ on September 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We see changes in the requirements to get our licenses as different technologies come into Ham radio over the years. The Morse code is a very old technology, I am not saying it is not useful, but just old technology. We have many people defending Morse code and that is OK. They feel we should use it as a bar to ensure new Hams must devote some effort to getting a license, that's OK. What would most of these people who defend Morse code say, if in line with the popularity of PSK31 that all Hams, when renewing their license would have to type at the rate of 40 words per minute for two full minutes, without mistakes? I think there would be howls of protest that they would have to learn and demonstrate the skill to get their licenses. It's all relative folks, we can use CW if we want, but the requirement is no gurantee that the person who passes the Morse test is of good chracter or will be a credit to Ham communtiy. I seem to hear most problems on HF being created by adult grown men, mostly over the age of 40 who have a personality or chracter problem that causes them to make trouble. Should we have to pass personality tests to be Hams? Maybe we should. I do believe most strongly that when a Ham deliberately causes problems on the bands punishment should be swift and just. I think Hams would be better served if we all insisted on strict policing of the bands. The energy devoted to defending Morse code would be used better to demand that trouble makers be dealt with promptly. We pay license fees and we pay taxes. Hams have a right to insist that government employees do their jobs. By the way, it would probably take me two years to pass a 40 words per minute typing test. I am 60 years old, and have never taken a typing course. Yes, I passed the code test for General, and have spent about 2 hours on Morse in the last 28 years. Well thats my two cents worth..
73's
Mark
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very disappointed to see ARRL's position in the latest QST regarding the code/no code issue. ARRL basically stated that it is not a "pressing issue" and doesn't "deserve time" at the present to be researched. ARRL believes nothing will happen at the FCC level for months despite the seven petitions and the end of comment period.
If the FCC is waiting for ARRL guidance, then we will see no progress in the USA towards equality with the rest of the countries in the world that have already quickly dropped the code requirement. Although many point out the number of countries dropping the code is small compared to the number of ITU members, virtually all of the countries dropping the code requirement would be considered democratic, industrialized, affluent societies as opposed to third world, developing countries where average income would prohibit the purchase of amateur radio equipment.
So will the code/no code issue continue languishing with no end to the internal fighting. I sincerely hope not. I hope the FCC is more far-sighted than ARRL and that they act despite ARRL's belief that it is totally unimportant at the present time. This is a critical junction in the history of the hobby. To languish and not replenish SKs will mean the end of the hobby. Technicians prohibited access to HF bands merely because they chose NOT to invest significant time to learn a mode they have no intention of using will continue to drop out of the hobby at high rates. This leaves very few that are interested in upgrading with no new blood added to the hobby in any significant way.
ARRL's attitude on this issue reflects very poor leadership in growing the hobby. It appears they are more interested in preserving the status quo. That is really BAD NEWS for Amateur Radio in the United States.
KD5YDY
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, I saw that "survey," but it was in another publication, which shall remain nameless.
As Mark Twain said, there are "lies, DAMN LIES, and STATISTICS."
Especially statistics that are put together by someone whe has no comprehension thereof. I almost fell off my chair. I had to share it with co-workers (we work in a branch of the field of medicine, and deal with statistics on a daily basis. We were ROFL all day!)
|
|   |
|
Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by KD7KCP on December 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My fellow Hams, now lets be honest about this whole "keep the code get rid of the code " thing. A lot has been written about the prose and cons of keeping the code some on both sides rather well written, and some not. I myself have been rather sharp tongued on the subject, and I have received a few interesting responses because of it. One ham KB9YVG in a obscene response writes "You think like an old timer.. I learned CW in a three hour seesion when I was around 12. I have no particular in interest in HF. You seem like on of those operators who like to have their daughter (obscene response) when they hit that key. I thought '73 met "please don't do my kid", whoops that must be CB talk." and another response by KG4YJR writes "What a moron". It is obvious to all that the defensive vitriolic responses of the "get rid of the code test "crowd is due to the fact that their argument ,no matter how will crafted, is intellectually dishonest. The truth is (and every one knows this ,both pro and con camps) that some are willing to earn their goal and others are not. You see some think that just because they want something they should get it even if it means cheating (changing the rules). Some of these lazy slothful types will argue in an intellectually dishonest manner that their concern is "saving Ham radio" when in fact they simply lack the desire to spend the energy to pass element one. To these lazy slothful types I ask: Why not be honest? And just say the truth ,come on and repeat after me: "I just don’t want to take the five words a minute CW test, so change the rules just for me!". Sincerely;
slow code general,
KD7KCP
73
|
|   |
|
RE: Brass Pounding or Table Pounding?
|
|
|
by N1KBZ on June 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes I did wright it.
And hihi
bob phipps
N1KBZ
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
10th Circuit Court Upholds FCC RF Preemption
ARRL Asks FCC To Rethink Parts Of PRB-1 Petition D
ULS Registration
FCC Launches 'Commision Registration System' (CORES)
FCC Sends Ex-Ham to the Slammer
Other Editorial Articles
My First Memory
The SB Project
Hamming It Up, The Early Years
A Hobby from a Hobby
Managing Ham Radio Estate Sales
|
|
|