Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
John (W5EEX)
on
October 7, 2003
View comments about this article!
It is quite interesting to note how quickly the "code vs. no-code" survey disappeared
Here on eHam. Did anyone notice how long the Linux survey stayed around? Bottom line is the survey results don't mean anything, since there is no limit to the number of times one can vote…. so I suspect BOTH sides were doing some ballot box stuffing.
If, however, the results are anything close to accurate, it indicates almost an even split on the "code vs. no-code" issue. If you are a strong proponent of keep the CW testing alive for the more advanced class licenses, I would recommend writing the ARRL with your opinions.
The FCC is leaving it up to the ARRL to come up with the recommendation on "code vs. no-code" for the USA. I am an avid CW fan, always will be, and I will be writing the ARRL that my recommendation is to keep CW testing alive. I also believe some HF voice allocation should be given to the "no code" licensees. I would even go as far as recommending raising the code proficiency exams to something higher than 5 wpm for the Extra Class license.
My continued membership, and the dues I pay to the ARRL hinge on the outcome of this issue. If the ham community is really 50% in favor of keeping CW testing alive, let the ARRL know how you feel. Faced with losing 50% of membership revenue income... I am sure they will make a recommendation that treats both sides fairly, while keeping CW testing alive, and adding some HF privileges for the "no code" licensees.
Thanks for listening and 73,
W5EEX
PS -- Thanks to eHam for the surveys… they are interesting and informative!
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by AC5CH on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmmmmmmm, you definitely have one of the more "sane" opinions about morse code testing. However, I am on the other side of the fence in this issue.
I have already written the ARRL expressing my opinion on the issue, and only hope that more people of ALL opinions take the opportunity to do so. Debate is healthy.
I won't cancel my ARRL membership if the league supports continued morse code testing. As a matter of fact,I'm certain that they will do so, and I enjoy QST too much to quit them for supporting the old guys with deep pockets who donate the most money.
I passed the 20 WPM code test, and I think anyone who is determined could pass a 5 WPM test with a few days of study. However, most people (myself included) resent having to learn code so much that they never use it. I'm quite content to hang out on 2 meters and 160 meters SSB, thank you. Oh, I can still send and copy CW fine - I just have a bad taste in my mouth from being compelled to learn a MODE. The theory I learned has actually been useful.
The only reason that code testing is pushed so much is that a lot of older guys fear that hordes of CBers and others will invade "their" bands and interrupt their deep discussions on bowel movements if it is removed. However, they are fearing phantoms. A majority of CBers don't like to follow rules, and most people wouldn't go to the trouble to take any kind of test to talk on the ham bands. Heck, they can talk to (and meet) others cheaper and more reliably with NO rules on a computer or cell phone. But , I digress..... Sigh.....
Write the ARRL with your opinion if you are a member. Expressing your opinion to an organization you belong to as a member is a right. Just remember, organizations run on money, so if you want your opinion to be really loud, donate more! ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KE4RWS on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree that people should write the ARRL with their comments regarding the code issue. We've all seen everyone's comments here (including mine) on this issue, and it goes absolutely nowhere because when the issue comes up all the avid cw users claim no-coders are lazy good-for-nothing losers that want everything handed to them for free, and that's about where the shit starts hitting the fan.
Write the ARRL with your comments because it damn sure doesn't do anything here in this forum except bring out all the high-and-mighty *professional* amateur [cw] operators who think their prefered mode should be used for continued testing purposes, but don't recognize any other modes of operation out there.
It was also suggested that most or all of the pro cw members of the ARRL would pull their memberships if they didn't get their way. I guess it could also be said the "other" 50% that doesn't idol-worship cw like it's some God or something the way others do, also have the potential to pull their dues-paying memberships as well [if they don't get their way either].
Ohhhh boy. I guess this thread will turn into another code vs. no-code debate too. I figured I might as well kick things off since it's going to happen anyway . . . .
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W8VOM on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes..write the ARRL and tell them what you want for our future. No matter where you stand let them know!
I just hope they dont retain Morse testing *only* at the Extra level. This would be nothing more than a Glass Ceiling! While it might hold the forces of nature back a couple more years,in the end the Morse debate would "rise again" as many would never accept a glass ceiling long term! We want a more lasting solution not a "temporary" quick fix. W8VOM
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by HAMFAN on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh for God's sake please don't anybody buy this crap. I'm flabbergasted. I just was starting to think that by now the great Codeathalon was finally winding down with every comment and opinion which could possibly be offered and imagined had been said...about four thousand times.
[the fcc is leaving it up to the arrl to decide what is going to become of code testing]????????? uh...uh...uh...uh John? Mind telling me when the FCC decided to throw out all those Petitions For Rulemaking and the subsequent Public Comment Period for same? By all means sir if we've missed an FCC press release on this issue we'd be in your debt if you'd be so kind as to post a link here to that information.
And as to your dire projection that every single code-owning ARRL member quitting should they come out supporting code testing removal....well that's just beyond absurd too. How little you think of everyone. It's quite obvious that you have become so angered over the prospect of the removal of the code requirement here in the U.S., that your blood has boiled and cooked your brain.....the part you left out was how and when you are going to mail in your license and sell off your gear so that you can get into an easier and less stressful hobby...like basket weaving.
Or better yet...this thread topic is a joke and John is an underemployed comedian...yeah....that's the ticket. Thanks for the laughs
73's KE4ENX
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by AB2RC on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The FCC is leaving it up to the ARRL to come up with the recommendation on "code vs. no-code" for the USA."
Where did you get this information? I cannot find any mention of this on either the ARRL or FCC websites?
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I also can not believe that the FCC, in some formal action, is leaving the code issue up to the ARRL. Of course the FCC has a history of looking to the ARRL for an organized body of thought concerning regulatory matters, but this does not mean that that the ARRL always gets what it (and hopefully by extension, the membership) asks for.
I understand that the ARRL has quietly put out a formal survey to a sampling of its membership concerning the code issue. While there is no mention of it on their website (that I could find) there have been people who have received it posting in other forums. This may be one of the things that is driving the thought process indicating that the FCC may be leaving it up to the ARRL.
The potential problem with polling the membership might be that the membership is not really representative of the entire ham population. There is no information available on from the ARRL (again that I could find) which breaks down the membership by license class. If the ARRL is top heavy with Extra and Advanced class membership, their comments to the FCC on the code issue may go a different way than if the membership was top heavy with Novice and Technician classes.
Organizations usually try to protect membership majority, whether it is AARP or ARRL. Incentive licensing in the 60s was an one exception to this and it cost the ARRL in terms of membership and prestige.
If you are an ARRL member, this is the time to send a not to your director letting them know how you fee on the issue. If you are not a member, it might be worth joining so your voice can be heard. Remember, the ARRL is a membership organization and as mentioned, they listen to members.
Where I stand on the code issue:
1. I think that the code test in some form should be retained, If only for the Extra. However, I also realize that recent changes in our treaty obligations allow it to be dropped as a testing requirement for HF privileges even though the FCC could still retain the requirement for licensing in this country.
2. If need be, I can certainly live without a code testing requirement.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In all of my discussions with hams about this subject, there are almost as many ideas on the "best" way to change the rules as there are hams. The ARRL will have a very tough time coming up with a concensus position under circumstances where there is no majority view. My own personal view is that the code test should be wrapped into the overall written exam,w with a reasonable number of questions asked about the content of sent text, instead of the pass/fail two-part test we have now.
Make sure your ARRL director knows how you feel. You can look him up at http://www.arrl.org/divisions. I gave Tom Frenaye my views, but I also let him know that I didn't feel very strongly about them. Even input from non-members is helpful, so if the ARRL's present position on code testing is the reason you are not a member, let your director know.
I will add that ARRL's representation is regional, so it is not helpful to email all of the Board.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by G5FSD on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why would anyone want the USA to be the last Morse testing country in the world? Would that really demonstrate what a free democratic country it is? The rest of the world accepts WRC-2003's decision, but you ignore it?!! Doesn't look good from this angle.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K0BG on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Big excuses.
Back in the mid to late 70s, I worked for CW Electronics in Denver, CO, the only local ham radio outlet at the time. This was also the time of the great boon in CB sales. One often heard phrases from customers which went something like these;
"I just can't seem to get the code in my head...", or "If I could talk with out having to learn code...", well... I'm wondering.
If we do away with code, what will the excuse be this time? Maybe it'll be, "If it weren't for all that technical mumbo jumbo...."
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by WS4Y on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is apparent that the earlier survey I sent in
on the cw issue was trashed by ballot box stuffers.
However if you want an idea of how ARRL members
feel about this issue go to www.arrl-ga.org
and vote. This time you must be an ARRL member to
vote and you must give your call and membership
ID number. There should be no stuffed
ballots on this one.
I think there may be a number of people that feel
like John on remaining an ARRL member based on how
the ARRL comes down on this issue. That is why I
think the ARRL may stay out of it and let the
petitioners and the FCC do their thing. I would
love to see the ARRL file comments in support of
retaining code testing but the ARRL is very
revenue concious and I don't think they want to
take any action that would cost membership. For
the ARRL it is a no win situation.
I think John's suggestion to write the ARRL is valid
but I think it is even more important to file comments
with the FCC on the various petitions on this issue.
73, Bill WS4Y
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At least this started out promising. The slippery-slope stuff takes the focus off the task at hand.
I have a feeling that even if every single licensed US ham (and even some non-licensed interested parties) were to write the ARRL with their opinions on the code test, people would STILL argue about the merits of the code test, or lack thereof, on Internet forums such as this. Why? Because people love to bicker and try to convince others of the correctness of their position.
But does bickering usually do anything but cause others to hate the messenger??
The ARRL has their hands full with trying to stop BPL for now. Still, we should write and let them know where each of us stands on the code test. One thing's for sure, though... no matter the fate of the code test, not everyone's going to be happy with the outcome. We need to deal with it and move on, or take up some other hobby that is less frustrating if you just can't move on.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill
Went to the website and voted. Interesting that 72% of the responding membership voted to keep the code testing requirement, but not unexpected.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by WR8D on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi folks here's my two cents worth: There's thousands of us that feel the arrl has sold amateur radio out in the past ten years. They are a business run on the good ole dollar. Of those thousands i've mentioned some of us are as you say old farts...some of us aren't. All of us just care about the hobby and the shape its getting into. We've contacted arrl through the years with our opinions on issues. We've usually found that what ever allows the arrl to make a buck is the direction they go in. Simple as that. There's the potential right now for them to pick up hundreds of thousands of new members if the code is dropped. Any five year old can do the math on this one. Its coming down to the good ole dollar. Most of us feel its a waste to say anything to arrl. Thats the reason so many of us have dropped out of their membership.
No the sky is not falling and amateur radio will continue to be there but its going to change. I've talked to many hams that feel the same as i do. In this code/nocode mess if for once arrl does the right thing after all these years of going for the dollar...then most of us will rejoin the ranks. As it stands right now though...why waste the time to contact them and why waste your money.
Sorry to rock the boat folks. This is just the way most of us feel.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N2ERN on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As long as CD IDs are permitted, then we should be able to at least read them.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The stupidity of the test proves itself as you don’t need to have a license to listen to ham radio but you do need a license to operate. CW testing is listening and copying, not sending.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K0XXX on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A couple of general observations and opinions:
Yes, all ARRL members should voice their opinion or they should not complain if the League's position on any issue isn't what they had hoped for.
The ARRL is in a lose/lose situation with the code issue. The Amateur community is deeply divided on this issue and nothing said here will change that.
Ham radio will continue regardless of the code/no code outcome. In time, all things change (and not always for the good) and Amateur Radio isn't any different.
If code is dropped, the ARS will not be overrun by hordes of CB'ers. If that were true, then all of those under utilized two meters repeaters wouldn't be so under utilized.
Now lest I be accused of being a coward, my personal opinion on the code discussion: I am in favor of keeping code testing, at least some form. Not because it is a lid filter or makes anyone any better an operator, but because it is a part of the heritage and tradition of Amateur Radio.
The above opinion isn't presented to try and change anyone's mind, only so that others will know where I stand. Let the flames begin.
Mark, KØXXX
Slow Code, Easy Test, Extra Lite, ARRL Life Member
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W4EWJ on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Better watch this BPL thing...The FCC is not the
FCC of old...if the ARRL is driven by the almighty
dollar what do you think the FCC is beholden to?
We all know that 11mtrs is out of control and has
been...look hard and thats what you will see of
the HF ham bands in the not too distant future if
some kind of discipline is not rendered. Discipline
comes from making it difficult to obtain a ham
license and the penalty for mis-use severe enough
that self imposed restraint is the norm.
The drunks, jammers, cussing for the sake of cussing,
need to be removed somehow but the funds are not there
to DF them all...most monitoring stations are closed
and the few that arent are remotly controlled.
Dont know the answers...BUT if this bpl thing is
not resolved it will all be moot.
Earle
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W6EIJ on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Alan raises a good point:
If we do away with code, what will the excuse be this time? Maybe it'll be, "If it weren't for all that technical mumbo jumbo...."
In this day of what are known as "appliance operators," the "technical mumbo jumbo" probably has less relevance than additional operating modes such as digital and cw.
I’m not advocating dropping the electronics exam. But in terms of relevance, it is not too relevant. My almost 17 year-old step-son would have no problem operating a hand-held, or even an HF “no-tune” transceiver. He can follow a manual. In fact, he can play computer games - right out of the box - that I cannot figure out with the manual.
Assemble the store-bought antenna, hook up the already soldered PL-259's, pound in a ground - turn on the radio, plug in a mic and your off to the races. This is not rocket science. Neither was this standard practice in the late 1960's, when I got interested in the hobby. Now give him my 75A4 and KWS-1.........well another story.
BTW, I have both an extra [1978] and I operate CW along with SSB, AM, RTTY..... I also spend as much time working on radios as operating them. Different strokes for different folks. I’m not an engineer, in fact, I’m not involved in a technical field at all, and I probably know as little as one can about electronics, and still safely work on radios - old tube stuff........Drake, Collins, old Ten-Tec QRP.
This is what the hobby is for me. I’m not, however, considering those who have no interest in restoring or repairing, or even building their own radios as less of a ham. But, as the hobby changes, this aspect of the hobby probably goes to the wayside.
As I read the pro and con arguments, they appear to be centered on something much more fundamental then one mode as opposed to another. It is that with “no-code” licenses, we entered the slippery slope of a drastic change of the hobby. Now, all license classes may be no-code. Of course it is irrelevant. It is just part of what many people regard as part of the hobby. But, as Alan pointed out, so is the electronics portion. When I go to the local ham club meeting, this certainly is not the hobby that I remember from the late 1960's.
Change is always difficult, it creates stress, fear, and a host of other reactions. I just don’t think the reactions are related to CW over some other mode - it is reaction, and rightfully so, to continued change in the hobby. Let people have their say, even if it takes many threads, and hopefully this matter can be resolved.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by AC5CH on October 7, 20003
...
"
I passed the 20 WPM code test, and I think anyone who is determined could pass a 5 WPM test with a few days of study. "
RIGHT!
"
However, most people "
Most?
Says who?
"
(myself included) resent having to learn code so much that they never use it."
having too?
You didn't _have to_.
"
I'm quite content to hang out on 2 meters and 160 meters SSB, thank you. Oh, I can still send and copy CW fine - I just have a bad taste in my mouth from being compelled to learn a MODE.
"
Compelled?
You weren't _compelled_ to do anything.
If the hobby isn't what you want, then why did you choose it? Why do you expect to come to it, and change it to fit your wants and needs?
Mayby you'd have been less resentful if you'd taken up knitting or maybe gardening.
"
The only reason that code testing is pushed so much is that a lot of older guys fear that hordes of CBers and others will invade "their" bands and interrupt their deep discussions on bowel movements if it is removed.
However, they are fearing phantoms."
And you know this how?
You're willing to guarantee it?
How would you reverse it, if you neeeded to?
"
A majority of CBers don't like to follow rules,"
No kiddin' !
"
and most people wouldn't go to the trouble to take any kind of test to talk on the ham bands."
So, you do realize it.
And this is exactly what some would like to see! and that many here are called snobs for seeing it coming, and wanting to stop it now.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by G5FSD on October 7, 2003
Why would anyone want the USA to be the last Morse testing country in the world?"
Why not?
Just because everybody else does or doesn't do something, has nothing to do with whether or not it is the best or right thing to do.
Its not unusual for the USA to have backbone, you know.
"
Would that really demonstrate what a free democratic country it is? "
Sure, it is possible.
If it went to a vote, and the majority got to choose.
Or didn't you really want an answer? Were you just trolling?
"
The rest of the world accepts WRC-2003's decision, "
So?
What's your point?
" but you ignore it?!! "
Sure.
Why not?
"
Doesn't look good from this angle. "
Well , you sure are allowed to have your opinion.
If that's all it was, then ok.
Otherwise, and again, What's your point?
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KA3NRX on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How do we send our comments to the ARRL???...What is the proper e-mail address or channel to do so???
Vince P
KA3NRX
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N3NL on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wrote to the ARRL and the FCC suggesting that 5 WPM
should be kept in effect for the Extra Class license
for the following reasons.
There are several reasons why the retention of some role for Morse Code in amateur radio serves the national interest and enhances the public service roles of amateur radio:
1. Morse Code equipment is more affordable for amateur radio operators in third-world nations than voice mode (single side band) amateur radio equipment is. Robust Morse Code operations by Americans encourage these operators to participate in world-wide amateur radio.
2. Morse Code with the standard Q signals can be understood by operators who speak different languages. This enhances international amateur radio communications.
3. American amateur radio operators of limited means can afford to build or purchase low-power Morse Code equipment for the fairly low price of $100 to $200 as compared to the much higher prices for single side band amateur radio equipment.
4. Morse Code is inherently narrow-band in nature allowing numerous amateur radio stations to share a given allocated band of frequencies.
5. Morse Code stations are quite simple, encouraging amateur operators to get involved in analyzing, designing, and building their own equipment as well as modifying existing equipment.
6. Morse Code is effective at low power levels allowing greater frequency reuse. I have operated on the high frequencies using one Watt of output power and Morse Code.
7. Morse Code is valuable during megadisasters or other extreme conditions when amateur operators must improvise their own transmitting equipment. Attorney Donald J. Schellhardt in comments in docket RM-10412 first introduced the concept of a megadisaster. Schellhardt defines a megadisaster as “A life-threatening disaster, either natural or man-made, of sufficient intensity and scale that it: (a) destroys and/or disables much, most, or all of the basic infrastructure and services over an area of at least 10,000 square miles, for a period of at least weeks or months; and (b) prevents or significantly restricts the flow of relief supplies and personnel, from areas which are not directly affected, for a period of at least two weeks.” (Comments of April 21, 2002). In a megadisaster, the operator can easily be isolated on his own and have to improvise radio communications. In such a situation it is much easier to create a keyed radio oscillator or even a keyed radio noise source than it is to create a single side band or FM transmitter. In addition, Morse Code can be used with a light, whistle, or car horn to provide local communications.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very simple dilema to figure out. If the ARRL supports retaining the code, they lose members, or potentially new members who want a free ride to HF without working for it. If they vote to do away with the code, then many present members will get disgusted and leave the ranks in droves. Its a no win situation for them so doesnt this make you wonder why the BPL smokescreen was put up at the exact same time that this code debate came about? Doesnt take a rocket scientist to see things from their angle when you keep in mind that the ARRL is a money making buisness whos very survival relies on amateurs to keep it alive. During the WRC convention the ARRL abstained from making a comment on the code issue. Why? Do I need to spell it out? Im sure that even if the membership favors keeping it, theres a potential cash cow just waiting for them out there if code is dropped because so many folks are dying to get that free ride to the HF bands. Also keep in mind that many companies buy advertising space in QST and this is exactly what the big 3 radio manufactures want is more new hams to buy tons of equipment to bolster sagging sales. When the FCC decides to drop the code, then the ARRL can sit back and say, we supported keeping it, but the FCC is the one who decided to drop it so they (ARRL) dont look like the villian. Id bet they are willing to risk losing a few present members by pissing them off due to their soft stance on this issue, only to welcome the masses of new members that dropping cw is bound to get for them. This BPL thing is their smoke and mirrors "The sky is falling!" approach to hiding their real stance on this issue. Maybe Im stubborn, or headstrong, but Im not fully convinced this bpl crap is as destructive as claimed. And even if it is, how can someone actually believe that the FCC would allow this technology if in fact it wipes the entire radio spectrum out? Granted, the FCC is mostly run by money happy lawyers and greedy politicians these days, but I doubt they would be dumb enough to invite the tens of thousands of rfi complaints this bpl garbage will bury them in! Do you actually think any politician / lawyer would purposely make MORE work for themselves? Yeah, right! Writing to the ARRL will accomplish nothing. They want code dropped so they can recruit new hams who after so many years talking to "bubba" on their cb rigs, finally get that ham ticket with nothing more then memorizing the answers to the test. The bpl crapola is a lets band together against the real enemy public relations gimmick to unite existing members and potential new members to get their minds off the code debate. The handwriting is on the wall, the cw testing requirement is soon to be dropped, so no sense in arguing about it. But until I see the ARRL actively fighting to RETAIN cw testing, then Im not impressed with the smoke and mirrors bpl crap, or the so called poll which means nothing. Didnt anyone notice the first petitioner for dropping the cw testing was the NVEC who by some magic coincidence, happen to be ARRL affiliates? With the literally thousands of part 15 rfi generating devices out there,(and we`re all still on the air) I fail to see the FCC being so stupid as to allow this bpl thing to obliterate spectrum en masse even for the sake of their lobbying buddies at the power companies. The disaster of dealing with tens of thousands of rfi complaints alone should be enough deterrent for the boys up in Washington who dont wish to get their hands "dirty" and actually have to "work" for that easy money paycheck. The ominous silence of the ARRL at the WRC convention alone speaks volumes about how the leadership there really feels. Wouldnt make sense for them to cut off their own potential cash supply by taking a real stance on the issue, knowing how polarized this issue really is. They are forced to go for the $$$$ for their own survival, so before all the league supporters fall on their swords defending them, stop and think about the real issue at stake here.......money.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA3NRX asks:"How do we send our comments to the ARRL???...What is the proper e-mail address or channel to do so???"
Send an e-mail to your Section Manager, Rich Beaver- N3SRJ at n3srj@arrl.org. I checked your section manager information. Unfortunately, your section manager does not have the same survey that mine does. Here is a copy and paste of my section manager's survey:
=======================================================
Southern Fla. Section Membership Survey
Membership #:______________________
Name:_____________________________
Call:______________
Present Survey Question:
Should the U.S. eliminate Morse Code (CW) requirement for amateur radio licenses?
Yes
No
(Instructions, copy the survey, click email, paste into the text portion, fill in the information, delete the answer you do not want to send, i.e. if your vote is "yes" delete no, if "no" delete yes, mark subject line "survey" and send)
=======================================================
Just send Rich Beaver an e-mail and let him know your feelings about the code issue. As for any other ARRL members whose section managers don't have a CW survey, do the same. Find out who your section manager is and send him/her an e-mail with your wishes regarding the code issue. By the way, the Southern Florida Section Manager survey can be accessed at http://www.sflarrl.org/Survey%20Page.htm for those who live in Southeast florida.
I did my part. My vote (for retention of CW testing) is in.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark (K0XXX): Very cogent post about under-utilized repeaters and CBers coming into the hobby in droves. Like you, I just do not feel this will happen if the code test is dropped for HF.
Someone else said: "If they vote to do away with the code, then many present members will get disgusted and leave the ranks in droves."
Why would many present members do that? They'd only be hurting themselves. Assuming these "many members" you're referring to have all passed the code test, how would such a wholesale desertion help anything?
When it comes right down to it, the best thing that we can do to resolve the issue is to do what the original poster suggested, and write our ARRL reps. It's my hope that the majority opinion will prevail and that it won't be too late for the HF bands in general by that time. What to do about BPL is still the more pressing issue that needs to be immediately addressed, in my opinion.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N8XRV on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think they should add another license class.
A No Code General. Same theroy, but no code.
It could go two ways from here.
No Code Gen has HF privs like any other Gen. up to 30M
Or
No Code Gen gets small chunks of each HF band.
Then everyone can get on HF without code, and yet the coded people will have quieter places to operate.
I will vote to keep the code, but I would have no problem with something like I mentioned above.
73 N8XRV (Yes, I'm still a no-code tech, This Month..)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like N8XRV's idea.....could take it even further to add some additional privileges for Extra's, phone and CW, by either making the CW test more meaningful (back to 20WPM)or making the theory test more detailed. I am an Extra now, but I wouldn't mind taking the 20WPM CW test, or re-taking the theory exam, to get some exclusive band privileges.
73,
W5EEX
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K7VO on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I actually wrote my division director right after the decision to drop the code as an international requirement at WRC-2003. I favor, as many of you know, getting rid of the hazing ritual we call morse code examinations completely. My voice has already been heard.
Oh, and yeah, as my callsign makes clear, I'm an Extra. Yes, I'm a League member. Yes, I've been licensed almost 20 years and didn't get HF privileges until I passed a 13 WPM exam. Times change and testing should be relevant to today's technology.
Comments to the FCC are running 2:1 in favor of dropping all morse examinations. Country after country is doing just that, with Ireland being the most recent I've read about. No code is coming. You can complain, wring your hands, threaten to leave the hobby, threaten to pull your ARRL membership, or whatever. That, or you can work to come up with meaningful testing that reflects what people actually need to know to be good hams today.
73,
Caity
K7VO
flames to /dev/null
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5HTW on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Probably KE4ZHN has it right. But the ARRL Board has stated it is in favor of retaining code testing. I believe that constitutes an "Official ARRL Position." Being in favor of something does not necessarily mean one will move forward on that, but it is an least a position.
W5EEX suggests retaking the Extra test for additional privileges. The catch is, we have no "new" privileges we can award an Extra without taking them away from a General. That would make it like Incentive Licensing of 1968, when the FCC took away privileges, then re-awarded them to those who upgraded. That would create a new Incentive Licensing hatred and resentment. If there were additional, desirable frequencies that could be awarded to Extras, it would be a workable plan.
However we now are living in the remnants of Incentive Licensing and it does not work any longer, though it did work well for probably twenty years after it began. Having weakened the entire structure, we may as well go all the way and remove classes and give everyone the same license. With the 'expert' class ticket no longer being any kind of expert at anything that relates to amateur radio, it is a pointless charade, and serves only to increase the bicker level.
I really doubt, no matter what the ARRL's position on Morse testing may be, or may change to, it is going to have any effect on what the FCC does. The FCC is motivated by what is good - or what they believe is good - for the general world, not three quarters of a million hobbyists, many of whom are not active anyway. We are quite literally a drop in the bucket of FCC issues. They will find it easier for their workload, if they get further uninvolved with us by simplifying even more ham radio rules, licensing structure, and database needs, and by further easing enforcement.
My rather cynical opinion is the FCC already knows what they are going to do about us. Petitions for or against Morse testing are to let us "think" we have an input, but no matter how it goes, the FCC will, as soon as their internal squeaking wheels can roll, remove Morse testing and further simplify license structure. I would not be surprised to see a two-stage process, in which first the Novice, Tech, Tech with code, and General are all combined, and then, in the second stage, all are combined with Extra, including current Advanced ticket holders. That will result in "Amateur Radio License." Period.
It will also result in rather dramatically reduced CW segments of the bands, and expanded phone bands. That has happened before, so there is precedent for it. And despite the clamor of many new hams that they want to get on HF to do data, the actual result of removing the Morse requirement will be they get on HF to do phone (SSB.) So the data bands will also be reduced, as the demand will be for more phone space.
Is this going to take ten years? A lot of people are saying it will take years for the FCC to move on this. Really? Remember Restructuring of 1999?
If the FCC already has a plan, and are just waiting a "decent interval" to declare Morse dead, these changes could begin in early 2004. That isn't a prediction they "will" begin, but I believe it is a possibility.
On BPL. It is my guess BPL in its current form will never be acceptable to the FCC, nor will it be possible for the power companies, who will have to collectively spend billions to upgrade their capabilities. Most rural lines are far too noisy and in too poor shape for BPL. Power lines in the city are already wiped out by interference of their own making. Ever see "line noise" on your TV screen? Or hear it on your radio? Imagine what that does to RF signals ON the power line!
BPL has a 'long' ways to go before it could be activated, if ever. Amateur radio will exist only in the history books before BPL becomes a reality. And even if it was approved tomorrow, it would certainly be ten years before most power companies could get up to speed on it, and perhaps even longer. Every transformer and every relay and every filter on every power line in America (and those across the borders) would have to be modified. In my opinion, it may be the future, but it is not the near future. Amateur radio will implode (as it has begun to do, starting in the late 1980s) for other reasons long before the first "real" BPL system goes on line.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KC2LSU on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually I believe that a direction finding test, akin to a driving test when getting your driving license would be more helpfull then having to learn morse code; especially when you have to track down the idot hams who cause interferance by crossbanding FM repeaters, with out adding their own ID's, in the 144.000 to 144.100 area. This particular ham, is messing up my desire to do some EME work.
Have any of you seen what a JT44 screen looks like when a blast of FM comes along? geeze, the buzzing is not helping me get started in this mode
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W8VOM on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The best way to keep the CW debate going "FOREVER" is to require 5 wmp for Extra only! This will create a Glass Ceiling and keep NCI in business. Another good thing about keeping the Code only for the Extra is that we will have many more wars to enjoy!!!
The End to Morse testing draws near,I dont like it but have accepted it. MODE testing is OUTMODED. W8VOM
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W4EWJ on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What the hell does being an extra have to do with
anything? A few extra khz here and there. The current
test is a farce...go to QRZ.COM and take the test
10 times and you can pass it Passing the test proves
absolutely nothing. You guys that post that "I'm
an extra" My call sign proves I'm an extra" who do
you think gives a rats ass...
Its about restoring the hobby to its former worthiness
and getting rid of the bottom feeders that are
slowly creeping throughout...freeloaders, wannabes,
something for nothing creeps that if they had it
their way the tests would be eliminated.
Make up another test thats far more difficult than
current give-aways and dont grandfather anybody
that passed under the current system 5WPM and
written BS and dont supply the questions/answers.
No code...ok, leave the band plan as is. Will it
happen, probably not...too late.
I dont know how serious BPL is in response
to an earlier post...I just dont have as much
faith in the intellect of the FCC as the other post
does.
Earle
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N8CP on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Frankly i dont care what they do with it. If you want to use it do so, if not dont.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W4VR on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W5EEX, you are living in the past. Get real and look to the future of ham radio.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL needs to take a long look before it jumps over this canyon. There have been two subjects brought up in this thread that have burned the ARRL in the past.
1. Incentive licensing:
Someone said that Incentive Licensing had worked for 20 years. What actually worked was a consistant expanding of privileges for Advanced, General, old Technician and Novice classes during that time period. What also worked was the grandfathering to General any Technician class who took the test before 1988.
Almost everything that was done concerning Amateur Radio policy during this period was done to help minimize the effects of incentive licensing without actually repealing it. It is very telling that 30, 17, and 12 meters did not have any reserved spectrum for the Extra class.
2. Some of us remember the debate that went on in the mid 80s concerning the creation of a no code license.
Just like today, The ARRL was accused of backing this in order to reap the great financial reward of thousands and thousands of new members. Did not happen, and most likely will not happen this time if the code requirement is dropped entirely. During the decade of the 90s the ARRL actually had some years where they lost membership amid the great expansion of licensed hams.
As some have said, the ARRL stands to lose no matter which way they go.
I suspect that most of the ARRL membership values their license and their participation in Amateur Radio. There are others who do not belong due to policy issues who value their ARS participation just as much.
What you get cheaply, you don't value highly.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have made my thoughts about the code known to the ARRL. I learned code but never really liked it. But if the ARRL does something I disagree with I am not dropping them. They already do things I don't like but dropping out is not any way to get our voices heard . No one or no organization is available outside the ARRL to speak for us. So disagree with them, write letters and voice your disapproval on forums. But in the final analysis, the ARRL is us and we need them as much as they need us. The more of us that belong gives them a louder voice to represent us where needed. I'm staying no matter how much I disagree with them.
73
Frank
KL7IPV
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with K3UD that the past experience with incentive licensing is a big reason the ARRL appears skittish on the code/no-code licensing debate. For those that weren't involved in amateur radio in the 1960's, the ARRL supported the creation of the sub-bands reserved for Advanced and Extra Class licenses that exist today. What that meant at the time, however, was General class license holders had their privileges reduced. Many of them were angry and dropped membership in ARRL. This was unfortunate, because ARRL is the premier amateur radio society in North America, dating back to WW I days. If it weren't for ARRL, ham radio would probably not exist today. I'll always support ARRL, and I hope that today's hams will not be short-sighted and jump ship for selfish or petty reasons as some did in the 1960's.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5HTW on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<by K3UD
1. Incentive licensing:
Someone said that Incentive Licensing had worked for 20 years. What actually worked was a consistant expanding of privileges for Advanced, General, old Technician and Novice classes during that time period. What also worked was the grandfathering to General any Technician class who took the test before 1988.>>
What DID happen was a good many hams, like myself, did upgrade, thereby improving their skills. That was the intent of Incentive Licensing, but in retrospect in my own view, taking away from some in order to award others was not the correct way to do it. At the time, though, I neither griped nor left ham radio, nor abandoned the ARRL. I simply studied and upgraded, which was exactly the intent of the incentive. I knew many others who did the same thing, so in my view it DID work; it accomplished its intent.
It began to fail in 1978, I believe, with Novice enhancement. Full collapse of the intent of incentive licensing did not come until the two year 'in grade' requirement to test for the Extra was removed, and the Novice was made a permanently renewable license. The removal of the two year Extra requirement meant the removal of experience requirement for those whose license is not to learn but to teach. It made the teachers into students.
But we can not and should not go back. We can not, just for example, remove access to the WARC bands for all but Extras. We've been down that road of curtailing of privileges in order to provide incentive and it was a bad road in the long run.
However, I contend the concept did work in that it forced a good many of us to improve our abilities and skills. That it did so with such hard feelings is only because there was no new carrot to dangle for the Extras (and Advanced at the time.) What would have made Incentive Licensing excellent would have been to have some new bands or frequencies available that could be held in reserve for those achieving that ticket. Taking it away from those of us who were Generals was just a bad plan.
We have, though, as you mention, spent many years now going in the opposite direction, with probably the largest single downward step being the creation of the code free Technician ticket in 1991. But it's all done, milk under the bridge. The trend is one that will continue. It is for that reason that I believe the entire concept of classes of licenses is now outdated in amateur radio. We must either have incentive licensing or not, but we are halfway between, and it is a failure. Since we can't go back, the only route, albeit a poor one, is to go ahead. And that means removal of class, give everyone everything, and let the tide take its toll.
Perhaps as a ham who has had a good run for many years in this hobby, the truth is I don't really care anymore to fight the already lost battle to save it. I've had my fun. Those who come to it today will never know what they missed. That's OK with me.
73
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a novel idea, League members sending their views about ham radio to their section managers, or directly to the League.
Or, one can send their views about no-code testing for HF access to the FCC.
One could even wait until the FCC asks for views about no-code!
Anyone got a figures on what the projected numbers of No-code techs, Generals and Extras would be by this time?
Are we above or below those projection?
Got figures/facts about the positive or negative impact of the no-code ticket experiment?
No facts?
Just keep arguing and name calling then. Its entertainment.
73
bob
PS: the “surveys” on eHam ONLY have entertainment value, even if there wasn't "stuffing" the votes.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by WR8D on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE KE4ZHN. Beautifully well said. You hit the nail exactly on the head sir.
Thanks for saying it exactly like it is!
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N9AVY on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great ! Now we're arguing about NOT arguing ! Sheesh!
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by AA4PB on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about we eliminate the code test but the questions for the written exam will be transmitted at 20WPM? That should thin out the ranks. :-)
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The more people that get filtered from HF and chased towards EchoLink and other Internet resources...HELLO BPL!!!
Maybe when half of QST is listings of "silent keys" ham radio will be more sociable.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, W5HTW
You are correct in saying that in some ways Incentive Licensing worked. Like you, I upgraded to keep some spectrum I was going to lose when the 1969 (part 2) General band contractions were due to go into effect. In the end, they never did probably because the ARRL petitioned the FCC not to do it because they saw the damage that the first contractions did to the service.
Did going down to the Philadelphia Customs House to get the Advanced make me a better operator? I don't believe that it did any more for me than being an active operator on many bands and modes I was using. Was I technically more proficient because I passed a harder exam? probably no more than I would have been by working on my equipment, converting surplus and homebrewing stuff.
In the publication "50 years of ARRL" The ARRL itself did not give specific reasons for why they pushed Incentive Licensing so hard other than to say that there SEEMED to be a malaise on the bands that was leading to discourteous conduct, a decline of home brewing equipment, and most of all, less use of the code.
In another section of the same publication they mentioned that the greatest technical advances by hams and for hams came in the period from 1950 - 1964 ....... oddly enough the same time period when Generals, Advanced , and Extra had all amateur privileges.
I personally feel that Incentive Licensing was a method, pushed by a relative few, with its purpose to set right some of the perceived wrongs from 1951 when everyone got equal access to the ARS spectrum. It probably incensed some people.
It could be argued that incentives in ham radio have existed since its birth. In my case it was my desire to learn about commuinications at 432 and 1296 and getting stuff to work there. It was also about early EME work, weak signal and meteor scatter work on VHF. Because I wanted to learn, I had the incentive.
Agree that taking things away from people who had already earned them is a very bad idea. Kind of like getting your four year college degree downgraded to a two year associate degree unless you show up at a given school and take some testing.
When Incentive Licensing was implemented I foolishly quit the ARRL for over seven years, coming back in 1975 when I realized that the ARRL recognized that it had been a large mistake.
As mentioned, the ARRL is walking a fine line on the code issue and as someone mentioned, even if you are not a member, find out who your division's director is and tell them what you think about it.
Learning is a lifelong process.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W4CNG on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have two times. First in 1967 to oppose Incentive Licensing (didn't work, didn't last), and this year on ESSB, the jury is still out, way out in left field. Never got a response to either. The only reason I am a member is for the ARES program (as ARES DEC Metro Atlanta) and the 5 million souls that the EC's in the Metro Atlanta area that they and I care for when that time comes, and I hope it is not in my lifetime.
I have no further FCC tests to take in my lifetime. I see no reason for all the bickering, squabbling, and fighting that is going on across the various SIG's on CW. Face it, the World Organizations determine what goes on in the World of Radio EXCEPT how the USA Conducts itself in the FREE Elections of it's leaders. HMMM, we can still say NO can't we.
Steve W4CNG
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with KE4ZHN.....couldn't have said it better.......MONEY talks! And that's all it is about any more.
73,
W5EEX
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W3DCG on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, now that's stern:
<My continued membership, and the dues I pay to the ARRL hinge on the outcome of this issue.>
Let's see, directly how do I benefit from the ARRL-
when I first came back late in 2001, I went DX CRAZY!
As a Novice and child in 1979- I never experienced ANYTHING like the DX that came knocking on our doors during the tail end of that last Solar Cycle peak!
The outbound bureau alone paid for my dues.
Since then, seems like, all I do is try to find the time for some great conversational CW! hi hi.
CW is important for me now, likely will be important if I ever get to retire in 25 years. Come to think of it, seems like my main motivation for being in the hobby presently is, great conversational CW.
When I get more time, when the kids get older in 15 years or hopefully before then, there will be other aspects I'd love to delve into deeply, instead of only touching on them.
This is one reason why, I will not do the Life Member method. To my thinking, that is like voting for one Party for the rest of my life.
You are a brave person, W5EEX, proclaiming your support contigent upon this issue.
Such this very idea did cross my mind.
I've started doing phone lately, I don't get the opportunity often for chatting on phone without background noise from children, TVs, Music, and such. But the kids can be running around here and CW doesn't bother anyone, the stereo can be loud, and I can still do CW. I like phone, while I like CW with a passion.
I was and am, so very happy to see how this vote is developing in Georgia:
Totals... 165 NO's.... 436 YES's...
as of: 10/07/03 1:30 pm
from Georgia ARRL members, Yes to retain Code requirements for General.
SURPRISE!
73 to all whether you like CW or not- please don't shoot the messenger.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N6AJR on October 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
March QST 1978, "as We SEE IT" , a regular feature/// same arguments, both side, end of the world as we know it // ham radio is loosing members, no new blood, bal bla bla. same thing again..
But this was for Incentive licensing. duh
we're still here
cw/ no cw testing is another bump in the road
cw will cotinue to be used whether or not testing is maintained.
get a life folks
If you are for the code, then use it, now and then, and for ever, up to you to keep it "hot"
don't like code, required or not, pass the test and forget it for ever, only use a microphone, or psk or what ever. its up to you to keep SSB " hot"
later dudes and dudettes...Tom N6AJR
( and not one mention of a Fan Dipole hi hi)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by YEPSURE on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why do that when you can just wait for the FCC to drop the stupid code requirement, take the test, and get right on HF. It's going to happen no matter what all you bigtime CW people think or say. All this, "Just learn the code and you can get on HF" is stupid. Simply wait a bit longer and the FCC will bow to the MAJORITY as well as the radio manufacturers input, and a written test will be the ONLY thing required to get on HF. And all those shitball CW-God wanna-be's can go cry to someone else.
You people are so stupid ya know? This change is coming soon and there's nothing in the world you can do about it! You think all the voting here or on the useless ARRL websites make any difference? You think that crap really matters? What matter's, like anything else on this planet, is M-O-N-E-Y. The radio manufacturers have spent plenty to lobby the FCC to drop CW testing because it means a lot of money to them when all those new HF operators need equipment. And the truth is there's a MAJORITY of licensed and non-licensed amateurs who would rather see the CW requirement DROPPED so they can do their thing when and where they want. Your little ARRL membership doesn't mean shit in the big picture. And just because the poll on ARRL shows the majority wants CW testing kept doesn't mean they represent the vast majority of US amateur operators. That's simply ANOTHER false statement CW operators want to force on everybody, that an ARRL poll illustrates what the majority of US amateurs want. WRONG!! The ARRL does NOT represent every licensed amateur operator in the US. They ONLY represent the ones who P-A-Y them money for their membership. Get real you idiots. The bottom line here is CW testing WILL be gone within the next few years. I don't give a shit if you don't believe it but it's going to happen regardless. Then hopefully, all you bigtime CW gods will just go away because you cetainly won't want to talk to the people you've been accusiong of "CB Trash" as you good CW people put it.
You people have some big surprises coming if you think CW testing is going to be retained. But I guess that's what makes you so stupid in these forums. Tell yourself whatever you want. Spew your bullshit here if you like but I guarantee you that CW testing is as good as GONE very soon!!
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by CODEBASHER on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Now lest I be accused of being a coward, my personal
>opinion on the code discussion: I am in favor of
>keeping code testing, at least some form. Not because
>it is a lid filter or makes anyone any better an
>operator, but because it is a part of the heritage
>and tradition of Amateur Radio.
>
>The above opinion isn't presented to try and change >anyone's mind, only so that others will know where I >
>stand. Let the flames begin.
>
>Mark, KØXXX
Thank you Mark, I wish to congratulate you on you "CIVIL" post and your stand on the Code/No-Code debate that has been on eHam to date! I wish to say I respect your opinion and wish to say That in my opinion I am in favor of the requirement to be dropped, for the same reasons. Let it be the individual's dedcision to learn the code for thier own reasons, not mandated ones. (No flames from me)
We can agree to dissagree and still be friends (I hope)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by CWSUCKS on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a dumb debate. CW will be history soon enough and all you people who are for it can still use it whenever you want. As for using to test with, it's history.
And you say we're the dummies??
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K6BBC on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wrote my opinion to the ARRL. They responded by asking why I have not renewed my membership.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
Yep, Shure-Code Basher-CWSux-spinless baby cowards
|
|
|
by W3DCG on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi there, ya pussies.
Man alives! What absolute garbage...
I guess I don't get out much these days,
but for those last two or three posters- unidentified sniveling drivellers- it seems to me some supremely *brilliant* radio people I've run into use CW on a regular basis, among other modes. Many of them have oodles of money, too, myself not included. Every single one of them can receive at least 35 wpm. Most of them are professionals ranging the gamut from heart surgery to microwave design engineers and every conceivable occupation in between.
What is it within your self that makes learning 5 whole entire words per minute such a hardship?
Where do you get the completely ignorant notion that CW is for old people that cannot seem to get with the program of current technology?
Most of these "stupid" CW people are too busy to waste their time reading all this non-sense here. Many are very busy doing what? MAKING MONEY. They are too busy MAKING MONEY to waste their time like I am doing here.
If they are not doing that, and tending to other obligations, then next where will you find them if not here?
You will find many of them with the strongest signals in major contests, CW, RTTY, Phone. Some will be little pistols in the world of contesting. Some won't even bother. Others will be chasing DX, where ever DX is Phone, CW, digital.
Perhaps you think EME practitioners are stupid too? I may even admit I think that a bit eccentric, takes a lot of investment, but certainly- much know how, and any person that has ever assembled an EME station and made contacts could be many things, except stupid.
Within the subgroups- Contesters/DXers (HF/VHF-UHF-Microwave), and the ultimate DX- EME, CW is simply a part of life, like driving a car.
Within the subgroup called QRP, lives some supremely brilliant people, many of whom have the money to buy whatever big rigs they want, and yet, many of them have been there done that, and do QRP because of the challenge. On the CW bands, I have met QRPers who have their 5BDXCC, went through their Contesting conquests, and very much enjoy building radios, home brewing radios, and occasionally take their creations or their K1's and K2's out for a nice 25- 35 wpm spin on 40 meters, blasting away with 5 Watts.
This sub group spends big bucks on ham gear. And Muscle cars, motorcycles, real-estate, airplanes, some of them jump out of planes just for grins.
Probably most are just ordinary people. Probably some are actually stupid. I'll take that hit, I can handle it. I've called myself stupid on many occasion.
However, simply because a person values the past, as they look and move toward the future, does not make them stupid.
Disregarding the past, creates stupidity.
Calling our Elder CW Amateurs stupid, when they are Great Grandparents/Grandparents, and have experienced more than we under 40 could possibly imagine, is truly stupid.
If we might come to value and understand the past, live in the present, while embracing the future, perhaps then, we might know wisdom.
Get a grip, children-
Our Top Dog, Kick-ASS, most awesome ham radio people know code- well. And even if it was 20 wpm, they did not just pass it- they blew it away.
Put that in your pipe, and smoke it.
|
| |
|
RE: Free ride to HF bands?
|
|
|
by K7IHC on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why would a no-code General ham license be a *free-ride*? Most of the *pro-Morse-testing-for-HF-access* supporters seem to have the attitude of: "I did it, so you should have to, too". Well, in times-gone-by, many other things were done differently than they're done today. Times have changed: modern radios are not the same, there is a wider variety of modes available, and there is usually less free time available to most people (not retired) to apply to hobbies.
I also sense that many Morse test supporters believe that the current Morse test is a good *filter*, to keep some certain type of amateur radio operators (people) off of the HF bands. Who are these people? If those *people* are the freebanding, linear-running, good-for-nothing CB-ers, then they're certainly not on the *no-code Technician* VHF/UHF repeaters in my area. I live in the S.F. Bay Area, a place that has an enormous amount of >50 MHz amateur repeaters, and I can hear any machine in a 50+ mile radius. Most of the repeaters are silent for long periods of time. Those hams that I do hear and talk to on the repeaters are perfectly civil, and they follow good amateur practices.
I'll learn Morse code someday, whether it's to pass a 5 wpm receive (Element 1) test, or sometime down the road when a no-code General amateur radio license is a reality. It will be really interesting to see how the FCC goes on this issue.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by G5FSD on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Interesting that 72% of the responding (ARRL)
> membership voted to keep the code testing
> requirement, but not unexpected.
From the 2002 ARRL report :
( http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/02ar.pdf )
"nearly 157,000 members"
"more than 202,000 direct mail pieces were sent to lapsed members and potential new members"
It can be clearly seen that the ARRL does not represent a democratic majority. It would not surprise me if the majority of ARRL members WERE pro-code testing, with no-coders feeling so alienated by aspects of the hobby that they haven't joined.
Anyone know the licence classes breakdown of the ARRL membership, and amongst all licencees? We need to know before we can assess the democratic implications.
|
| |
|
RE: Yep, Shure-Code Basher-CWSux-spinless baby cow
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3DCG:
If you intended for anyone to take your post seriously you certainly ruined that possibility with the first line in your message:
"Hi there, ya pussies."
You come off as an ignorant foul mouthed imbecile.
N8VB
|
| |
|
totally agree
|
|
|
by KG4PLA on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think I agree with WR8D. Alot of it is about money and creation of new membership.
Obviously this heated debate will really take us no where fast! If we really wanted to have an impact on the FCC we would have to have a friend like Ted Turner or Lowry Mays.
Mr. Powell isn't interested in this debate at all. He is too busy on the hill boosting the stock price of viacom and clear communications, et al.
We have three sides in this topic...for, against and indifferent. The indifferent are the group that worry me. Actually some of the people are indifferent about everything, all of the people are indifferent about something but not all of the people are indifferent about everything.
I think that the debate is good...I think that we should write city hall. We should call the FCC and tell them what we think. The ARRL is a , and I put in quotations, "Private" organization that will have only its own interests in mind ultimately.
How hard do you think it is to get a TV station on the air... or a radio station? How hard would it be for an organization like the arrl to get one on the air?
mpowell@fcc.gov Michael Powell FCC chair
kabernat@fcc.gov Kathleen Abernathy Commissioner
mcopps@fcc.gov Michael Copps Commissioner
kjmweb@fcc.gov Kevin Martin Commissioner
jadelste@fcc.gov Jonathan Adelstein Commissioner
There....there are the dudes email addy.
I suggest that we email them letting them know how we feel. I bet they will respond in form to us. I bet that they will comfort us with words like
"Dear Mr./Mrs. A.M.Ateur
...together with the common voice of your amateur Brothers and Sisters worldwide we have been diligently reviewing the current amateur radio spectrum and the advancement of current amateur testing for sometime now and with the heart and spirit of amateur radio foremost in our minds, we will make a decision in due time that will benefit all amateur radio enthusiasts....Thank you for your interst in the radio spectrum and the FCC loves you."
I like this forum, I think the eHam people are great by the way and I am proud to be a ham radio operator...
My opinion: Promote Code, keep it alive, test and license with it.
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I think there may be a number of people that feel
> like John on remaining an ARRL member based on how
> the ARRL comes down on this issue.
Perhaps so, but I would also imagine that each and every one of those folks will want to see ARRL continue to do things like spectrum protection, bringing amateur radio into the classrooms and its RFI program.
> That is why I think the ARRL may stay out of it and
> let the petitioners and the FCC do their thing.
ARRL will have to weigh in on this issue, but its elected Board of Directors will make the decision about what ARRL's position will be. I cannot imagine that this won't be settled at the January board meeting. Right now, the matter is at the "petition for rulemaking" stage, and ARRL rarely uses its resources to get involved at the "RM" level, unless spectrum allocation is involved. The present status was explained pretty well at:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/10/01/1/?nc=1
> I would love to see the ARRL file comments in
> support of retaining code testing but the ARRL is
> very revenue concious and I don't think they want to
> take any action that would cost membership.
As one of the spenders of that revenue, I think more in terms of being concious about making sure ARRL has the resources to continue to do the things that I want the League to do.
> For the ARRL it is a no win situation.
Maybe, but not necessarily. There are almost as many ideas on what rules changes should be made as there are hams, and no single proposal is going to please everyone. What hams will have to decide is whether the code-testing issue is more important than all the other things that ARRL does, because if members quit, the end or curtailment of some ARRL programs will be the only end result.
> I think John's suggestion to write the ARRL is valid
> but I think it is even more important to file
> comments with the FCC on the various petitions on
> this issue.
I agree. Make your views known to your ARRL director, to help shape ARRL's position, but also make your views known by filing comments with the FCC on matters of interest to you. This is important, whether you file in support of the League's postion, or in opposition.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/csinfo/comments.html
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> How do we send our comments to the ARRL???...What is
> the proper e-mail address or channel to do so???
Your division director is among those listed at:
http://www.arrl.org/divisions
To file comments with the FCC:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/csinfo/comments.html
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I am an Extra now, but I wouldn't mind taking the
> 20WPM CW test, or re-taking the theory exam, to get
> some exclusive band privileges.
How about a 60 wpm test to get a part of the band only you can use? From my experience, actually operating at 20 wpm gets me as much exclusivity as I would ever want. Those that haven't mastered code to 20 wpm generally don't answer my CQs. If they do, I slow down, so maybe we need to be inclusive, not exclusive, to foster the overall health of amateur radio.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> During the WRC convention the ARRL abstained from
> making a comment on the code issue. Why? Do I need
> to spell it out?
I think that it is because at the last Board meeting, the League decided to have the Board members poll the members in their divisions to determine if any change should be made to the ARRL's code-testing policy. With that on the plate, voting would have been premature.
If the Board does not set a policy and act on it, I will agree with how you spell it out, but in the meantime, I am taking them at their word.
In "spelling it out," do consider that, by policy, the ARRL Board of Directors members do not get paid a dime for their efforts and they do not get to keep any of the money that I suspect will form part of your answer...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> What you get cheaply, you don't value highly.
If I buy the winning lottery ticket for a dollar, I will value it highly, indeed.
The privileges I get from my license are of far more value to me than what I had to do to get into ham radio. To become a ham, I studied 4 pages of "study guide" in the Novice section of the ARRL license manual. That is about 10X easier than it is today, but I valued that Novice license very much indeed -- enough where it literally shaped my life.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed-W1RFI,
Interesting comment on the lottery. I have only known (slightly) one person who hit for a large amount in the Kentucky lottery. This was a $1,000,000 winner who elected to take the cashout amount which was considerably less.
Several houses, vacations, SUVs and other toys later he filed for bankruptcy and then sued the state because he thought he really should have the whole million. The basis of his suit was that the Kentucky Lottery Commission's advertising was misleading. There are many case histories of lottery winners losing it all very quickly.
Of course if I ever hit, I would value it also :)
As far as the Novice license requirements are concerned, I think you and I probably took the same test at about the same time. I put what I thought was a good amount of work into preparing for the test, especially the code test, using the license manual and an Ameco study guide. While I passed it the on the first try I knew some who needed several.
The privileges conveyed by the Novice license were probably in line with the testing.
It was the General that gave me real problems, especially the code test, and after failing it and getting the Technician, it took me many months to get up to speed and take it again. When I passed it, I treasured both the license and the privileges it conveyed.
As I have mentioned in these threads before, there has been some research done in the FCC database which shows that almost 97% of no code Technician class licensees are not renewing their licenses which are now starting to expire at the end of their grace period. I think there is only 8 months of history to go on at this time and it will be interesting to see how the numbers hold up as time goes on.
As to the reasons for the almost non existant renewal rates of this license class, its anyone's guess, but I submit that those who are not renewing have put a very low value on the license and the privileges they had.
BTW,
Thanks for your great work on the BPL issue!
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>During the WRC convention the ARRL abstained from
making a comment on the code issue<<
Plus you get the "we are neither for nor against", "we will not confirm nor deny", "the argument is neither here nor there" spin replies.
The ARRL is an organization of extra class operators for extra class operators only in my opinion. They do not represent the multi licensed structured ham community, also my opinion. My wife and I will not renew our memberships once they expire.
I'm sure the ARRL doesn't want our membership either, except when they beg us for more money and ask us to write letters to lobby against BPL.
Then the whole amateur community suddenly becomes important.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5JBP on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dave, I hear so many stories that are all mixed up. So, let me point out that A. The IARU is just an observer at the WRC. It does not have a vote. B. The abstaining vote was at the NCVEC meeting, not at the WRC. That is Bart's instructions from the board of directors.
Next, we do value your membership and all others. No doubt about that. In some of the other posts here, there is mention that we are for/against for the money. What money? Either way, how would we gain? The ARRL's main mission is to protect and promote amateur radio, and as of late, I think we have done a pretty good job. Could we do more? Could we do better? Of course, and one of my responsibilities is to look at the big picture and out to the future, not to focus on just one issue.
Our present position is to retain the code test. Will that change? Maybe, in that the League's board of directors are taking input from the membership. We will take it up at the annual meeting in January 2004.
Last, all of the amateur community wants the League to come down on one side or the other "right now." There is absolutely no hurry. I said in an earlier post, the whole part 97 needs a review and we are doing that now.
73
Jim Haynie, W5JBP
President, ARRL
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If it were true, which its not, that the ARRL is composed of and largely only represents the "extra class" viewpoint, then its only because there aren't enough of the other licensed classes represented in the membership. So, how do you think you're going to affect things in a manner you'd describe as positive, if you're going to let your membership lapse?
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
Would it be possible to post the breakdown of the ARRL membership sorted by license class?
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“Would it be possible to post the breakdown of the ARRL membership sorted by license class?”
I think such a breakdown would be irrelevant. Hams join the League and then upgrade. If it does look like most are Extras, it might be due to existing members upgrading. I joined the League in 1995 when I first got my Technician license. Today I am an Extra. I think the statement “The ARRL is an organization of extra class operators for extra class operators only in my opinion.” doesn’t hold any water.
For the public record, I already took the ARRL Southern Florida Section Membership Survey yesterday and I voted “NO” to the question “Should the U.S. eliminate Morse Code (CW) requirement for amateur radio licenses?”.
Jim (W5JBP), my desire is to retain the 5 wpm Morse proficiency exam for General and Extra, keep the CW sub bands intact as they are and restructure all written theory exams so that applicants have to actually learn the material in order to pass the exams. If the NCVEC must keep the multiple choice format and continue publishing the question pools, those pools should at least be so vast that there would be no possible way to memorize the pool and ace an exam without knowing anything about the material. The number of questions should be increased, as well. As for the multiple choice questions themselves, I’m sure that more creative choices can be written so that the answers aren’t no-brainers with 3 asinine choices and one choice that makes sense, as is the case today. Most of the questions and answers are pure common sense. Where is the need to learn the material?
As for granting HF privileges to no-code Technician class licensees, I have no problem with it. I am all for granting no-code Techs limited HF phone, digital and CW privileges. I feel that doing so would provide an incentive for no-coders to learn the code and upgrade to General and beyond. I think such a compromise would satisfy most people except for the hard-core extremists on both sides of the code issue.
I feel that this needed to be posted here. I will send via e-mail what is appropriate from this post to my Division Manager, Frank M. Butler Jr, W4RH.
73 de AG4RQ
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see nothing wrong or irrelevant about posting the requested license demographic on the membership.
There are those who feel that the ARRL is only after the money that tens of thousands of newly upgraded or licensed hams with HF privileges granted by a no code license would potentially add to the membership.
On the other hand there are those who feel that the ARRL is of, by, and for the Extra class amateur and no other class matters.
Still others feel that the ARRL is made up of 13 and 20 WPM General, Advanced and Extra dinosaurs who will have their way at any cost.
I suspect, but can not prove, that the majority of those who charge the ARRL with any of the above are not members.
There is one other group, and that is the paid membership who probably hopes that the ARRL will look out for thier interests, whever they fall.
The allegations in any thread that mentions the ARRL are flying. So whats wrong with posting the numbers?
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
Not a League member? Don't bother.
|
|
|
by K7LA on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Statistically, only one in four amateurs belong to the ARRL. Despite what you've heard to the contrary, a dues-driven organization really in't going to listen to rantings of non-members since they don't contribute to the organization's ongoing objectives.
As a member, I have made my feelings known on the subject. 73 de K7LA/6, ARRL VE.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3UD wrote:
“I see nothing wrong or irrelevant about posting the requested license demographic on the membership.
There are those who feel that the ARRL is only after the money that tens of thousands of newly upgraded or licensed hams with HF privileges granted by a no code license would potentially add to the membership.
On the other hand there are those who feel that the ARRL is of, by, and for the Extra class amateur and no other class matters.
Still others feel that the ARRL is made up of 13 and 20 WPM General, Advanced and Extra dinosaurs who will have their way at any cost.
I suspect, but can not prove, that the majority of those who charge the ARRL with any of the above are not members.
There is one other group, and that is the paid membership who probably hopes that the ARRL will look out for thier interests, whever they fall.
The allegations in any thread that mentions the ARRL are flying. So whats wrong with posting the numbers?
73
George
K3UD”
There is nothing wrong with posting the numbers. However, those who have upgraded will cause the numbers to appear skewed. Like I said, I joined the League when I first got my Tech license in 1995. I have since upgraded. The allegation that the League is composed mainly of Extras and is for their interests is pure nonsense. I believe that most hams that join the League do so when they first get licensed, like I did. If I thought that the ARRL looked down on Techs, do you think I would have joined upon getting my Tech license? I joined because I felt the need to belong to an organization that would look out for the interests of the ham community collectively.
You are probably right. The ones making all the accusations are most likely not members. However, some of them might be ex-members. Just a thought.
Just for the record, I am a 5 wpm Extra. At 49, I guess I'm a dinosaur to today's youth. I’m not asking the League to look out for my interests. I just ask that the League look out for the best interests of hams collectively. I don’t want to see anyone get the shaft, particularly those who have been League members a lot longer than most no-coders have been alive. There’s got to be a good compromise that will satisfy most rational people. I suggested one. If there is a better one, I’m listening.
73 de AG4RQ
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N5WC on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The logic of AC5CH in saying that he resented having to learn code so much that he never uses it, does not make sense. That is like saying that because I was taught to use a potty chair or toilet when growing up, that because of resentment I now go on the floor or the sidewalk. Or because I resented having to brush my teeth as a child I now just let them rot out to show my "resentment". Or because I was taught a language like English, I will use only sign language because I didn't like to learn new words. Or because I had to take drivers training to pass and get a drivers license, I will walk or ride a mule to show my "resentment". Work code, or don't work code, but don't use a childish excuse like "resentment" as a reason. 73, N5WC
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KE4NYV on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I find amazing is how the jerks that lerk around on this site can turn ANY damn subject into the same CW debate. It does not matter what the hell the subject was, it's almost garanteed it will be changed to that.
73's
Jason KE4NYV
RPC Electronics
www.ke4nyv.com/rpc
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KE4NYV on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I find amazing is how the jerks that lerk around on this site can turn ANY damn subject into the same CW debate. It does not matter what the hell the subject was, it's almost garanteed it will be changed to that.
73's
Jason KE4NYV
RPC Electronics
www.ke4nyv.com/rpc
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N6AJR on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First... to the idiot who calld everyone else STUPID.. we may disagree with your opinion but that does not make me or any one else stupid.. It makes you look like a selfish spoiled little brat. Keep it to the subject and don't call names, ya wouldnn't say that to my face. Grow up..
Folks they are going to, or not going to remove TESTING for CODE ... you can still use code on the air..there is a difference.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My wife and I really have no desire to learn the code. Even though we have donated our personal finances, time and materials to a retirement community for tech license classes, participated in ARES and Red Cross drills, helped hams or future hams with financial or physical handicaps, (I've even offered to pay for a gentleman's ARRL membership one time as he was in financial difficulties), we've also made numerous friends locally and have donated more time and money to our local club, it's so undeniably clear that members of the ham community like us are not considered worthy of the HF bands. Only learning the code really makes you a "true" ham in the ARRL's opinion and the narrow minded half of the ham community. Let them keep pushing people in the direction of Echolink and other Internet linking resources for amateur radio. BPL will get here faster than you think with the ARRL's filter tactics. Echolink and the ARRL will play a role in getting it here faster.
As for my wife and I, we do have other interests and hobbies if and when BPL takes over so keep your filtered and protected bands as long as they are still around.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K0RGR on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FCC has just opened another 6 petitions on this topic for comment. See the ARRL web site for more details.
I brushed off my comments for the first batch, added some specific comments about the new batch and posted them to all 6, so don't bother reading mine more than once.
Once again, I came out in favor of granting some priveleges to Techs - I favor giving them all or most of the HF CW priveleges and limited voice on 160 and 10 meters, and digital on 160, 30, and 10. My hope is that this would encourage newcomers to explore using CW with computers, and gain a real appreciation for it.
The new petitions offer a host of potential solutions, some of which are acceptable and some of which are not. If the Techs get some meaningful HF priveleges - that is, something they can actually use instead of just throwing them a bone and hoping they will go away (they might!), I don't really care about the General code test. FCC would be wise to drop it and end this argument, but if that will result in mass suicides, maybe they should not.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by AC4UR on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I posted my comments to the ARRL about my view on the code requirement. Your comments count be it from a member or not. I have been a ham for quite a few years and have been active and inactive often. This was a situation dictated by life choices. I have to say this about the ARRL, when I contacted them for help on an issue I received help. It did not matter if I was a member or not. I decided to rejoin because there is more strength in numbers and we are facing some difficult issues ahead. We need to leave paranoid conspiracies behind and make a commitment.
Here a new one for the no-code enthusiasts...
Today the Boy Scouts of America decided to drop the proficiency requirement for the Morse Code merit badge. They opted to make it a spelling proficiency test instead. If the scout could spell CW he would receive the merit badge. I think we can learn something from this. Why should be make anything so difficult to achieve?
Remember...whether you have been a ham for a few days or half a century, you are still part of Amateur Radio's future. You need to act like it.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W7PW on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One should communicate their opinions on this, or any, issue with the League. Hopefully the folks in Newington will take all viewpoints into account on any issue of interest to the Amateur Radio community. After all, they are the only effective voice we have and we need effective representation desperately.
Jack, W7PW
(ARRL Life Member, although I don't always agree with 'em)
|
| |
|
RE: Hey Idiot's Didn't you beat this Dead Horse al
|
|
|
by N1RWC on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another Dead Horse Issue.
If it were left up to the ARRL, why would we have to listen to the FCC?
Think about it.
Then again you first have to pull your scrawny little melon of a head out of you know where to comprehend this.
I propose the FCC continue with Written Exams, but change the CW Exam to an Operating Exam.
If you want to Operate CW, then 5WPM CW Exam.
If you want to operate Digital Modes, a 60 WPM Typing Test
And If you want to Operate Phone/Voice, a Speaking and Hearing Test in Spanish and Asian, as English is no longer the Politically Correct Language to use in Public.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> As I have mentioned in these threads before, there
> has been some research done in the FCC database
> which shows that almost 97% of no code Technician
> class licensees are not renewing their licenses
> which are now starting to expire at the end of their
> grace period. I think there is only 8 months of
> history to go on at this time and it will be
> interesting to see how the numbers hold up as time
> goes on.
I would not have guessed 97%; somehow, that seems too high to me. Can you point to the research?
I will note, too, that many of those who became licensed as no-code Technicians upgraded, so the 10-year expiration numbers would include only those that did not renew. Maybe they were not all as lazy as some thought...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The allegations in any thread that mentions the ARRL
> are flying. So whats wrong with posting the numbers?
I don't have easy access to the demographics, although I can tell you that the higher the license class, the more likely that the ham is a member. A greater percentage of Extras are members than Generals than Technicians.
The latter is interesting, because before the BPL threat came along, the League spent more defending VHF and higher spectrum than it spent on HF.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Hey Idiot's Didn't you beat this Dead Horse al
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> If it were left up to the ARRL, why would we have to
> listen to the FCC?
The FCC, not ARRL makes and enforces amateur rules. Neither is a role I would ever want to see ARRL undertake.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Hey Idiot's Didn't you beat this Dead Horse al
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>"RE: Hey Idiot's Didn't you beat this Dead Horse
by N1RWC on October 8, 2003
Another Dead Horse Issue.
If it were left up to the ARRL, why would we have to listen to the FCC?
Think about it.
Then again you first have to pull your scrawny little melon of a head out of you know where to comprehend this."<<<<<<<<<
Is this the kind of ham that we now have to put up with? It is not a dead horse. It is a current issue that is important to a lot of people. I think that a resonable discussion or debate on this issue is still needed, but without calling people idiots or making other rude comments.
|
| |
|
RE: Yep, Shure-Code Basher-CWSux-spinless baby cow
|
|
|
by W3DCG on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8VB wrote:
<"W3DCG: If you intended for anyone to take your post seriously you certainly ruined that possibility with the first line in your message:
"Hi there, ya pussies." >
And he's absolutely correct.
Name calling is truly childish.
I meant to type wussies.
Edit out the Hi there pussies, or wussies, and all derrogation.
But seriously, such name calling is below sophomoric,
while the thrust of that post hardly suggests feeble mindedness. And so, on sounding like an imbecile, I must respectfully disagree.
It does seem clear, on that specific post, I intended to not be taken seriously.
That post, like this one, was merely expression.
You can agree, and you can disagree.
In this case with you I agree.
In this case with you I disagree.
You get both sides of me on this one.
I digressed. For better or worse, it was my intention.
You know how people often say, I won't stoop to their level.
There are times in life when I will stoop, sometimes to be clear that I often partake in a "Yep Shure" attitude, that I too have Bashed, and that I too, deem all manner of circumstances to have Sucked.
I may strongly disagree with the attitudes of Yep Shure, Code Basher, and CW Sux on this issue.
However, in the final analysis, all things considered, those posters, whomever they are, likely are no worse or better, than anyone else.
My dearest friends have called me a pussy from time to time. Sometimes it made me better, sometimes not, but they never said it with malice.
To be clear, if I publicly call you a pussy or wuss- it is without malice.
How you chose to take it, is beyond my control.
73.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Major kudos to Jim and Ed for sifting through all this effluent to answer specific, relevant questions. Thanks, Jim, for making the present ARRL stand on Morse code known. That took a lot of poise and guts. It wouldn't have made a difference to me, pro or con to decide whether I would continue as an ARRL member. If hams would look beyond their emotional convictions, it really shouldn't matter to them either.
Oh! Almost forgot! The Subject: Write the ARRL - Don't Argue Here!...we have to argue here now. The ARRL came to us! ;-}
73 KG5JJ (Mike); Pro-code, and my senators, congressmen and ARRL now know it!
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like to thank Mr. Haynie and Mr. Hare for taking the time to read what goes on here and to post their replies. It is encouraging to see that people
within ARRL are paying attention to what is going on here with regard to this controversy. I have read every posting in reply to my original and I think there are some very interesting and valid points being made....on BOTH sides of the issue. Whatever direction this thing ends up going, it is good to have the healthy dicussions going here.....I guess some of it not too healthy, but I learn to filter those out as I read.
Thanks and 73,
W5EEX
|
| |
|
RE: retaining code erodes our freedom
|
|
|
by KC2KXV on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Morse code has outlived it's usefulness. It made real sense to require code in a world when distress signals were transmitted and received using Morse. It is no longer true. You would not require a person who wants a drivers license to prove he/she knows how to crank start a car. The subject has already been decided on an international level. The airwaves belong to everyone, HF doesn't obey boarders and bounces around the globe. We hear the HAMS of those countries that have eliminated the code requirement. When you restrict a US citizen from achieving a privilege through unreasonable means -- you are restricting and eroding his/her freedom. Using code as a barrier is a form of discrimination. It is an arbitrary barrier now. Testing should insure the relevant competency of those given the privilege. Recently we see more questions on health and safety issues related to RF that will save far more lives than knowing CW. I would go so far as to say that requiring CW testing is an arbitrary barrier that is not only unfair but also could be found to be an illegal restriction of an individual's rights. It is for that reason that I believe the FCC will drop the code requirement, and ARRL will be left to mend fences or worse. There is a lesson from the recent happenings of the revered New York Stock Exchange – changes happen to institutions when institutions are not in sync with reality.
|
| |
|
RE: retaining code erodes our freedom
|
|
|
by KC2LSU on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to believe I have just read one of the most original solutions to the entire code/nocode issue in the replys to this article; The poster who mentioned that the test questions themselves should be sent in morse code is head-on!
In fact, I believe that every previously licensed amature radio operator should be re-tested with the test questions being sent in morse code -- when I say being sent, I mean being sent as if they were being jammed and qrm'd by other hams, and mother nature.
Only then will a ham be able to say he can actually understand morse code in conditions when nothing else can get through.
|
| |
|
RE: retaining code erodes our freedom
|
|
|
by LC337 on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greetings,
I have spent the last few hours reading the comments left on the FCC website as well as messages here. I am a newer ham(2000) and 26. I started out in my teen years with CB but have always wanted to talk to the world. So I went and bought a novice study book but was turned-off by the code. Instead I bought a modified 2950 and worked the world that way. I always acted appropriately on the air at all times, but as you all know the band turned to shit. So I passed the tech license and here I am. I finally saved enough money for a HF rig so now I am a month into learning the code to upgrade. But, what is the point? I will not, and do not want to use CW. It really doesn't interest me at all. Even if you do learn the code, if you don't use it you will eventually forget it. If CW is your thing, more power to you, it isn't mine. It seems from the comments I read on the FCC website, most people that want to keep morse testing are older hams. "I've been a ham for 40 years,,50 years" I don't want this to sound bad but just because CW was relevant back in the day and you were forced to take it, doesn't mean I should. This isn't 1940, outside the ham bands CW is obsolete. I don't agree with eliminating it all together, but keep it for extra only. This way people who really want to use it have something to shoot for. Once I get on HF and actually hear it used I might like it, then I will upgrade to Extra and use it. But I want to be on the HF first, you know?
Another thing that bugs me is the fear the ham bands will turn into a glorified CB circus. That is bull. Even without the code you still have to invest some time to sit down and take a test. Even if you do memorize the question pool you have to take time to memorize the questions. With CB it's just plug n play. Plus, you start on 2 meter where I talk now and I haven't heard any interference or lewd behavior in 3 years.
See, I am ham radio's nightmare, well thats what people think. I went to check out my college ham club and they asked me if I was lost. They see me driving down the road with antennas on my car and a different license plate, they always do a double take. I don't fit "the mold" of ham operators, people say I always look big and mean, I have my tongue peirced, I shave my head, listen to metal, but I have a respect and love for the hobby. Since I don't like the code I am not good, right? From peoples comments on the FCC site I guess I'm not. People need to realize the times have changed and our hobby needs to change with it. And always remember, it is always going to be a hobby first. Something we do for fun. We don't get paid for this.
Well it doesn't matter to me anyways because I am going to pass the code next month and upgrade, not because I want to, but because I am required to talk around the world. My fiancee and I are buying our first house and I am so excited to get my station on the air, talk to you then!!
Sorry so long but I also write and once I start it can get long :)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Oh! Almost forgot! The Subject: Write the ARRL -
> Don't Argue Here!...we have to argue here now. The
> ARRL came to us! ;-}
>
> 73 KG5JJ (Mike); Pro-code, and my senators,
> congressmen and ARRL now know it!
Neither Jim nor I have a vote on the ARRL Board of Directors -- I don't because I am the hired help and Jim doesn't because the ARRL President is an elected, volunteer, leadership position that, by the ARRL bylaws, does not provide a vote on ARRL policy matters. Although I know that some ARRL directors do occasionally read this board, discussions here are probably not going to be read by your director, nor will they necessarily be taken as your "final answer."
I participate in these discussions because I enjoy them; I enjoy meeting new hams this way and it sure does help me to better understand the very broad and diverse viewpoints found in a very diverse community. It also sharpens my skills in debate. :-) Perhaps the most valuable, though, is that the dialogue here helps me to choose my words carefully wherever I go, becauase I am always amazed at the very "diverse" ways that the things I say here and on other forums can be interpreted by some. (In some cases, I chose my words poorly; in others, I cannot fathom how someone could have interpreted what I said the way they did!)
These all serve me well when I am having an email exchange with the technical vice president of an electric utility about power-line noise, because I am able to carefully choose words that tend to improve, rather than undermine, good communication.
But the most valuable part of these discussions is that I learn from others. The dialogue here has helped me to shape my views, and my "final answer" may very well be different after I have discussed my views with others. Although Tom Frenaye may well run across my posts here, I prefer that he wait for me to tell him what my position is before he thinks he has my input as an ARRL member. (Tom is really good at understanding when I am wearing my member hat vs when I am being the ARRL Lab Dad.)
So if you haven't done so, please do communicate your views to your ARRL director. They have a difficult decision to make and they need to hear from as many hams as possible. And do understand that the code-test issue is one of many facing amateur radio, and when all is said and done, if it doesn't go exactly your way, that is often the nature of compromise, and perhaps the most important decision some will have to make is whether they would be willing to give up ALL of what ARRL does over that single issue.
To me, it is easy -- I think that things like the ARRL's RFI program; its programs to bring ham radio into the classroom; its spectrum work, just to name a few, are critical to amateur radio and I want them to continue, irrespective of whether Tom is smart enough to recognize the brilliance of my view on code testing. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by W8MW on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I operate CW. As one of the old guys licensed 40+ years I began to follow the debate with a predisposition to support Morse code. My position changed along the way.
After reading the first 20,000 posts I began to notice a familiar theme in the pro-code arguments. The theme being that CW represents a higher standard and is critical to the future well being of amateur radio. The reason this sounds familiar is the same arguments appeared before decades ago, although not specifically centered on CW. See K3UD's post about Incentive Licensing. A not so large group of amateurs were deeply offended to see all those low quality, obviously unworthy, new hams breaking way too many traditions and turning amateur radio into CB.
I was one of those unworthy types who didn't wind coils or punch holes in aluminum panels for homebrew construction. The term appliance operator has been around a long time and the first time I heard it, it was directed at me in 1962. Having received criticism rather than encouragement from a few members of the elite corps, it was tempting to walk away from the whole thing. And I probably would have if not for the fact that quite a few of my contemporaries were experiencing the same thing. What we did was band together and pursue our own form of amateur radio whether the judgmental types liked it or not. We had loads of fun and they absolutely hated it.
Incentive Licensing of 1968 was a spiteful program of segregated bands and additional hoops to jump through, initiated by a handful of grouchy types resisting change. From the perspective of 35 years later I am convinced it helped bring about many of the unhealthy divisive attitudes we see today. When I look at other countries moving toward a single class of license, I see a much needed correction taking place. All we need to know is a ham is a ham. No other label needed.
As W1RFI said, amateur radio needs to be inclusive, not exclusive. New technologies do amazing things that regular consumers accept as commonplace. The rare individual who can be thrilled and fascinated over radio signals ought to be an amateur radio operator.
I think the code/no code debate is happening at a point in time where amateur radio is changing again.
They said people who didn't homebrew their equipment were killing the hobby. Now they're saying people who don't do CW are killing it. Neither is true. There is resistance to change, but it's coming anyway just like it always has. I welcome it.
73, Mike W8MW
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1MAM on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"... doesnt this make you wonder why the BPL smokescreen was put up at the exact same time that this code debate came about?"
The BPL issue came up long before the WRC-2003 had even met.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ED-W1RFI
The research concerning the no code Technician licensee drop out rate was done by Bob, AE4FA and is cited in the RM-10807 petition now before the FCC.
When the results of Bob's research were posted in QRZ.com I had a nice exchange with Bob about his methodology when researching the FCC database. I was satisfied that his method was correct and the research findings were accurate. As I understand it, he was able to filter out things like upgrades that might skew the numbers. When he posted the numbers, he had a 6 month history to work with. (he first grace dates had just started ending) It will be interesting to see if the renewal rate increases as more history is added.
The other numbers concerning the growth or lack of it in the ARS that I often post in these forums comes from Jim, N2EY, who gets them every 15 days directly from the FCC database and posts them on the
rec.radio.amateur.policy group on the usenet. These numbers, as mentioned in previous posts, shows less than a 1/2% per year growth rate since 2000. It is my understanding that the year 2000 was chosen because it was the year when the changes in the licensing requirements went into effect.
If all of this is accurate, and I believe it is, at least as far as the data history we have is concerned, it might be an indicator of an approaching situation within the ARS that could make the things we argue about here seem small by comparison.
If the 97% non renewal rate of the Technician class holds up in the long term, there is most likely nothing that can be done to make up the numbers we lose. Some might say this is a good thing, some might say that the drop outs are not active anyway and really don't count, but as many point out, there is strength in numbers.
If we are only gaining 1/2% per year as the FCC database indicates, this gain will be shortly negated. If nothing happens, we are on track for a 5 to 6% gain this decade. In the decades of the 70s, 80s and 90s the gains averaged between 20 - 30% each decade.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by N3EVL on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike, W8MW said:
"...As W1RFI said, amateur radio needs to be inclusive, not exclusive. New technologies do amazing things that regular consumers accept as commonplace. The rare individual who can be thrilled and fascinated over radio signals ought to be an amateur radio operator..."
Well said Mike (and Ed) - the thrill of communicating without any physical connection between us is what keeps me in the hobby and drives everything else I do that is related to ham radio.
Yes, the rules and tests are important but only to the extent that they convice the powers that be that a) We won't stick our finger somewhere and electrocute ourselves and b) we won't put out the wrong kind of signal in the wrong place or on top of someone else's slot. Other than that the path or paths we choose in the hobby should be our choice.
73, and thanks for reminding us of what it's all about.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by W5HTW on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One of the probable reasons the Technician renewal rate is so low (if it is, and I think that is true) is the way it came about in the first place. For years, ham radio was the Holy Grail held about the CBer's head, just out of reach. Then came the Code Free technician class. Almost every CBer had had some kind of schooling, and knew at least a little about studying written material. Passing a basic written test seemed a quick and easy way into ham radio via a code free license.
But up to that point, ham radio had been the big rig, the towers, the antennas, working DX, "talking around the world." This was the ham radio the new entrant wanted. He was now coming through that holy gate.
But when he got there, it wasn't what he had seen in the promotional ads. He wasn't talking to France or Germany, and he wasn't running high power and he didn't have a monster tower and a triband beam. He was still talking very short haul, on channelized radio, with low power. It "looked like a CB duck, it felt like a CB duck, and it walked like a CB duck." The photos of the big shacks were still photos in some magazine. Working Lower Slobbovia was still out or reach, though he may could do so on his CB radio.
I think he became disillusioned. He had thought he was getting into ham radio and he was really getting into VHF CB. I'm not saying VHF at the time sounded like CB, but it had the similar technical restrictions and some far tougher legal ones. It had rules! Wow! He had actually given up far more to get here.
Many of them went back to CB. Many of them got tired of being harassed by the "private channels" of repeaters, or by the old timers who were now starting to see the two meter repeaters of the 70s and 80s become more like 27 MHZ, but without the profanity and 'handls."
Now here was Joe Q Ham, who had his Tech license. He still wasn't working DX or handling traffice on Intercon. He was way off somewhere on the fringes of the "real ham radio" he had dreamed about and heard about. But at least he was communicating and he soon found his wife could do the same. "Honey, get your ham ticket and we can talk with each other."
Honey got her ham ticket and so it came to pass. Now they had cell phones. Honey wasn't interested in ham radio, of course, and the only person she wanted to talk with was her husband. It was like a cell phone party line. Wait until the previous spouse couple hangs up and then you can call.
Then along came the late 1990s and cell phones were ten bucks, or free, and you could go with prepaid plans or get a family plan that cost you only a few peanuts per months. Honey didn't need the party line anymore. She had her own private line with hubby, and not only that, her non-ham friends could call her on it too. Or she could call them.
I believe these two categories - the disillusioned would-be ham, and the spouse cell phone user - will account for the lion's share of non-renewed/non-upgraded Technicans. It wasn't ham radio that wife wanted - she wanted to talk to hubby on his way home from work, and when it became easier to do so on the cell phone, that's where she went. Meanwhile, hubby found the really bad news -- "I still need to learn the code to get on HF! Darn!" So he copped out, too.
Like some others, when all this came about, I, too, was very dead set against removal of Morse as a testing requirement. And I, too, have relaxed that position considerably. My reason is not that I am so tired of rowing upstream, but that Morse testing isn't really what it's all about. It is about testing in general. It is about opening ham radio for everyone everywhere, even those with only minimal interest. Even the kids whose Daddy says "get your ham ticket and I can keep track of you on the playground." It is about making everyone a ham.
I do think we should go to a single class of license. (As I have stated on this forum before.) It doesn't matter to me if we keep Morse testing or get rid of it. I have already tested and passed, so no biggie to me. I really don't care.
It is my strong guess that organizations like NCI will, once the Morse requirement is gone, morpth into NTI - No Testing International. I think we are seeing a trend toward the kind of CB license we had in the early sixties, when you certified on your application that you had read the rules and would comply. As the bar gets lowered, there is nowhere for it to go but to the ground.
I disagree with those who feel incentive licensing was a mistake. Before 1951 ham radio had incentive licensing in the form of the Class A and Class B tickets, and perhaps that was enough. Maybe we should have left that concept alone. I do think the manner in which incentive licensing was initiated was wrong. But in our society today we should be used to taking from some to give to others, as we do it every day.
What I know is I was a General class ham, doing what I liked doing, and had been for thirteen years. I was professionally employed in HF radio. I was happy in my ham hobby. I had zero reason to learn more.
Then came incentive licensing, and regardless of how it was done, suddenly I DID have reason, not just to improve my code operations but to learn more theory. To advance and achieve more. A new challenge was ahead of me. I do not think knowledge is wrong, and I do not think becoming a better participant in one's hobby is wrong.
Ah, but here's the rub. We still are under incentive licensing today, and I want it to go away. It serves no purpose today. There are no experts. The experts are dying. There will soon be no Elmers. Well, so what? We can plug in our radios and get on the air, and I do think that is where we are headed. We do not need classes of licenses for that. If we want to operate CW we will learn how and we will go to the greatly reduced CW bands and get on the air. If we want to operate SSB there will be plenty of opportunity, and I think every ham should have that capability.
73
Ed
For that reason
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
Very nice analysis.
I have always thought that the no code Tech was not a good way into ham radio because it was kind of a dead end street. The promise was that we were going to attract all those young brilliant technical people who were starting to play around with computers and the early internet, and it was expected that they would work their magic on transforming amateur radio into a really modern communications wonder.
I don't know how many times I heard stories about EEs who would like to be a ham, had technical expertise beyond imagination, but would not do it because of the code. This was the license for them.
It was also assumed that once a person came into ham radio VIA the no code route, they would realize what they were missing, learn the code and theory (at 13 WPM back then) and upgrade to General where the "real" fun was.
It is safe to say that both assumptions proved to be a bit off target.
You are probably correct when you say we ended up with people who wanted to communicate and over long distances, wanted the big rigs and towers and a wall full of exotic DX QSL cards. Many of these people were in fact CBers and some of those stuck with it and upgraded to the point where they can do what they dreamed about.
Some of them learned the theory and code at 13-WPM and some more moved up when it was dropped to 5-WPM. As the statistics we have seem to show, It was not many.
If we could turn the clock back to the late 1980s knowing what we know now, would we have done the same thing?
The reason why the Novice license worked so well for so many years is that it gave kids (probably most of the Novice demographic over the years) a way to communicate on a worldwide or at least a nationwide basis. Yes It was CW but guess what.... it did not matter. At one time about 70% of all Novices were upgrading. A success story if there ever was one.
You and I will most likely never agree on the impact of Incentive Licensing but thats cool.
My own viewpoint is that the all around best time in the history of amateur radio was the period from 1951 to 1968 when all HF licenses carried the same privileges. You seem to be putting forth the same concept with the suggestion of a single license which I assume would convey all privileges.
Maybe what we should do is reinstate the Novice conveying a fair amount of HF phone and CW privileges with a term limit of two years to qualify for the full license you are suggesting.
Works for me!
(but as some have suggested, I live in the past :)
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The BPL issue first raised its head a few years ago. ARRL has been working on the issue for years now, and the work being done today is building on what has gone before.
Can some really be so suspicious as to think that ARRL would create this issue to try to dodge the CW-testing bullet? Perhaps they can also explain why Jim Haynie, the ARRL President, posted here that he expected the Board to address this in January? Perhaps they can explain why the ARRL Board has asked the board members to poll the members in their divisions.
Sure, the point has been made that BPL using HF is probably more critical to amateur radio than how the CW test is administered, or even it it is administered at all. Can anyone who has seen the video that very accurately represents what was seen in each of the four trial areas not conclude that BPL using HF is a more critical issue? No matter how the CW-test issue is decided, amateur radio will survive -- a bit different, but it will still be the same amateur radio that I know and love, because nothing in the changes made in testing will change what I do -- and am permitted to do -- with my license.
If BPL comes to my neighborhood at the levels shown in the ARRL video, though, I cannot say the same. S9-level noise will destroy what I can do with ham radio.
Calling that a "smokescreen" is not a well-thought-out conclusion, IMHO. Maybe for some, it is time to better grasp that not all issues in ham radio are related to CW testing.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I was one of those unworthy types who didn't wind
> coils or punch holes in aluminum panels for homebrew
> construction.
I, too, was pretty unworthy. In 1963, I was a lad of 13 and had just passed my Novice. I thought about building stuff, but never actually did.
> Having received criticism rather than encouragement
> from a few members of the elite corps, it was
> tempting to walk away from the whole thing.
I was luckly, because I didn't know that I was unworthy. I had the mistaken impression that passing the tests of the day and getting a license was actually a worthwhile accomplishment. Fortunately, we didn't have the Internet back then so I would have known how I had dumbed myself down by learning the few things I had to learn to pass that Novice exam and a few more things to pass the General. If that happened today, I would have known by reading the Internet how I had disgraced ham radio by my very existence.
Still, after all that, I would somehow like to think that in spite of having passed tests that were about 1/10 the difficulty of today's exams,somehow I turned out okay and have made a contribution or two to amateur radio.
See:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/novice63.html
to see what newcomers in my era had to know to become licensed. If we made amateur radio that simple and easy today, I am sure that the "amateur radio is dumbed down" crowd would lead the howls of protest. The General Class study material was a whopping 16 pages long, another relatively easy hurdle by today's standards. (Those 16 pages was ALL that I studied to pass my General.)
Today, we hand a newcomer a 100-200 page study guide and tell them this is what they need to know to be a beginner in ham radio. We then hand them two more books -- the General and Extra study guides -- and tell them this is what they need to know to be a real ham. Can you imagine the reaction they would have if we then told them how dumbed down the exams of today are from what we had to study, then held up the 16 pages as proof? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K1ROD on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Oh for God's sake please don't anybody buy this crap. I'm flabbergasted. I just was starting to think that by now the great Codeathalon was finally winding down with every comment and opinion which could possibly be offered and imagined had been said...about four thousand times."
Actually, Johns comments are well presented. Yours on the other hand are a hostile rant. You are a technician class license holder with no, nada, zero experience on the HF bands. John on the other hand is Extra class license holder with a CW contesters call sign to boot. Who's "crap" do you think people are going to listen to, junior?
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI:
"Still, after all that, I would somehow like to think that in spite of having passed tests that were about 1/10 the difficulty of today's exams,somehow I turned out okay and have made a contribution or two to amateur radio."
Excellent points! I never bought the "filter" or "dumbing down" arguements. Even if we gave away licenses now some would go on to become good operators and make positive contributions to the ARS and some would not. Testing doesn't somehow magically transform a person!
73,
N8VB
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI:
"If BPL comes to my neighborhood at the levels shown in the ARRL video, though, I cannot say the same. S9-level noise will destroy what I can do with ham radio.
Calling that a "smokescreen" is not a well-thought-out conclusion, IMHO. Maybe for some, it is time to better grasp that not all issues in ham radio are related to CW testing. "
Exactly. We need to get all the Techs on HF and the non-code Echolink users on HF fighting for the bands or Echolink and simulated radios over the internet will be the only way we will be able to communicate when BPL comes to town. Drop the stupid CW test or at least somehow incorporate it so that people can still get decent HF privileges without learning it.
I think it was you that proposed that it be graded as part of the written test so that if you do not know CW you can still pass the test by doing well on the non-CW written part. I like that idea and I would support it if it became a formal proposal to the FCC.
73,
N8VB
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Excellent points! I never bought the "filter"
> or "dumbing down" arguements. Even if we gave away
> licenses now some would go on to become good
> operators and make positive contributions to the ARS
> and some would not. Testing doesn't somehow
> magically transform a person!
I think that, alas, some feel that all of the problems of amateur radio would somehow disappear if we only had just the right combination of testing. And the result of that pressure is that we have made it harder and harder and harder for new hams to get started, and then we piss and moan about the lack of youth in ham radio. I gotta' tell you, if W1BNB had handed me a 200-page Now You're Talking instead of a 4-page study guide, this 13-year old kid would not have become licensed. And the 13-year old kids of today are not becoming licensed. Do the math...
And I don't buy the "Internet is stealing them all." There were distractions for me in 1963, too, but I chose amateur radio. The internet is just web surfing to most, and they are not interested in technology or even in chatting with people all around the world -- they want to download music or go to those XXX sites. Even those that get on boards really don't care where the person is from -- are you really impressed if someone from Europe posts here? Are you impressed if you work someone from Europe in 160 meters with 50 watts and a simple vertical?
Ham radio has never been for everyone. If you stood on the corner, handing out free ham licenses, most would end up on the ground. Would anyone think that those that would do so would somehow want to become licensed if we offered them a really hard test instead? In 1963, there were two hams in my high school class of 1000 students.
The idea that hordes of people want to become amateurs not to learn anything is preposterous. Those that just want to chat have CB or the internet to do so. Those that are willing to wade through that 200-page study guide are showing a level of motivation almost 100X what was asked of me. Just how much harder will we have to make the exams before some stop telling new hams that they will become dumber if they study all that stuff. Is that really it? They want them to be smart by studying the 4 pages I had to study?
Look at the ham radio of today compared to what it was when I was a kid. I had CB, AM, SSB was just getting started; VHF was a wasteland and a few brave souls were doing RTTY and FAX. Today, we have all that, plus more digital modes than I can remember in one post. Hams have built and launched satellites that I can use. Mobile HF is a breeze. We have learned more about meteor scatter and moonbounce, and they can both be done with modest stations. Repeaters have made VHF a practical application, and I can even easily operate on 10 GHz.
I could post a rather long list here, but ham radio has never been better, and maybe, just maybe, mind you, those are the things attacting newcomers to the hobby, instead of a desire not to learn anything by rote memorizing over 1000 questions to become licensed.
The biggest problem in ham radio have come from a lack of enforcement and now that the FCC is back in that business, I think that I see some real progress. I listened to 14.313 one day and heard a maritime net.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI sez: "The idea that hordes of people want to become amateurs not to learn anything is preposterous. Those that just want to chat have CB or the internet to do so. Those that are willing to wade through that 200-page study guide are showing a level of motivation almost 100X what was asked of me. Just how much harder will we have to make the exams before some stop telling new hams that they will become dumber if they study all that stuff."
Excellent points, Ed. It's hard NOT to learn anything if one's intent on making AR their hobby. I wasn't around in 1963 (err, rather, I just came into the world that very year) so I have no frame of reference which to compare the entry test I took. Although the Tech study manual certainly didn't contain any concepts I would call 'difficult' to learn, what is important is the act of going through the whole thing to prepare one's self to take the tests that are given today. So when someone who's been in AR awhile looks at today's tests and proclaims them "dumbed down", I always scratch my head and think, well, if you insist, but that doesn't tell me much about the way the tests used to be.
I am still getting conflicting information on the subject of the tests of yore. I often hear about how so-and-so had to take a test in front of an FCC examiner and draw schematics, then I hear about how the study manuals were so much smaller than today's. Which license classes' tests had to draw schematics? I assume it was the Advanced test, but I never have gotten a clear answer on that.
I look at the AR tests like I look at a driver's test-you need only take it once; from there on, you learn to drive by doing it.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An observation from a former VE:
It doesn't matter how many thousands of pages the Amateur Exams cover, the problem is that a majority of applicants just memorize the answers. Yes, this is Amateur Radio's dirty little secret. It leaves MANY applicants ill-prepared to operate, and they are elmered "up-to-speed" on-the-air. I've gladly helped many of them. Lots of hams are there to help also.
The testing wasn't perfect before deregulation, and it certainly isn't perfect now, but it's all we have. Some would say it is still "too much", and judging from the continued deregulation, they are getting their wish...
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5JBP on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some good stuff for a change. I have to ask, what does the amateur community want? 680,000 engineers with EE's? If so, go to MIT. In one of my speeches, I talk about the test I took 32 years ago and the questions vs the test today. Back then PLL's were an idea, IC's were a dream, LCD was not invented, nothing on my test about space operations cause it had not been done and so on. I remember operating as a novice and then getting my general. I was dumb as a box of rocks. Over the last 32 years I learned a lot! You are right about learning by doing. I went through a dozen VOM's before they came out with one that was protected from dummies like me. Smoked a few tubes in my time by forgetting to reconnect the coax after a storm. Some of you that feel that a new ham should be a genius on all aspects of amateur radio need to remember back when your ticket first came in the mail.
A while back Riley Hollingsworth and I were talking about this and I commented that those who think amateur radio has dumbed down, need to be recalled right there on the spot and take the test. If they fail, they forfet their license for a year. I don't think they would feel it was so "dumb" then.
Good comments.
Jim
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim:
May I be the first to answer your question about what the Amateur community wants?
One member of that community would like to see examinees leave with the ham license of their choice, and intimate knowledge of the study materials required to get the license. I'd like to see the answers to test questions removed.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe the current study materials (when actually STUDIED, I'm not talking about memorizing the answers) are sufficient to get someone on the air safely, armed with a knowledge of the privileges one's license class allows (there's always a chart if you forget).
It always puzzles me when I hear some hams say things like, "the new hams these days don't even know how to design and analyze a Yagi, or build their own rigs, or design a circuit." The reason is simple and it has nothing to do with dumbing down the tests or personal laziness: the current study guides don't teach these things. At least not the two I studied.
A lot of us without EE degrees or past RF technology experience simply won't know how to do these things coming into the hobby. Where do people learn these things? From schools, from elmers, from books, from experience-- but let's just remember that newbie hams who don't have any of the foregoing experiences while coming into the hobby most likely won't be armed with that kind of knowledge when we're fresh out of the VEC exams.
How and what we learn after we get our licenses is up to us. Some of us are lucky enough to do electronics for a living; some of us have day jobs that have no technical bent whatsoever. So we would be wise to assume little and keep open minds when approaching new hams, because we'll invariably be looking at them from our own perspective and considering our own experiences when making comparisons. As a new ham myself, I really appreciate the opportunity to learn new things and increase my skills, but few things turn me off so much as someone's huffily-uttered summation that I am in the demographic that includes lazy, dumbed-down, you-want-everything-handed-to-you types.
Getting an amateur radio license is only proof that you passed the required tests, it does not necessarily reflect the current state of one's knowledge. If people want to memorize the test pool answers, they have a right to do that, I suppose, but who are they ultimately cheating?
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It always puzzles me when I hear some hams say things like, "the new hams these days don't even know how to design and analyze a Yagi, or build their own rigs, or design a circuit." The reason is simple and it has nothing to do with dumbing down the tests or personal laziness: the current study guides don't teach these things. At least not the two I studied."
There was probably no dumber or ignorant new ham than I was in the fall of 1964. Design and Analyze a Yagi? I did not even know what a dipole was let alone build one.
My transmitting antenna was a length of #10 insulated wire run out the window of my bedroom to a tree. The end of the wire was plugged directly into the center of the connector on the back of my DX-40. Coax? What was that? PL-259? never heard of it. Could not understand why the DX-40 would not just turn on the band I had a crystal (which came with the DX-40) for and transmit on the frequency. Load and dip the plate? A dinner plate? what's that?
Design a circuit? Maybe a battery, two wires and a bulb and a switch to turn it on an off (was in my old Cub Scout Bear manual)
Build a rig? How about a Heath Twoer? with great help from my father, we got it together (I viewed it as a puzzle with directions) and it actually turned on. Tried to use the crystal from the DX-40. Had no idea if it would work and what frequency it was actually transmitting on or even if it was transmitting.
A two meter antenna? How about an old TV antenna fed with twinlead soldered to a PL-259? (I had found out about those by this time) Got the right crystal mail order from an ad in Popular Science. Antenna matching? What's that you say? Actually the Twoer worked with the TV antenna and twinlead soldered to the connector and I made some of contacts. Finally met a ham near my neighborhood who got me on the right track, from then on it was, and still is, a lifetime learning process.
When I received my private pilots license in the early 70s, the FAA examiner told me after the check ride that I was competent and safe, but the license was more than a license to fly..... it was also a license to learn. I look at Amateur Radio licenses as the same thing, regardless of class.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K6BBC on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps new hams are interested in conversation about subjects other than building their own rigs or antennas. God I hope they are.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3UD sez: "There was probably no dumber or ignorant new ham than I was in the fall of 1964. Design and Analyze a Yagi? I did not even know what a dipole was let alone build one."
In the Technician study manual (the go-around that immediately preceded the one that came out this past July), it tells you how to calculate the length of each leg of a dipole for a particular frequency-- easy, I thought-- until I realized that I didn't know how to solder.
Since I wanted to learn how to solder, I bought myself two kinds of soldering iron-- the 100 watt "gun" kind, and a 60 watter that I could use for soldering small electronic parts. I found a good "how to solder" guide on the Internet, printed it out and studied it, and practiced my soldering technique using some junk wire. Only when I learned how to solder was I able to build my first 17 meter dipole, and I made a whole bunch of contacts with it.
I also learned how to solder teeny-weeny electronic parts to circuit boards, such that I now have built a shortwave radio (it was a kit) and am ready to start on a aircraft band receiver, with help from my son, who's beginning to get interested in kit building (although not ham radio, alas... try and compete with his computer game, "Diablo", which he and his friends play online!)
So, where am I going with all this? I just wanted to show others who might be reading this thread that, as others have concurred, real learning in radio starts with the basic license and goes on from there. I am not an EE, nor do I know the first thing about designing a circuit; I don't know much about analysis of antennas, and I feel that there is a whole lot more that I don't know than what I do know. But, far from being a "dumbed-down entrance exam" to amateur radio, I felt that the Technician study guide is at least a place to start, and we shouldn't knock it for that reason.
There is a saying that the world's best university can be found in a room full of books and that real learning takes place once the professors have finished with us... can't recall who said it, but I feel that is one of the most accurate and relevant quotes ever made about higher education.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6BBC sez: "Perhaps new hams are interested in conversation about subjects other than building their own rigs or antennas. God I hope they are."
Sure, me too... it would be boring if most of us were into only one or two things in amateur radio. Fortunately, this hobby encompasses so many different activities and methods of doing them that there is sufficient fodder for discussion on many subjects.
I hear lots of on the air discussion about antennas myself, but very little about rig building, at least when I've been listening. Some of the conversations about antennas sound like the participants are explorers intent on seeking the Holy Grail of Antennadom... me, I'm more interested in just getting back on the air with any old antenna that works and can be hidden from the prying eyes of the landlord.
|
| |
|
RE: Gotta Argue Here
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Excellent points, Ed. It's hard NOT to learn anything if one's intent on making AR their hobby. I wasn't around in 1963 (err, rather, I just came into the world that very year) so I have no frame of reference which to compare the entry test I took. Although the Tech study manual certainly didn't contain any concepts I would call 'difficult' to learn, what is important is the act of going through the whole thing to prepare one's self to take the tests that are given today. So when someone who's been in AR awhile looks at today's tests and proclaims them "dumbed down", I always scratch my head and think, well, if you insist, but that doesn't tell me much about the way the tests used to be."
I can show you just how it used to be, at least for the entry-level license:
[URL]http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/novice63.html[/URL]
The General Class was a bit harder -- its study material took up 16 pages in the ARRL study guide. I read that over and over until I had it -- gasp -- virtually memorized. As a point of reference; there are more correct answers in the General-Class question pool than there were sentences in my '63 General study guide, so even those that were to memorize them are learning more than I did.
The bottom line is that the exams then -- and now -- were entrance exams. The final exam is what we do with our licenses once we get them. For nearly every ham here, what they have done after they were licensed exceeds what they did to get started in amateur radio.
If we must judge each other at all, that sounds like a more reasonable basis.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I am still getting conflicting information on the subject of the tests of yore. I often hear about how so-and-so had to take a test in front of an FCC examiner and draw schematics, then I hear about how the study manuals were so much smaller than today's. Which license classes' tests had to draw schematics? I assume it was the Advanced test, but I never have gotten a clear answer on that."
In 1964, the year I took my General, the schematic questions were multiple choice. Ditto for the Extra I took before the FCC in the mid 1970s. At one point, hams did have to draw schematics, but that was over 40 years ago.
Has ham radio really been ruined all that long? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"An observation from a former VE:
It doesn't matter how many thousands of pages the Amateur Exams cover, the problem is that a majority of applicants just memorize the answers. Yes, this is Amateur Radio's dirty little secret. It leaves MANY applicants ill-prepared to operate, and they are elmered "up-to-speed" on-the-air."
I think it to be virtually impossible to memorize over 1000 questions without understanding. If anyone wants to prove me wrong, memorize 1000 questions in Russian, where we can be assured that there IS no understanding (assuming you don't speak Russian, of course).
Hams today are doing just what I did in 1963 and 1964 -- they are passing their exams with a combination of learning, memorizing, lucky guessing and hoping the hard ones don't appear on the exam they are given.
Trying to rote memorize 1000 questions, even a few hundred at a time, would be beyond me, and it would undoubtably be the hard way to try to pass the exams.
What is ironic is that many of those that bemoan that new hams are memorizing to get licensed are the very ones that insist that the one true memorization test be kept -- the Morse code test. Why is is so "easy" to memorize 1000 questions and their correct answers, but deemed to be a real test of character and dedication to memorize a mere 26 letters, 10 numbers and a few prosigns?
The real question I ask wrt memorizing is why would anyone want to go through all that work to become a ham and then not want to learn things? Those that don't want to learn will take the easy way and just not do it at all.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed sed: "The real question I ask wrt memorizing is why would anyone want to go through all that work to become a ham and then not want to learn things? Those that don't want to learn will take the easy way and just not do it at all."
Another good point, Ed. Many, if not most, hams I know are brainy types who do lots of things with their ham skills. They're just 'that way', and it's certainly not because they had to take any tests. That's why the hobby attracts brainy types in the first place- because it is challenging on many levels. People that are so afraid of ham radio being dumbed down are really wasting their concern, because this hobby hasn't gotten less complex with time; rather, just the opposite. Those who want the challenge will come, and those who don't, won't.
Good thread here.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by LU2HLR on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To the author:
C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S! finally someone that´s got it!
Period.
Vy 73 from Germany de Axel DD8GR / LU2HLR
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why not just make the learning and testing a legitimate procedure. Publish all the training
material, just as it is today, but don't make the
EXACT test questions available for publication.
Sure, it's OK to publish practice exams based on what
"might" be on the real tests, but don't publish the
exact word-for-word tests. I went to college for an EE degree like a lot of you here did.....we had textbooks, and we were expected to read them to learn the subject matter.....then there were exams....there
weren't any practice tests to take....and the exact questions weren't published beforehand. If the process
is supposed to test to see that something has indeed
been learned, and is understood, then there are existing teaching/testing models to be followed. At least the existing CW testing process follows this model.....you have to know it to pass the test!
73,
W5EEX
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good points Ed...noted and taken. At least one who bemoans "memorization" (me) does not think the CW exam is the one test to be the litmus for entry into the hobby. I am pro-code. It won't matter to me if element 1 is dropped. My CW operation won't be affected at all. I voted, and will continue to vote to keep Morse, if for no other reason than tradition. If it is dropped, it is dropped.
The main reason I am no longer a VE is because of deregulation of testing. I certainly could not continue testing not believing in what I was doing.
It wouldn't be fair to the applicants or the service if I continued. I still feel that way in light of more deregulation on the horizon.
At least I'm honest about my convictions.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL stated in this month's QST that the code issue is IRRELEVANT and "NOT A PRESSING ISSUE AT THIS TIME". The ARRL is not even "looking into the issue". I think the ARRL has already given its answer. I doesn't want the decision to be associated with the organization and blame it all on the FCC. Now what if the ARRL's gamble goes bad. Instead of letting Technicians get HF to use band width, the FCC changes nothing. Then turns around and says, "well if the ARRL doesn't care, neither do we". "Let's just auction away those spectrums because they're so unused." Don't be caught napping, ARRL. If there ever was a time to increase useage of bands, it is now. Hide your head in the sand and next time you come up for air, Amateur Radio won't have any!!!
KD5YDY
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5EEX:
Exactly. We gave applicants plenty of paper to scribble on for problem solving and notes. The majority of papers turned-in had nothing on them. It took the applicants who (gasp!) memorized ALL the answers much less time to finish their exams than those who actually solved the problems.
Anyone who thinks that "total memorization" of test answers isn't widespread needs to get out more often, or become a VE. Pretending it doesn't exist, or more than that, is irrelevant is not honest.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Hey Idiot's Didn't you beat this Dead Horse al
|
|
|
by N1RWC on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Tech2003, FYI I am an Active Amateur who believes in my Constitutional Rights governed by the United States Government. If you feel offended because I refer to articles and posters of articles like this one, in which there are currently 14 at this time on both Eham.net and QRZ.com, realize that you do not have to agree with me or my posts, or anyone elses for that matter. But what good is articles like this doing for the hobby? Absolutely nothing. Nada, zip, zilch. So I post to those souls who lack the intelligence to realize that they should "open mouth, insert both feet" after they start or post articles like this one. They know who they are, as long as they still have a brain cell working.
And W1RFI, I agree with you on the ARRL having to enforce in place of the FCC is too much of a headache.
73 N1RWC
|
| |
|
RE: Hey Idiot's Didn't you beat this Dead Horse al
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I guess you have a constitutional right to make an ass of yourself while the rest of us discuss the issue at hand.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KE2IV on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Didn't take this one too long to turn into the predictable "flame war" did it?
But, BTW, I am a Life Member of the League and 40+ years a ham (for whatever that is worth).
I agree that CW is an unreasonable licensing requirement and will so voice my opinion to Haynie & Co.
Meanwhile, maybe each of the "flamers" should begin to seek a life?
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Anyone who thinks that "total memorization" of test answers isn't widespread needs to get out more often, or become a VE."
So what? Some of the "memorized" information will filter through. Some will learn the stuff they need to later through various means.
N8VB
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So what? Some of the "memorized" information will filter through. Some will learn the stuff they need to later through various means.
N8VB"
+++++++++++
I certainly hope so!
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Concerning memorization of test material and drawing schematics-- I recall memorizing the schematics for oscillators, modulators, and power supplies to prepare myself for the General Class license exam at age 14 in 1959. I hadn't yet had a course in physics or electronics, but I wanted to upgrade before my Novice ticket expired, and wanted to be able to use a VFO and operate on 20 m. I dreaded having to draw those schematics, but I did what I had to do to pass the exam, just as hams are doing today.
Those who have issues with HOW people pass their tests (other than cheating, of course) need to take this up with the FCC, instead of looking down their noses at the newer folks.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I received a note from THE President of ARRL James Haynie, re: my posting above. I was in error, it was not in QST. The information I was referring to was in the THE ARRL LETTER of October 3. So all of you can see it in its pure form, I'm posting the quotes here:
"The ARRL did not comment on any of the seven initial petitions for rule making and has not plans to comment on any future such petitions. ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, explained that there's no particular urgency to the issue and ample reason for the League to devote its attention to issues having more immediacy such as the Broadband over Power Line (BPL) threat."
"The FCC has yet to put another five Morse code-related petitions for rulemaking on public notice and invite comments. Sumner predicted it would be "months, if not longer" before the FCC takes any action on any of the petitions. In the meantime, he said, "there is plenty of time for the ARRL to receive considered input from its members and either to formulate a reasoned proposal for change or a rationale for maintaining the status quo."
"In the wake of WRC-03, the ARRL Executive Committee has been working on its own comprehensive Amateur Radio licensing proposal, of which the Morse requirement would be a part. Once completed, the proposal will go to the ARRL Board of Directors for consideration and possible action at its January 2004 meeting."
"There is simply no urgency to address it any sooner than that," Sumner said.
KD5YDY
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For the old folks that think total memorization of answers is such a terrible thing, please note: For the extra class exam the published question base has 800 questions which only 50 show up on the exam. Anyone that goes to the effort to memorize answers to 800 questions, probably learned a lot and deserves to pass.
KD5YDY
|
| |
|
RE: Hey Idiot's Didn't you beat this Dead Horse al
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> And W1RFI, I agree with you on the ARRL having to
> enforce in place of the FCC is too much of a
> headache.
It goes beyond headache. IMHO, making and enforcing laws should not be done by the private sector. That should be done by government. If I had my druthers, the FCC would have continued to administer exams, too. That is a role accepted by amateur radio, including ARRL, with reluctance.
ARRL, through the Amateur Auxiliary, plays a valuable role in helping the FCC gather evidence in rules violations, but ultimately, it is the FCC that should decide what to do with that evidence.
Would anyone really feel comfortable having ARRL start levying fines against hams who break the rules? I just don't believe that enforcement is an appropriate rule for anyone except the government.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Exactly. We gave applicants plenty of paper to
> scribble on for problem solving and notes. The
> majority of papers turned-in had nothing on them. It
> took the applicants who (gasp!) memorized ALL the
> answers much less time to finish their exams than
> those who actually solved the problems.
> Anyone who thinks that "total memorization" of test
> answers isn't widespread needs to get out more
> often, or become a VE. Pretending it doesn't exist,
> or more than that, is irrelevant is not honest.
The technical questions are all worded so that it is easy for most folks to do the math in their heads.
Let me prove it. Answer this question for us:
Q: A high-power electric heater draws 200 watts when plugged into 220 volts. Assuming the element does not have a temperature coefficient, how much power will it draw when plugged into 110 volts?
Did you have to write down the calculations?
Most of the questions don't require calculations at all, nor did most of the questions on my 1964 General Class license.
Other than noting that they didn't fill the paper with notes, how do you know that most of the applicants didn't learn anything by studying for the exam?
Perhaps we can give it a go and let a few folks here try the Extra sample exam and see if they can pass it without filling pages of paper with calculations.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Why not just make the learning and testing a
> legitimate procedure. Publish all the training
> material, just as it is today, but don't make the
> EXACT test questions available for publication.
Remember Dick Bash? He interviewed applicants at FCC offices and published a study guide that was an exact copy of most of the FCC questions.
In today's day and age, the questions would be appearing on web pages all over the place. The only way around it would be to require the VEC to come up with an ongoing barrage of new questions, and that is not practical for a group that is mostly volunteer.
The premise that there are over 1000 questions in all of the pools, of which 10% will appear on an individual collection of exams, is intended to make it evident to virtually all that rote memorization without understanding is just not a practical approach to passing the exams.
Could you really memorize 1000 questions and their correct answers in a subject you knew nothing about? I sure couldn't.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed:
I quit examining in 1991, and several exams, up through Advanced and Extra still required intermediate and advanced knowledge of mathematics and formulas to solve multi-step problems. They could not be done in your head. Calculators were the order of the day, and we checked them if they were scientific to make sure there were no entries (formulas) in their memory.
Many examinees told me (when I asked discreetly) that it was easier for them to just memorize ALL the answers in the mathematics portion of the exams, because they couldn't "get" the theory, even though it was explained step-by-step with sample problems.
If the technical/mathematical portions of the exams given now are mostly do-in-your-head, even through Extra, we have fallen far from the technical tree.
Of course examinees will learn SOMETHING if they just memorize all the answers. I would hope that a majority of hams would have the pride and enthusiasm to go further, and become intimate and quite knowledgeable with their study materials, but it sounds like it is nowhere near as technical as it was.
People get what people want.
I remember Dick Bash well...he was touted as Amateur Radio's anti-christ. As I recall even the ARRL was up-to-its-armpits in the furor. Now look. Dick's vision of "supplying all amateurs with answers to all the test questions" has come to fruition, with blessings from everyone, it seems.
I don't like what has been happening to Amateur Radio with continued deregulation of the hobby. Sure, its changing, we all have to accept that, but I don't have to like it.
I even quit my ARRL membership in the early nineties, because I thought at the time, the ARRL had gone stark-raving-mad. I still think the ARRL has gone stark-raving-mad at times, but I'm now a member again, realizing that an organization with resources to fight to keep Amateur Radio, is worth supporting, regardless of how I feel about it.
I elmer "newbies" to the service, because they ask. I've always enjoyed elmering, especially sending Morse, and watching speeds increase on-the-air.
I just don't give exams anymore, because I didn't like what had been happening with testing deregulation then, and I certainly don't like what is happening now.
It has something to do with the perception, right or wrong, that many of us hams have everything to lose, and nothing to gain, since we have passed all Amateur Exams (yes, including 20 wpm code).
That doesn't make us the enemy, it makes us concerned Amateur Radio Operators.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K1MKF on October 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find it interesting that the FCC would leave it up to the ARRL. The ARRL doesn't even represent a majority of the licensed amateurs in the US. That would be the same as the ATF leaving firearm licensing up to the NRA!
There are lot of irons in the fire on this subject but the simplesy approach for now would be to just make all Tech licenses, with or without a 5 wpm code test, the same. They get all privledges above 30 MHz and the HF novice subbands. I don't think it would require any modification on the FCC database since they stopped listing Tech Plus seperately a few years ago.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, at least we learned one thing! It doesn't matter what any of us really think, believe, or express. The ARRL thinks they have the FCC in their back pocket on the code issue and they'll get around to it when it's convenient for the ARRL. It is a sorry story that in America, the land of the "free", we are prisoners to archaic rules and ole boy fraternities.
Instead of welcoming new hams with open arms, you spit in our faces and say you too good for us to belong. Just get on with your egocentric lives on the air. Those that say HF doesn't cause damage hasn't seen what a mess it's made of those that have been exposed to it for so long. You've lapsed into the jungle of survival of the code even if the hobby doesn't survive.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I find it interesting that the FCC would leave it up
> to the ARRL.
It may be interesting, but it is not true. The FCC, not ARRL, will decide the code testing issue. The League will almost certainly set an ARRL position/action at the January Board meeting, but that does not settle the issue as far as the rules are concerned.
I find it interesting that anyone would be believe that the FCC will leave the code-testing matter up to the ARRL. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Well, at least we learned one thing! It doesn't
> matter what any of us really think, believe, or
> express. The ARRL thinks they have the FCC in their
> back pocket on the code issue and they'll get around
> to it when it's convenient for the ARRL.
What hat did you pull that one out of? :-) ARRL said that it believes that there is no great urgency for the ARRL to formulate a position and that it is important the Board -- who will utlimately do just that -- get the input of the ARRL membership. Jim Haynie has indicated here that the matter will be addressed at the January meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors. And if the ARRL were jumping into this with all haste, would you be among those that say that it looks like ARRL doesn't even want to know about the opinions of the amateur community? It is easy to take the worst-possible interpretation of any ARRL action, if speculation is your guide.
> It is a sorry story that in America, the land of
> the "free", we are prisoners to archaic rules and
> ole boy fraternities.
The prison exists in your imagination, I fear. The rules may be archaic; that is what the FCC will ultimately decide, but they don't imprison anyone. No one has ever gone to jail because he or she didn't learn Morse code.
As to "ole boy" fraternities, that sounds good, but what does it mean? The ARRL has a Board of Directors that serve at the direct vote of the members in their division. If you don't like the person serving in that role, vote the bum out.
I am curious, can you offer anything specific about the actions of your own director that lead you to conclude that the ARRL is a "ole boy" fraternity? I am wondering on specifically what basis you have made your public conclusion?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm a member of ARRL but have never received anything from our director on any issue. So at least in our region, the director isn't even asking its members what it wants. He's probably already made up his mind. That's my basis for the "ole boy fraternity". And I meant the "prisoner" metaphorically. Loss of freedom to participate in hobby of choice because of archic laws that can't be changed in any meaningful time frame.
By removing the Morse Code testing element, you're not taking away anything from anybody. All you're doing is granting the same privileges to Americans that our counterparts have in other industrial nations. Why, for heaven's sake, doe that require a whole new restructuring of licenses? A simple procedural rule change is all that's requested in the NCI petition. Yet the ARRL is going go through the whole restructuring bit like they did just three years ago. It is just plain idiotic to respond that way to a very simple petition--drop the code requirement.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>"The FCC is leaving it up to the ARRL to come up with the recommendation on "code vs. no-code" for the USA."<<
Oh, sure. And I bet you think the ARRL is issuing licenses now, too.
BTW, if anyone thinks the testing requirement is needed to keep code "alive", then just maybe code testing should be stopped.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YTO on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Write the arrl and comment to the fcc. I am new to ham radio. only about 3 months with a ticket. Several of the local radio club i am thinking of joining have just started a cw net for us new guys. Tonight was my first attemt at sending code. It was a bit hard but at the same time it was a blast. No one is forcing me or any body else to use code. I would encourage those who are new to study it. It can be fun. Like the other modes of communication we have to choose from. MAybe if some of those older folks would elmer some of the no coders and do it in a produtive way there would be more interest in morse code. most countrys in europe speak more than one language. most americans only speak english. Think of all who we cant communicate with. Keep the code and expand some of the hf bands for the no code folks would be my vote. But only slightly expand. Since we as Ham operators decided we wanted more than 11 meter's we all had to take a test. Well code is just one more test. Study it Take it then if you choose never use it again! But stop complaining about somthing that is so easy to pass. But is well worth the effort. What next send in 5 bucks to be an extra. I dont Think So. 73's and good luck. Hope to catch up to you on the air waves.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Maybe it is easy for you to learn but not for all of us. I've invested 30 minutes a day for the past two months using Gordon West tapes and still have failed to learn enough to pass the code test on two occasions (failed twice now). I find it very difficult once it's beyound 2-3 dits/dahs. It's the longer sequences make my ears start ringing and I can't hear the endings of the sequences. So that causes me problems on all numbers, punctuation and a good 1/3 of the alphabet. I thought, they won't change the law for a long time so I'll just learn the code test and pass. It hasn't happened and I'm very discouraged about it now. I know I could send code. Wonder if the VEs would allow me to send instead of receive to pass the code test?
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Maybe it is easy for you to learn but not for all of
> us. I've invested 30 minutes a day for the past two
> months using Gordon West tapes and still have failed
> to learn enough to pass the code test on two
> occasions (failed twice now). I find it very
> difficult once it's beyound 2-3 dits/dahs. It's the
> longer sequences make my ears start ringing and I
> can't hear the endings of the sequences. So that
> causes me problems on all numbers, punctuation and a
> good 1/3 of the alphabet. I thought, they won't
> change the law for a long time so I'll just learn
> the code test and pass. It hasn't happened and I'm
> very discouraged about it now. I know I could send
> code. Wonder if the VEs would allow me to send
> instead of receive to pass the code test?
I have seen people learn the code in as little as 3 days. I have seen others who worked REALLY hard at it for a year. The ability to decipher Morse code by ear is clearly very individual and having seen a few really motivated people have to put that much into it tells me that those that find it easy and assume that "anyone can learn it" are not taking into account those individual differences.
I have a few suggestions for you. First, make sure that you are able to hear the differences between dits and dahs. For some, the stumbling block is that when the character Y is sent, Dah-di-dah-dah, they hear beep-beep-beep-beep. If you have the code memorized, try concentrating on just two letters -- perhaps F and L or Y and Q until you can easily tell them apart. You could also add A and N to the mix. With luck, you may find that if you can get over the dit-dah hurdle, you can pass the code test.
If you have hearing problems, there are a number of things that can be done. All types of physical disabilities are accomodated in amateur testing. With some advance notice, the VE team can obtain a code-test tape that has an audio tone other than 725 Hz. If you find that lower or higher pitches work better for you, that may help. Some hard-of-hearing prospects have passed a code test with a blinking light or by simply putting their fingers on a speaker. And yes, the VE team may be willing to let you take a sending test. Talk to the VE folks who would give you the exam, explain your situation and offer a solution. They will tell you what steps are necessary to accomodate your disability. (In some cases, they may ask for a physician's letter, but that is not always necessary. Start with them, unless you want some advice from your doctor on what might meet your needs.)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some more suggestions, you may or may not have tried:
Use headphones, so you have no distractions when listening to code. If this works, you may tell your VE team you need headphones ahead of the exam, and they should accomodate you.
Listen to faster Morse (20 wpm) with Farnsworth spacing (5 wpm) to get accustomed to how the entire letter, numeral, or special character sounds.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ed, but I think the 5 wpm code exam is sent at 15 wpm with 5 wpm spacing (Farnsworth)now.
Room acoustics play a significant role in how the Morse sounds, especially if it is large. This is another reason to use headphones to copy.
I've seen examinees "freeze" when the real exam is administered, even after the practice exam is sent, and I KNEW these examinees could copy code at the level they were taking, because I had seen it!
We even had examinees (for code) do relaxation techniques before the practice exam. That, and joking a bit before the exam, to make them feel at ease.
In spite of all this, I have seen examinees who just couldn't separate the short and long tones, no matter how fast, slow, pitch, or spacing tried.
One other observation, that really is just a sidebar, is those examinees who are musicians, *usually* do very well with code exams.
Try everything! Good luck!
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5YDY:
Your trouble with the longer Morse characters and the ears ringing may also have something to do with the particular pitch, or tone on your tapes and/or at the testing session. Most people (myself included) are very fussy about the audio frequency (pitch) when copying Morse code. If there's a way you caa vary the pitch during your practice, that might help you identify your personal preference.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
But, I don't want to learn the code. It's too hard for me. I tried for 30 minutes last week and I just can't learn it. So, please eliminate the code. I did however, memorize the answers for the tech exam so I am a ham and once code is eliminated I will be able to become a General by memerizing some more answers.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tech2003:
At what point will you learn how to spell?
W5EEX
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, you got me there. However, if you were more perceptive then you would have noticed that I did spell memorize correctly and my later spelling of memerizing must have been a typo error and should have been caught by my secretary during the proofreading of the document. Does this answer you question?
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Ed, but I think the 5 wpm
> code exam is sent at 15 wpm with 5 wpm spacing
>(Farnsworth)now.
It is somewhere around that ratio. In most cases, that makes it easier for the applicant because they have more time between letters to recognize what was sent. The ARRL VEC can supply non-Farnsworth tapes on request, so if someone really has trouble with the fast characters, they can arrange with an ARRL VE team to get a special tape made up.
73,
Ed, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> We even had examinees (for code) do relaxation
> techniques before the practice exam. That, and
> joking a bit before the exam, to make them feel at
> ease.
Some VEs have let the applicants take a "practice" exam and when they passed, give them the good news. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes! Thanks for jarring my memory...we did that several times too! The reaction of the examinees was worth it all!
I'll say one thing about the code exams, those who passed them were ECSTATIC about it. More so than the written exams...they were happy about passing the written, but they were PUMPED about the Morse!
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh...another observation; if you use code tapes (same ones over and over) you become familiar with the "strings" of characters sent, and actually know or anticipate the characters.
Using one of the many computer generated code programs, you may set-it-up to send random characters.
After you become familiar with the basic elements, this is one of the best ways to increase your speed quickly. Too much time at one sitting copying Morse is bad also. Break-it-up into maybe 15 minute sessions, and you won't get into "sensory overload".
Morse may be archaic, outdated, and outlived its usefulness, but I'll guarantee the mode will give you more smiles-per-mile than just about any mode used, especially when you start breaking speed barriers.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tech2003:
I just couldn't help giving you a hard time.....my spelling is usually OK, but my typing is always a mess......keep up the posting.
-73,
W5EEX
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YTO on October 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What i found that really worked for me was the program called CODE QUICK. I bought the CD's and the computer program and in no time was able to copy code. It uses several ways to help you learn code. In an previous post someone mentioned the letter y or WHY did i DIE or for the letter D how about DOG did it. THe caps being long or dashes and the lower case being the dots. Good luck and best of luck,. The fact your trying is whats most important. Looking fowrd to hearing you on the air some Day. 73's Steve..
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tried using headphones tonight with stereo player that that has sound mixer. It really does make a difference! When I reduce the amount of bass and high frequencies on the code tapes and emphasize the middle frequencies, I was able to copy a complete QSO from GORDO's tape #4, the first time I've been able to do that.
So looks like wearing headphones and having a tape player with sound mixer is what it takes to keep my ears from ringing. Now I'm getting my confidence back that I can learn the code. Thanks guys for all your suggestions. Now I just need to make sure I arrange ahead of time with the VE's so I'll have my headphones and stereo boombox with sound mixer available for the test.
KD5YDY
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Forget About the FCC P
|
|
|
by K5DMI on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've read reasonable comments from both sides of the spectrum.
However, I'd like to remind people to comment on the FCC proposals. I have had one ARRL officer tell me that the FCC will determine the outcome, not the ARRL. Plus, recent ARRL News indicates that the Morse issue is NOT a priority for the League at this time. There are a number of viable alternatives to handling the code/nocode issue, and amateurs should support those reflecting the individual operator's preference.
When the FCC and League see some cooperation in the dissention, the decision will be easier to make, and the outcome will have minimal negative effects since all sides were able to comment on a variety of issues. For those who remain or become angry over the outcome, there is little relief available whenever someone refuses to accept change.
For those wondering, I want the sub-bands to remain for code, no matter the outcome. Whether the sub-bands remain may be the test of whether SSB takes over the bands. Being active in QRP, I can find about 5 CW QSOs per SSB, so I don't think code will disappear. I generally favor the proposals to keep it for the extra license, but like another reply, I support it because of tradition, not as as filter.
j c K5DMI
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Forget About the FCC P
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC "doesn't care a whit" about amateur radio and all the fighting. They will essentially act once the ARRL has given their suggested changes in the law. Unfortunately, instead of making some simple changes eliminating the code testing, an executive committee is working on major restructuring again. That's why one ARRL officer told me personally there won't be any changes for perhaps as long as three years.
So forget the topic ever came up. Get back to radio and enjoy your hobby while you still can. This topic no matter how emotional for some cannot possible sustain a life of its own for three years. There's nothing worth discussing anymore. It's a dead issue now so just forget about it.
|
| |
|
Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
JOHN is right on the money on this.
Some humor is A-0K. Non Secequters, funny qoates, and jokes are cool too.
However BITCH-FEST'S, vitriolic lambastings, personal attacks, and MAD rantings by psuedo-intellectual posers gets stale. I like the running joke too. Somebody halfway thru a thread will say,....
nobody has made a CW/ANTI CW bash-n-trash remark yet!
Some of the stuff is not even something the ARRL can
deal with. Maybe there should be a rubber room thread on EHAM. If you want to rant or really have nothing to say, try the "life of REILLY" thread! It has degraded to a virtual insane ward of an inner city hospital!
Nobody has even started with a CW/ANTI CW remark in that thread yet.
Maybe a mental health thread would be good. If your drunk or drugged, you might not want to post!
The ARRL does check into EHAM. I think many times they just read the threads, and do not post a reply.
The president of the ARRL posted a few times. The RFI
HAM checks in too.
EHAM has much to offer. Product reviews, E-elmering,
and important issue's that may or may not deal with ham radio.
You will talk to hams, you may never work on air.
Too bad you cant get a QSL CARD!
I hope some of thw WACKO-JACKO stuff, does not lead to litigation. THE LIFE OF REILLY THREAD is a shocker.
It cast out the worst of me!
Problem is, you can write to the ARRL, and never get posted or get a response.
Some that post without a call are fine hams. They just may have privacy issue's. Some that post with out a legit call are the lunitic fringe. We do have the first ammendment. The guys that own all the computer hardware that run eham, have a good take on the first ammendment. I have not experienced censorship.
Instead of writing to the ARRL, try "THE LIFE OF REILLY THREAD" SHOCKING, FUNNY, and a place to argue!
You do not have to argue about REILLY. You can pick a good fight there, if that is what you want!
TNX MIKE
Other wise, EHam is one of the better EPUBS.
Hams and soon to be hams get a wealth of advice.
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N9XV on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the final analisys, when it's all said and done - - - if I turn on my HF rig and here some no-code extra saying "how bout it snuggie ya got yer ears on ten-four, just got my license this morning. My handle is dopy and your hitten me with a ten-pounder! - - -
Thats when I take up basket weaving, enjoy international tea's on a cool fall afternoon and watch re-runs of sewing with Nancy!!!
Lets pull together on this one
Kevin
|
| |
|
RE: Write the ARRL -- Don't Argue Here!
|
|
|
by N4CQR on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now that's funny.
Craig
-
I wrote my opinion to the ARRL. They responded by asking why I have not renewed my membership.
K6BBC
-
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
ARRL Asks FCC to Deny Kenwood Petition
eHAM covers Dayton 2000
FCC Appoints ARRL in Home Satellite Act
New Field Day Classes Proposed!
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
Other Editorial Articles
The SB Project
Hamming It Up, The Early Years
Managing Ham Radio Estate Sales
How to Spot a Scam
JARL Ham Fair 2009
|
