|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
Jim "Elvis" Seifert (AD6WL)
on
November 11, 2003
View comments about this article!
I feel that we need a true compromise between the pro-code group and the no-code group as far as CW as a testing requirement is concerned. In a true compromise there is something for both groups. Below is my proposition for a real compromise. There would be 5 classes of license with 5 different elements of testing. The no-code group can go all the way to General without having to learn CW and the Pro-code group should be satisfied with a 13wpm exam. Also the technician will get HF privileges with some digital and there is expanded HF for Tech+.
Technician: All current Tech+ W/digital privileges portions of the these bands also.
3.580-3.725 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data
7.080-7.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data
21.070-21.200 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data
28.070-28.300 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data
28.300-28.500 MHz: CW, Phone
Tech+: All New Tech Privileges and
10.100-10.150MHz CW, RTTY/Data
18.100-18.110Mhz, CW, RTTY/Data
18.139-18.168Mhz, CW, Phone, Image
24.920-24.930Mhz, CW, RTTY/Data
24.960-24.990Mhz, CW, Phone, Image
General: All current General privileges.
Advanced: All current Advanced privileges.
Extra: All current Extra privileges.
Tech+: 2 and either 1 or 3
General: 2,3 and either 1 or 4
Advanced: 1, 2, 3, and either 1a or 4
This is just my personal idea of what I think would work and possibly make both groups happy. Does this make sense or I am I wasting my time with this idea?
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W8VOM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am a 13 wpm General and this so called *Compromise* does nothing for existing Generals! I vote NO W8VOM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by G5FSD on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>by W8VOM
>I am a 13 wpm General and this so called *Compromise*
> does nothing for existing Generals! I vote NO
It's all ME ME ME, isn't it? You've already GOT what you want, why not let others have some fun?
How's this for a 'compromise' : scrap code tests as the rest of the civilised world is doing (with no ill effects), after the democratic world conference decided this was for the best.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W4YA on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Too complicated! How about just two license classes? General & Extra. One comprensive written test for General. A code test for Extra. Extra gets the present exclusive CW bands. General gets everything else. Similar to pre-1951. See RM-10810.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I go along with W4YA's concept - Two Amateur license classes with Code testing and additional privileges for the Extra class.
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by AB2RC on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would have to agree with W4YA, 2 license classes, General and Extra. The General class test would the same as a combination of the current elements 2 & 3, while the Extra would be either 2, 3 & 4 or 1, 2 3 and 4.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YVG on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank goodness this debate will be over by late '04 or early '05. Code is goanna go and those who don't like it should leave the hobby. We won't miss you either. There will be an influx of new operators once the code requirement is killed. And if we don't get the influx the hobby will die (if we don't do it it's going to die anyway). So get over it.
I am tired of the BS that without a code requirement Ham radio will revert to CB. All one has to do is listen to 80 meters; some of the worst operators in the hobby, not polite, violating FCC rules with their "wide" audio, ECT.
And yes you guys earned the right to use CW so bless you - keep it up and retain the spectrum. But it's another load of bull to say "I had to do it!! So you do to"! Times change get with it. As Sr Executive who must deal with people issues all the time I would rank amateurs as some of the most inflexible, cranky, whining people on the planet.
Obviously "change" is not a word that many of you have in your vocabulary. Where I work if you are not willing to change you don't last very long. I hope the same concept will apply to this hobby.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC2MBT on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Did my comment go through or did the "subscription page" pop-up knock it "off the air?"
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K2ACX on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC is looking to simplify us, not to compromise.
While compromise sounds like a good idea on the surface, the Commission will either keep the current tests or eliminate code testing entirely.
I doubt they could be convinced to take on the additional paperwork, etc. involved in recreating old license classes.
Brian K2ACX
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K4FAU on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great -- another -- what if idea.... why didn't you take the time to submit this to the FCC as a petition instead of yet another thread for the millionth time...
your plan is too complicated ....
and anyway .. the great thing is that by last Friday, the cutoff for bright ideas for band changes, the FCC had ONLY 1896 responses and over 72% of them were in favor of scrapping the code which basically means that these supposingly thousands of folks that are adamant against code changes are only adamant on this website and didn't take the time to actually let their voice be heard...
anyway... we need two code licenses... general and extra.... nd for the final icing on the cake... they need to reduce the bandwidth of CW and allow more phone....
the fcc code story can be found at http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/11/07/100/?nc=1
anyway....
Brian
Amatuer Extra
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N8YV on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Too complicated.
What the US licensing program needs is a swift, clean porcine solution.
1: Keep the current no-code Tech license, but re-name it from Technician (which is often a complete misnomer) to "Piglet" class. Still young and growing, not eligible for full-ham benefits.
2: Scrap the Technician-Plus. All current Tech + should become the equivalent of Generals, with a 5-wpm code test and a license called something other than General; Let's call it the "Honey Ham" class! It will be a sweet deal! Current Generals will be included with only the class changing names.
3: Scrap the Advanced and Extra classes. Advanced class and 20-WPM Extras will be forced to re-test for Morse proficiency at 18 wpm----with a twist----they MUST pass 18wpm using a STRAIGHT KEY. That way, we'll lose the whiney crybabies who go around ham swaps wearing their "screw you" hats and shirts that proclaim themselves as 20 wpm extras. After all, 18 wpm on a straight key will SILENCE those who bitch the loudest, because three-quarters of 'em can't handle a straight key to save their life! In fact, the FCC should outlaw the use of bugs and electronic keyers, altogether. THEN we'll see who can TRULY handle 18 wpm (I can see the rivers of tears flowing now) !!
For this 18 wpm license class, call it the "Smoked Ham" license. After all, those few that are left will have survived the "fire" and will surely be the most "seasoned" and "cured" hams around. Those who fail (and there will be PLENTY of them, so many that they will probably cause a redistricting of the current 4-lander states) will lose their ham privileges for one full year, as punishment for bad-mouthing everyone else.
If this proposal irks a few, just remember---I am only "porking fun" at you!
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K0RGR on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really liked your ideas, Jim! The concept of giving people a choice of how to advance is new, and one that I think could be explored. I suspect we are going to end up with fewer classes of ham license than what you propose, however.
There seems to be a broad concensus that Technicians should have HF priveleges. Based on various polls, however, we're split about 50-50 on the question of the General code test. Maybe we can find a reasonable way to give people a choice of learning code or learning more theory to get General privelges.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W3FHW on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's not going to change all that much. Those who love and operate CW will continue to do so. Those who do not care about CW, and will never operate CW, will continue to operate on the HF bands as in the past. The only difference being the removal of a filter code exam required for upgrading for operation on the HF bands. The new no-code upgrades can also learn and operate CW if they desire. Then, all the old "I passed the code" operaters can assist the new "no-code" operaters in proper code protocol. And then again, maybe they won't help the newbies. It's just a thought. I'm eager to see what happens-----It's going to be fun!!!!
Fred, W3FHW
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KT8K on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think we need to decide if "incentive licensing" is a concept we want to keep. Should privileges be attached to licenses in a way meant to encourage the attainment of greater skill and capability, or should privileges be available to those qualified to use them, such that someone interested in HF digital can take one test, and then, if they want to operate phone or CW they take the appropriate test for that permission - sort of a smorgasbord of license/privilege choices with certain requirements attached to each.
Personally, I don't think the hobby will die if we keep the Morse code requirement, and I don't think it will die if we don't. We certainly don't want people operating in the ham bands who don't know what they're doing, though, no matter what the mode or band.
That's my 2 cents ... 73 es gud rx all de kt8k - Tim
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Code won't disappear, and no, there won't be a huge influx of operators. If there is a huge influx (and that would surprise me) expect the question to change from "Why don't more people get their license?" to "Why don't more people keep their license?" as churn rates will skyrocket. Just think: 1,000,000 licensed hams...and about 85% will spend two years active, lose interest and in another 8 the license will lapse. More hams taking more tests with the same level of activity!! A real paradise for the NCVEC and ARRL!!
CW is about as responsible for the death of ham radio as swiss cheese--we have gotten along nearly 90 years with no problems. The real reasons (in no particular order):
The internet
Deed restrictions & Covenants
Urban & surburban overcrowding
Mobility of workforce
In my 1936 QSTs are a bunch of ads proclaiming that 32% of all applicants fail the tests. Their solution wasn't to make the test easier...it was to make the preparation better. Go Figure...
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K7JDW on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
I like your idea, to a point. I would change it only by eliminating the Tech+ and Advanced options. That leaves three classes with reasonable options to achieving each of them.
I am a no-code Tech, and I like your solition, with my changes, more than anything I have heard proposed. I do not think it really matters, though, because I believe the code requirement will go away before any other changes are considered.
Personally, I don't think a code requirement should be eliminated, but offering an alternate route to the HF bands seems very reasonable. --jdw
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by FJGH on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
When are hams going to accept that the fcc decides the rules in part 97, and they do not make decisions based on the results of some kind of straw vote within special interest groups like hams?
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N2XE on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think all proposals should be seriously considered but this one is stupid.
We already freaking compromised by dropping 13 and 20 WPM and replacing it with the dirt simple, brain dead 5 WPM test that any load of dirt could ace if he had a nanogram of desire. I know of what I speak, I passed the 5 WPM test and I'm not very bright or motivated.
So here we are after "the big compromise" that was supposed to settle the no-code vs. know-code debate but that's still not enough.
Now we have to suffer through the un-initiated figuring out how to carve up the CW sub-bands.
I don't see what the big deal is here. If you want to operate unfettered, there is FRS, GMRS, CB and cell phones. If you want to be a ham then pass the freaking test.
The way I see it is this: Ham Radio by definition means you take and pass a test. If you want to operate on Amateur bands between 1.8 and 29.7 Mhz, take and pass a 5 WPM Morse code test. How simple can it be? If you truly have a physical or mental hanycap that prevents you from learning, you can get special dispensation.
If you just want to wait for the government (FCC) to fix the situation for you, you probably don't really have much desire to be a Ham.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I vote NO, and recommend CW exam elevated back to 20 wpm for everyone except techs. They should do 13wpm.
and answer this: Why are todays Techs so special that they get to advance past any testing??
|
| |
|
RE: N2XE: Amen!
|
|
|
by CURMUDGEON on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Where did they get the idea that we should consider their opinions important enough to compromise with in the first place. All the compromising that needs to be done has been done. 5 wpm is enough compromise.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N9AVY on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why don't we just put all the No-coders & Pro-coders on an island somewhere and let them settle it once and for all ! Last man standing ...
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD4AVP on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have read all the proposals and comments coming and going. It is a cold hard fact that the FCC is looking at streamlining the organization. With that said, 2 classes make sense. Code is going to be dropped as a requirement. Its on the wall in permanent ink, we just have not gotten the "offical" word. I for one don't see it as a bad thing. I agree with the post about accepting change and moving with the change. He nailed it exactly. Industry today is an evolving beast that changes quickly as does society. Why would ham radio be any different? Work and learn CW if you like it, just don't make it a bigger black eye for the entire hobby. This is essentially what it has become in the last few years. Just my thoughts for what it is worth.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Why are todays Techs so special that they get to advance past any testing?? <<<
I appreciate your comments about 20wpm, however it is not that techs get to "advance" by the elimination of the CW requirement anyways.
It is no secret that most of today's Generals and Extras pass or scrape by the CW test, and hardly use the mode on HF.
HF is predominately SSB or digital communications.
Learning a radio mode does little or nothing in terms of understanding today's advanced concepts of radio communication.
The logic of passing a "mode" would be similar to saying, Let's make all hams pass FSK mode?
While I do appreciate radio history, Whats the difference, or the point of learning a mode that seems to have little use?
If CW is so important to Amateur Radio, than why are you not preferring CW INSTEAD of SSB when you are on HF?
Techs and ALL Amateur class operators need to advance their skill by increasing their understanding of theory, not a mode of radio.
It burns me up when an Extra doesn't even understand basic information about the construction of a dipole. Yet, they know (or at least at one time knew) CW mode... Big deal!?
(Scotty... Get those shields up at maximum)
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To pass an Amateur radio exam, they should have a "practical" element.
You should be able to walk up to the front of a class and "assemble or demonstrate" one or more of the following:
1. Construct a simple (scaled down on paper) antenna and using formulas to calculate the correct lengths without anyone else assisting you. (ie. design 3 elements and spacing for a given frequency?)
2. Understand the internal components of a basic radio design by placing the "parts" from the table into a "radio box" in the appropriate slots and in the correct order.
3. Place a "mock up" station on a desk and tell the student that the radio is causing RFI to a neighbor.
Instruct the students to write down as many different possible ways of "solving" the interference using their acquired skills. Each solution is worth a point.
4. Using a "mock up station" have the student demonstrate their ability to send and receive "NTS" traffic accurately and in the proper format.
5. Provide VE's with the authority to issue an immediate "temporary" license after succesful completion of the written and practical elements.
The student must then demonstrate "good operating practices" under monitored conditions for a brief period of time under temporary status. This is done PRIOR to the examination documentation that is sent to the FCC for issuance of a permanent call sign. Make the VE accountable for the students actions. This will weed out any rif raff in a big hurry.
In order for a "permanent" FCC license to be granted, a student should be required to obtain 3 other hams verification of a students demonstrated "Good Moral Character" and on the air operating practices.
This is FAR better than using CW as a filter. The problem with CW is that a person call learn it and still demonstrate a "lack of operating skill."
After all, that is the objective... isn't it?
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K3UD on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This follows an interesting trend in licensing proposals would give no-code Techs CW privileges in some of the lower bands, but no phone privileges in the same bands. Is there some kind of disconnect here? The holder of a Technician class license never took a code test.
Also, the existing Novice license is not addressed, although all Novices have passed the now standard 5WPM code test.
My first thought is that this is way too complex. However having been a Boy Scout and adult scout leader, I am reminded that the Boy Scout merit badge requirements have optional requirements in the requirement lists.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K4JSR on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why not just push "THE BUTTON" and let God sort it out? Oh, I'm sorry, that would leave out the atheists and agnostics. Gee, I guess that everybody
will just have to go away unhappy! But wait!
Since everybody will be equally unhappy, then that is
fair! Problem solved! Wasn't that easy?
Get a flaming grip, folks! Just go back to being
hams and enjoying the hobby/service/weirdness.
If you aren't happy with what shakes out, then quit and go be miserable under a rock somewhere. Hams
have always had to deal with whatever exams that their
particular jurisdictions have mandated and always will. If you can't stand it, go get another hobby,
like bobbing for porcupines! Something that will really stick with you for while!
And always remember; If they outlaw CW, then go do it
on the freebands! :-D
73, Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2XE:
I agree with your comments-- well put.
KB9YVG:
Executives who spout change and promote the insipid propaganda from "Who Moved My Cheese" need to learn two simple things: Not all change is good. Not all changes are inevitable.
How dare you suggest that I need to get out of the hobby and make room for the NCI whiners.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KX2S on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tech CW 5 WPM
General CW 13 WPM
Advanced CW 20 WPM
Extra CW 25 WPM
Super CW 50 WPM
Crazy CW 100 WPM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W9WHE on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree. Two classes.
General: No code testing & No HF, Except 10 meters.
Extra: Code testing and HF.
Asking Techs to self-limit to 200 watts will work about as well as self-limiting contesters to 1500 watts, TOTALLY UNREALISTIC!
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by VE8NX on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Will this pointless argument EVER GO AWAY!?!
I think the moderators should delete all and any topics related to this dead horse CW cryin'& whinin' wail fest.
I'd rather be on the radio.....
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N2XE on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chuck, KC8VWM and all the other malcontents that think the Morse requirement is testing a mode--you guys need an education badly.
There is no "CW" test. There is a "Morse Code" requirement and test. Morse code is not a mode, it's a language. You can operate Morse on CW, FSK, PSK, Modulated AM, Modulated FM, spark, light, sound, whatever.
We currently test other languages--Q codes, phonetics and the like. Morse is no different. Yes it's old but so is a pencil (in fact, the pencil is older) but we still make you master its use in elementary school. Morse code is kindergarten for Amateur Radio--basic, elementary and essential.
Morse is the universal language of Amateur Radio. If were going to promote international communication and good will, we have two choices--make everyone else learn English or use Morse.
If those of you with HF envy are going to throw hissy fits, at least get your facts straight. It seems like you want to ignore the facts, make up words, then argue about them.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM:
I challenge your statement that "most of today's Generals and Extras .... hardly use [CW] on HF." What is the source of your information?
It is likely that the majority of Generals and Extras simply aren't active on any mode or frequency, which would make your statement technically correct-- but misleading. My belief (based on daily operating activity, and I could be wrong on this) is that the majority of hams active on HF use CW regularly. For example, if you examine the published results of contests (such as ARRL DX and SS) you will see as many CW entries as SSB.
I'm tired of hearing assertions that Morse "is dying." I won't make any assumptions here about your abilities with Morse, but I would venture to say that most of the people making this claim couldn't copy their own name in Morse if their life depended on it.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
YUP.
What we the same NO!-Code debate coupled with a new band proposal.
Send your petition to the FCC so that people can make comments on it—it is just what the FCC needs, more petitions on subjects that they haven’t called for petitions about.
To top this thread off, you needed to incorporate something about contests, and ask for CBers to comment.
How is your proposal better than The League’s?
As a result of your proposal, what will be the growth rate for Ham Radio?
How has the last change, no-code techs, and only 5wpm Cw tests, impacted the growth rate?
Bob
PS: Way To Go eHam!
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W8VOM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
G5FSD Wrote: W8VOM It's all ME ME ME, isn't it? You've already GOT what you want, why not let others have some fun?
Answer:Yup,I already have what I WANT! I also EARNED it by doing the required WORK. It is not about ME ME ME..it IS about doing the WORK and learning a new SKILL. Just because other countries have lower standards,we do not have to jump off the same cliff.
We already compromised with 5 wpm and we should hold the line at 5wpm. If you REFUSE to learn Morse than be happy as a Short Wave Listener. My call is W8VOM and I earned my privileges,I have a right to defend them! G5FSD go have Tea with the rest of your Welfare Socialistic Ilk! At least we have a Free Press over here so dont talk to me about Democracy understood!!!
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W9WHE on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KB9YVG::
Change is not inherently bad. What makes a particular change bad or good are the specifics. Its NOT change we object to. Its dropping the code that is a bad idea.
You like changes that give YOU things that YOU did not earn. However, when you give people things they did not earn, they have little appriciation for them. Take 11 meters for example. Its a perfect example of no effort, no earn = no respect. Those of us that have earned HF generally respect it, because it was difficult to attain. Get the pitcture? If you earn it, you are more likely to respect it. If you don't earn it, then you are less likely to respect it.
We all understand that YOU want things you did not earn. I want a Hawaiian vacation estate. But I have to earn it. You seem to think you should not have to earn HF. However, when the government gives people something they did not earn, that's A BAD IDEA. AND THAT'S WHY WE OPPOSE YOUR POSITION.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>Asking Techs to self-limit to 200 watts will work about as well as self-limiting contesters to 1500 watts>>>>
Limiting power output doesn't improve or reduce a persons operating skill on HF, or any other band regardless of what mode is used.
If skill and quality of the operator is the issue at hand, then we need to address the qualifications and skills acquired by the radio operator as an individual, not just the equipment, mode or frequency allocation they are assigned.
Regardless of whether you are a highly skilled or poorly skilled radio operator, a specific frequency allocation isn't associated with this fact.
For too long now we have tried to associate this fact in terms of operating skill vs allocated privileges and as a result we have created a certain animosity that we are not equals.
The reality is, there are techs out there that are more skilled than extras and novices that are more advanced than generals, vice versa and everything in between.
If the objective was to use CW as a method of determining quality and skill of radio operators, then why not address the real issue...
"Quality & Technical Skill of Radio Operators!"
Keeping CW or Trashing CW as a component requirement is not really the issue.
We need to start developing tests based on practical and written elements for today's 2003 real world of Amateur radio.
As with all technology, everything should be subjected to evaluation and changes are implemented for making improvement. If we don't accept change, we will become obsolete and archaic and improvements won't be made.
Pretty soon every other country will be far advanced beyond us because we lack the ability to be forward thinking. The facts are that the military dropped CW as a requirement, other countries all around the world are dropping CW, and so where does that leave us?
Amateur Radio is not a country club defined by a specific operating mode. It is a group of skilled & trained individuals that pursue in the art of radio communications & experimentation.
CW mode in itself is not the primary objective of advancing Amateur Radio into the next plateau.
It is through advancement of a radio operators quality, technical skill, training & knowledge that will realistically meet these objectives for the future.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>KC8VWM:
I challenge your statement that "most of today's Generals and Extras .... hardly use [CW] on HF." What is the source of your information? <<<<
Chuck,
The source of my information is here:
http://www.qsl.net/zs1an/morse.htm
The Question:
“what percentage of your operating time is spent using CW?”
The survey indicated that only 44% of amateurs spend the majority of their time on CW.
Answers:
(Percentage of Respondents & Number of Respondents)
I do not operate CW at all
32.6%
1002
Less than 25%
17.1%
525
26-50 %
6.2%
192
51 – 75%
8.6%
265
76 – 100%
35.4%
1089
I hope this adds clarity.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: No Morse uh-uh No No Morse No Baby No !!!
|
|
|
by HAMFAN on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ahh....Mmmmmmm...ehh......yyeaaah. ok
KT8K: Favors killing incentive licensing. Wants Proficiency Testing for all modes. OK, So what will the PHONE Test consist of? Being able to push a button and speak into a mic?
N2XE: You are correct sir. You are neither bright or motivated. You have utterly failed to comprehend the meaning of the current debate over the afore mentioned archaic beeping cypher.
** The entire point is ** and you pay attention this time boy, [There is NO RELAVENCE or CORRELATION whatsoever, practical or otherwise, between CW skills and PHONE skills on HF or anywhere for that matter. If one can operate a VHF radio, talk into a mic and behave one's self in a civilized manner, then what the heck is the difference in doing the same thing on an HF frequency? What does CW have to do with it at all? NOTHING is the correct answer. Never has-never will.
Whew! Glad that's over. Now you're just a bit brighter than you were before I had to come along and Elmer you...no charge btw,....but sadly..you're still unmotivated.
And finally to K4JSR....Interesting idea my friend!!!! I too want to know that if CW is ever outlawed, will the Beepers resort to ILLEGALLY beeping on 11meters to continue their craft....hmmmmm delicious. Thank you for that insightful viewpoint into one possible future. What goes around comes around. Baawwwaahahahahhahahahaha
73 KE4ENX
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by HAMFAN on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ah....er...ya.....ehhh......a....ok
To:
KT8K: You suggest dumping incentive licensing and would rather see a performance based structure. Alright,..what would the PHONE Test consist of? Being able to push a button and speak into a mic?
N2XE: You are correct sir, you a neither bright or motivated. However at no charge to you, I gladly step forward and will Elmer you in this matter. Why it is that you are apparently unable to grasp the abstract concept involved in the raging debate over the merits of requiring archaic beeping cypher skills in order to be able to use PHONE skills on a particular frequency, well...it's beyond the rest of us. But being the merciful lot that we are, we would rather reindoctrinate you here at the State School For The Hamming Impaired. The answer is that there is NO MERIT. CW and PHONE have as much to do with each other as APPLES and ORANGES do. The rest of the world knows this. WRC 2003 offically declares this. And yet we are compelled to ponder why you havn't gotten this yet. [insert hidden message here to include all others who havn't gotten it either]
So there, you are now a bit brighter than you were before I volunteered to Elmer you, but you are still unmotivated.
And finally Mr. K4JSR, Very interesting idea indeed. I too want to know that if CW is outlawed, then will all the little beeping people run off to illegally beep on 11 meters to enjoy their craft?? Very funny. What goes around comes around!! Bawwwaaahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Next campaign slogan:
"A Fan Dipole In Every Pot"
73 KE4ENX Galldarnit just kidding everybody
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WD4HXG on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THERE SHOULD BE NO COMPROMISE. If an individual does not have the self discipline to set down and learn 13 WPM of Morse he/she is not really interested in anything other than plastering a microphone in front of the flapping jaws.
If you want to be a communicator or appliance operator you have access to 50 Mhz and up with NO CODE. Better yet go back to 27 MHz and whine there.
Flame On Snivelers!
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM:
Thanks, Charles, for providing the data from the QRZ.com survey. The numbers support my contention that CW is anything but a dying art. Out of 3073 respondents, 2071 (67%) operate some CW, and 1546 (50.3%) operate CW at least 25 % of the time. More respondents (1089) reported operating CW more than 75% of the time than the 1002 who say they never operate CW.
Assuming that operating CW less than 25% of the time constitutes "hardly at all," then according to the numbers you provided, these hams constitute just under half of the survey sample.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K1CJS on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm simply wondering when all this bullsh*t is going to stop. I only come here once in a while now and this argument always has a top spot.
HEY PEOPLE---STOP THE WHINING AND GET BACK ON THE BANDS WHERE WE BELONG!!!!!
|
| |
|
More structure?
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm all for retaining the code test requirement in some form, but doubt we need more license grades or structure.
Since many openly admit they learned just enough code to pass a test, and then completely forgot it; and for seven decades there was no such thing as a "code free" ham license of any sort -- and that didn't seem to provide an obstacle for anyone who wanted a ticket; I don't get this whole issue.
It's obvious that *anyone* can learn code, and those who have no interest in retaining that skill will drop it like a hot potato, as many have done over the years.
The high school S.A.T. is undergoing changes right now -- to make it a bit harder, actually. TIME magazine two weeks ago reported on this, and compared today's S.A.T. to the equivalent "college board" exams given at the turn of the 20th century, and that was quite enlightening. 100 years ago, the board exams (their S.A.T. of the day) included Latin and other subjects now thought of as obsolete, and the answer format was essay style, not multiple choice; the students who did well went on, in general, to prestigeous careers and positions of significance in our society. These are people who changed our country, and our world.
The exams dropped those requirements, and now I have college grads applying for jobs without knowing how to fill out an application.
Sometimes demonstration and knowledge of old things may help preserve the best things we have.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC0NVI on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here comes that dead horse around the mountain again!
I have only been an operator for just over a year, and I have never seen such a group that wines and bitches over such a small trival item as CW.
Someone, anyone, please stab this thing with a fork, and end this. FCC, I know you don't read these posts, but if you happen too, this conversation is getting real old, and let me put it this way, if you should decide to not remove the code requirement, the rest of the world will wonder exactly what is being attempted to be done. On the other hand, if you leave it in place as it is, you'll make the older generation the happiest they have ever been, but you can rest assured that the amateur radio community probably will not be growing in a big way as a result of the decision to keep the code in place. Besides, I for one did not get my ticket so I could learn a foriegn language, I know english and that's all I want to know, morse is another language, and I do not wish to learn it, I'm not for or against it, but choose not to learn it.
Those in the amateur circles wonder why the numbers are falling off... Let's see, cell phones for 1 cent, no morse code needed, FRS, no license no code, no DUH!, GMRS, again no code needed, a few less things that can be done, but still no code and numbers grow.
Face it, if the armed forces no longer use it, or allow it to be transmitted, then exactly what is the use, if it's for the "good ole days", well, fine, those are long gone now, and the next generation is here to stay while the others are fast leaving us. I thank them all for their contributions, but time to move forward into the 21st century, the 19th is long gone, as is the 20th, so either the FCC and the amateur community move forward as well, and embrace a change, and stop boring everyone with these useless posts, or prepare too meet the fate of the dino's, they weren't around long either...
Oh well, just my two cents plus a tip...
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>Assuming that operating CW less than 25% of the time constitutes "hardly at all," then according to the numbers you provided, these hams constitute just under half of the survey sample.
73 de Chuck NI0C <<<<
Chuck,
I appreciate your comments, but lets face reality.
Even the ITU indicated that CW proficiency isn't in the best interests of the future development of Amateur radio communication.
Don't get me wrong, that's not to say that CW as skill should not be appreciated, or that those individuals that worked so hard to learn CW should not receive any recognition for that fact.
I am only suggesting that we need to advance to the next plateau in Amateur Radio and the world recognizes that morse code as a "strict requirement" is no longer necessary.
In fact, I would support the the idea that the FCC should issue special certificates of recognition to those operators such as yourself that learned this historical art and communication skill.
I am not against code Chuck. I learned it when I was a youngster and I still listen to it all the time. I admit I am a little rusty at times.
--... ...-- / -.. . / -.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K4FAU on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
why is it that more people will bitch about the code no code issue here on a fricking webpage that has absolutley no influence on anything then to simply let the FCC -- who are the only decision makers -- know how they feel --
but i gues the no coders will win out -- and good for them -- at last count -- the FCC had right at 1900 comments from personnel referencing the code no code -- and they stte that a little over 70% fvored the dropping of the code...
guess the hams have spoken...using pst FCC historicl agendas... I would say that the FCC will drop the code requirement in May 04...
Brian
Amatuer Extra....
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While all this has been a really fun “read”, I think it’s time for a Reality Check!
In reality, the FCC doesn’t give “An Obese Rodent’s Posterior” what we think; so we may as well stop all this insipid bickering right now! They are going to do whatever they can to make their job easier and less expensive to perform!
You’ve all heard the whining about how “Under-Funded” and “Under-Staffed” they are:…….Do you really think that they’re going to adopt any course of action that would increase their paperwork and responsibilities?
The FCC already knows that if it’s done correctly, they can throw their hands in the air, give up on an issue, and walk away WITHOUT the world coming to an end! They did it with the CB Band, and got away with it! To one degree or another, they will do the same thing with the Ham Bands.
Why???………………Because it means less work for them, and they know that with the possible implementation of BPL, most of the problem will just evaporate anyway.
What?……You’re thinking “This can’t happen!”?………Wrong!
For many reasons, Amateur Radio has been a fairly exclusive cub. We’ve done a good job of keeping it exclusive, and the result of that is that we have NO political “Clout” whatsoever. We have made ourselves fair game for anything that any Politician or Bureaucrat feels like doing to us!
We are about to be bumped out of the way to make room for bigger issues:………Enjoy the ride!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>by NI0C on November 11, 2003
"KC8VWM:
I challenge your statement that "most of today's Generals and Extras .... hardly use [CW] on HF." What is the source of your information? "
Check out the survey results at:
http://www.arrl.org/survey.php3?pollnr=176
Of over 3000 hams surveyed over 73% of them use CW. Nope, it is apparent that CW is not being used by new generals and extras. I worked the SweepStakes CW contest a couple weeks ago and part of the exchange was the year you were first licensed and to my surprise I found quite a few who were licensed in 99, 00, 01, 02 and yes even one op who was licensed in 2003 and operating a contest no less. Good job.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are more individual "my proposals" than there are active hams in the U.S., it would seem. Whatever is done will be from the majority rules standard of democracy, whether through comments to the FCC, ARRL or other bodies.
The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or in the cases of many individual proposals, the needs of the ME!
No code, Mo' code, whatever.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What do people want amateur radio to be?
If we want it to be a unique radio service, that is differentiated from other services available to the public such as GMRS/FRS, CB, and MURS, then we need to keep testing applicants based upon skills. One of those skills is CW. You can't prove CW proficiency without testing.
The FCC data shows that more people have earned HF privileges since the 5 wpm compromise at the April 2000 restructuring then have earned Tech licenses. That's right... more people are going to General now than to Technician. The FCC data also shows that Techs who don't upgrade to General are failing to renew their licenses in large numbers. The Tech class is shrinking, and there are more HF-privileged General-and-above hams now than ever before. This shows that the 5 wpm test is not a barrier to even minimally-motivated applicants. Where's the problem here?
So, I guess my question is, why is this needed? The US has more licensed hams than ever before in the history of amateur radio, and we also have more HF-privileged hams than ever before. The hobby is getting exactly the people it needs to ensure its survival... licensees who are motivated enough to have buckled down and studied for a few weeks to earn HF privileges, and who are therefore more likely to stay involved in the hobby for its pleasurable aspects.
Casual licensees (those who want to be able to earn a license without a substantial investment in time and effort) will not preserve amateur radio. Incentive licensing is working... look at the numbers.
I say, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it!" Keep the current CW requirement for General-and-above privileges. I also say that the burden of proof is on those who would abolish CW testing to show how this change would benefit amateur radio (rather than their own selfish interests). How would eliminating the code requirement improve the quality of amateur radio operators?
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“What do people want amateur radio to be?
If we want it to be a unique radio service, that is differentiated from other services available to the public such as GMRS/FRS, CB, and MURS, then we need to keep testing applicants based upon skills. One of those skills is CW. You can't prove CW proficiency without testing.
The FCC data shows that more people have earned HF privileges since the 5 wpm compromise at the April 2000 restructuring then have earned Tech licenses. That's right... more people are going to General now than to Technician. The FCC data also shows that Techs who don't upgrade to General are failing to renew their licenses in large numbers. The Tech class is shrinking, and there are more HF-privileged General-and-above hams now than ever before. This shows that the 5 wpm test is not a barrier to even minimally-motivated applicants. Where's the problem here?”<<<
Yes, I have stated this before that the myth that ham radio is dying and desperately needs more members is being perpetrated by the no-code group to try and disillusion the unknowing into believing that eliminating the code is the only way to save ham radio.
Late breaking news: Ham radio is not dying. There are more hams now then ever before. There are more Generals and Extras now then ever before. The hams that want to put forth the effort required to upgrade are doing it. They are actually rising to the challenge and not just crying that they can’t/won’t learn the code. They are not demanding that the standards be lowered so they can get on HF without showing any dedication, drive, or determination. We have the quantity; we need to keep the quality.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All I see with this so called compromise is another way of grasping at straws to try to get some free HF privileges without working for them. The way I see it, they have the following choices:
1- Accept the status quo and stay above 30 MHz.
2- Accept the status quo and learn 5 wpm code.
3- Relocate to one of the countries that dropped the Morse proficiency requirement, but you will have to test under their system and obtain their license.
4- Keep complaining and hope Morse proficiency testing in the US is done away with in your lifetime. Some no-coders have been eagerly waiting for 12 years.
5- Censored.
You want a good proposal with a good compromise, check out RM-10811. I can live with that one.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam - discussed on codenocode
|
|
|
by AH6GI on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A similar but much simpler proposal was already discussed on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/codenocode
essentially, the nocoders get all HF except for 20 meters and a couple slivers of 40 and 15 to give DX stations a break from the plethora of W/K/N/A hams.
Oh yeah, and the nocoders are capped off at QRP.
come over to codenocode and tell everyone what you think. No holds barred.
de ah6gi/4
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by AH6GI on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like the idea of the 18 WPM straight key exam.
I think I could pass it with a good J38. I'm not sure that I can still use a bug though. It's been 30 years since I used one. Went to the ARRL handbook keyer then to a TTL IAMBIC memory keyer in the late 1970s.
Join the code/nocode discussions at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/codenocode
everyone's invited. Here's an idea. set aside part of 10 meter SSB for nocoders only. If you've passed a code exam, you can't operate there.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KE2IV on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is the stupidest one yet!
When will the pro-CW crowd realize that this is a fight to the finish?
THERE IS NO COMPROMISE POSITION ANYMORE!!!
I doubt if there ever was one.
THE FCC IS ABOUT TO AWARD THE UTILITIES FREE ACCESS TO ALL HF AND LOW-END VHF FREQUENCIES!
This guy is suggesting they should come up with umpteen new license classes for ham radio operators!
GET REAL!
You will be sending CW with your battery-powered code practice oscillator (err...beeper) pretty soon. Don't expect any replies to your -.-. --.-
And on and on it goes....old farts arguing about...WHAT?....CW?
To which the BPL man tells the FCC, "Oh, gimme a break, are you ham radio guys still stuck on that....?"
CW...nice for nostalgia....Plain, dumb ass stupid as a licensing requirement!
73,
40 years a ham - KE2IV
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KE2IV on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is the stupidest one yet!
When will the pro-CW crowd realize that this is a fight to the finish?
THERE IS NO COMPROMISE POSITION ANYMORE!!!
I doubt if there ever was one.
THE FCC IS ABOUT TO AWARD THE UTILITIES FREE ACCESS TO ALL HF AND LOW-END VHF FREQUENCIES!
This guy is suggesting they should come up with umpteen new license classes for ham radio operators!
GET REAL!
You will be sending CW with your battery-powered code practice oscillator (err...beeper) pretty soon. Don't expect any replies to your -.-. --.-
And on and on it goes....old farts arguing about...WHAT?....CW?
To which the BPL man tells the FCC, "Oh, gimme a break, are you ham radio guys still stuck on that....?"
CW...nice for nostalgia....Plain, dumb ass stupid as a licensing requirement!
73,
40 years a ham - KE2IV
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD6TQE on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Learning morse at 5WPM is not hard for most people. I was a dyed in the wool no-coder for 10 years until I purchased a 706MK2G.I got tired of listening and not being able to respond.In a little over 1 month I passed the code test!(Thank you Gordo for the tapes!)
If I can do it 99.999% can! The increased respect was well worth the time and effort.Just one request,please slow down a little,I am having a hard time copying CW because it is still new to me.
Thanks,Glenn
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8YV:
Heh-heh-heh...I like it! ;-} Your post prompted me to search in old boxes, and pull-out my very first straight-key I purchased in 1963. I had to "build" a base out of scrap wood, hand-sand it, paint it, mount the gleaming gold and silver key on it and practice like hell! It had been sitting for years, and the nice thing; it still works! Haven't used a straight-key in years, and had forgotten how much work it is to send Morse at 20 or better on it. The iambic keyer made by K8RA makes it look and perform like a dinosaur, but SKN (Straight-Key-Night) looks like a possibility real soon!
Thanks for the prod! ;-}
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KG4PFO on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yea.....whatever, this is bull!!
I will just wait and see (as all you will) what the FCC does on this issue, anything else is just plain BULL !
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N9NUP on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You hit the jack pot with your statement on CW.
It was really hard for me but has given me alot of satisfaction when I hear others commenting on my CW! My son, John (KB9ENN) learned CW when he was 13 and got perfect copy @ 5 wpm. It took me a year and a half
and I just squeaked by with 7 out of 10.
Kept hammering away and got the CW with perfect copy at 13 wpm and on the same day passed the extra at 20wpm.
I found that really incredible since I have no musical ability but have found some in respect to CW.
Its the best hobby I have outside of fishing but I can make contacts whenever I want! Sort of wish fishing at times would be as easy.
Again, thanks for your works of wisdom on this issue from a different perspective.
Bob - N9NUP
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W3DCG on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm okay with the proposal.
I'm okay W9WHE's idea, while in principle, I still believe that most would adhere.
Though it is true that proving a person was running power at magnitudes significantly past one's legal limit is a long-shot at best, as a primarily self-policing body- I think many would have a good idea, and perhaps even call someone on it, on the air. It's like proving someone was speeding past your house without a radar gun or other velocity measuring system. But- you sure do know they were going 40 in a 25.
I think the significance of CW has little to do with what is most popular, or deemed more/less useful, or what the rest of the world has deemed it to be (unimportant, it would seem).
To my thinking, CW is the root language of all wireless communication. It is the most basic form of wireless- smoke signals are more difficult and highly dependent on wind conditions, visibility.
CW has various levels of sophistication, in ways, has it's own special vocabulary.
To my thinking, HF Amateurs need not ever experience the artistry of CW, however, as it is the root language of Radio- HF Amateurs should be able to communicate using this most basic form. They should know their ABCs well enough to determine whether or not they like it.
WHY BE NORMAL? If you have chosen ham radio as a hobby, you're already a bit off the norm.
Within the realms of ham radio, CW operators are quite probably a minority- when you factor in all No Code Techs, this becomes clear.
As the world produces their No Code Hams, then on a global scale, CW operators become even more so, a group representing a tiny sliver of a given sample.
This does not make them elitist- for every CW operator on the planet whole heartedly welcomes you to discover and come to know the magic and beauty of good old fashioned Morse!
And, electronic keying has standardized the sound of CW to a large extent. Of course I stand in awe of those who can make a bug or straight key sing as though it were electronically keyed.
Every time I show a child that any given letter also sounds like, " A= di dah, B= dah di di dit, C= dah di dah dit..." the universal response seems to be either WOW or COOL!
When it comes to operating a station, CW is very cool. Barring physical impediments, chances are, most every CW operator can already DO phone.
In this Plug and Play age, throw some money at it, and you, too can be on Digital.
No amount of money can buy the ability to sit down in front of a barefoot HF rig connected to a wire via a tuner and start working the world via CW, under poor or only fair signal to noise conditions. Decoders will not work under marginal conditions. CW is a challenge to your brain, and the human brain, is still superior to any microprocessor machine decoding device, even in this age of supercomputing PCs.
Friends- there is only one way to be able to operate CW. You cannot buy it. It is not for sale.
Aside from some 60 meter rule or rumor- CW is a completely lateral mode. It can be done in any ham band segment.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N6YVY on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just seen the picture of N5KBP's dog keying the mic.
Does he know code?
Did they make it easier for to get his ticket?
How fast can he send? Does he send in English or doginese.
73 or is it 73's sometimes I just can't remember.
Bob n6yvy
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The above proposal is too confusing.
My two cents:
Bring back the Novice Class. Novice will have the same frequencies, however, this part of the spectrum will be for QRP voice or CW. No station of any class may operate over 20 watts in these parts of the bands. There will be no CW requirement for any class of license.
Drop the Tech class. Techs become General.
How does that sound? Let the abuse begin!!!
K6BBC
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W8VOM on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6BBC Wrote "Drop the Tech class. Techs become General."
Hey great idea but lets give the Techs General AND Advanced Privs! What do you say about that K6BBC? Would you grant them Advanced Privs also,if not why not and would adding the Advanced be too close to your comfort zone???
I say keep it the way it (IS)..Or Drop the Morse tests!
Too many Extras and Advanced class Ops are ready to feed the Techs all General privs if it will protect their sacred ground!
If that be the case...dump ALL Morse testing and get it over with.Sacraficing General spectrum to save your sacred stomping grounds just dont cut it with me.
If these guys are good enough to be General without the code, they are good enough to use Advanced spectrum.
Morse testing in this day and age should be an *option* and not used as a tool to "protect" Advanced and Extra spectrum while feeding existing Generals to the dogs. W8VOM
|
| |
|
Make Benchwork a Test Element!
|
|
|
by N9CYS on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Haven't we dumbed down enough things already? I'm tired of all the whining about making things easier. Making things easier hasn't had such a positive effect (not affect) on many cultures.
The atrocious spelling and grammar in most message threads are proof enough that we are already quite stupid. We all have spelling/grammar checkers on our PCs. Are these functions used?! Hardly. So should they quit teaching spelling and grammar in schools? Evidently they have!
Back to ham radio. All license classes should be required to troubleshoot AND repair a LIVE HV power supply. Power supplies are among the simplest (and deadliest) electronic devices.
Here are the test elements and PS Ratings:
Element snap! Tech - 300V at .5 amp
Element crackle! General - 750 volts at .5 amp
Element pop! Extra - 3000 volts at .5 amp
(Due to insurance stipulations on the VEC, before each exercise the VEC will demonstrate the deadly effect of the PS on small caged rodents. Upon the conclusion of this demonstration, candidates will be required to sign a waiver of legal rights and complete a form listing next of kin. That's family, if you've never been on CB.)
You will be required to identify the defective part(s) - including xformer, caps, diodes, bleeders, etc. If you cannot identify the parts from the schematic in the chassis, you cannot take the test. If you accidently touch the part with your finger and still live, you cannot take the test again until the burn wound completely heals. If the wound requires plastic surgery or you cannot order five beers with one hand (as a result of the injury), you are prohibited from taking the test for two years.
If you fix it AND live without burning the lab down or destroying the scope and dmm, and you pass the other requisite test elements (written and morse), you achieve that license AND that power level.
If the surge of electrons takes your breath away forever, your name appears in the RIP (Recently Incinerated Poseur) column in the December QST.
Cheers!
Jim, N9CYS
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W9TM on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If changing ham radio is so important, why not implement changes that will satisfy everyone?
1. Eliminate knowledge of Morse as a requirement to obtain an operator's license.
2. Eliminate all phone allocations in the HF bands making only digital, including cw, legal.
By making these changes, folks who feel slighted by the Morse requirement will no longer need to learn Morse to gain full access to the bands. Morse fans can ply their craft. Non-Morse digital modes, our real future, will be appropriately recognized. Phone ops can yakity-yak to their heart's content on VHF, CB, freeband or wherever.
There, everyone happy?
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about this simple compromise/solution:
All current and future Techs => ONLY <= get 10m 28.3-28.5.
George ...
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC2MBT on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Leave the licensing rules as they are.
There's a REASON why the Technician level requires only a written test of basic knowledge. It enables just about anyone to get on the air with basic tools and limited privleges to check out the hobby and see if they're interested in investing their time and effort to go further.
There's a REASON why higher levels that allow access to HF require Morse Code skills. This mode enables communication in crowded bands, with limited bandwidth, and a whole bunch of QRM. OK, digital modes are coming of age, but you can do CW with just a piece of bent wire and once you learn it, it will always be available to you. Just ask the POWs who were in the prisons and camps of Germany, Japan, and VietNam how useful Morse Code was to their day-to-day survival. HEY! FIVE WORDS A MINUTE IS NOT A BIG DEAL, FOLKS.
There's a REASON why higher-level licenses with their expanded power and band privleges are harder to get. Apprentice radio amateurs need to spend time on the air building their operating skills and practicing the courtesies of the hobby. Ham radio is a team sport, not an individual one. Once you fire up your station and propagate that first radio wave, you are joining a group of folks who've been out there since before most of us were born. In order to pass through the Journeyman stage to Master Operator, a person needs to: 1) understand fundamental electronic and RF principles so they don't endanger themselves and their families and neighbors, and 2)embrace and ultimately teach good operating skills and courtesies.
I think the ability to throw a radio signal halfway around the world carries with it some awesome responsibilities. This is a great hobby with a lot of opportunities, history, and fun. I'm proud to be part of a crowd that's known for being considerate, loyal, progressive, friendly, balanced, and patriotic. I'm also happy to be back in the hobby after forty years and I intend to leave it better than I found it.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8CON on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only way this will ever go away is if when issues like this are posted we keep from replying. Once there is no replys to a posting, the individuals who like to stir up the masses will quit posting them. Our postings are fuel for the fire.
Just my two cents worth.
73
Juddie, KC8CON
|
| |
|
Believe in the Easter Bunny too?
|
|
|
by MY_OPINION on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
These sorts of proposals will fly when pigs have wings. Face facts:
1. WRC voted to permit amateurs on HF without cw proficiency testing.
2. The trend is toward less paperwork and administrative burden for the regulatory bodies like the FCC, especially for the backwater, as perceived by some regulators, service of amateur radio.
3. The cw testing requirement removal is a fait accompli.
4. The constant carping and whining simply diminishes further the reputation of all amateur radio operators and will have no positive effect on the outcome.
Quit tilting at windmills. Build a bridge and get over it. The sun on CW, as a testing requirement, has set.
73,
MY_OPINION
|
| |
|
RE: No Morse uh-uh No No Morse No Baby No !!!
|
|
|
by N2XE on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Woody (HAMFAN),
First, you don't know CW so that explains a lot. Second, what do Q codes have to do with operating phone?? Why are phonetics test requirements? Why do we need to be tested on Ohm's Law? What does that have to do with the IC-746 I bought and how does that make me a better phone op?
If you can answer those questions intellgently then maybe we have a basis for discussion. Otherwise, we have another helpless ham that would rather have the FCC bail him out than spend 15 minutes a day for 10 days to learn Morse.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KU2US on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
40 Years a Ham? and you are acting like a cluless freebander. You are not a "Ham Old Fart" You are just old. CW will not go away, because I for one, and many others will not let it. I agree, to many licenses, but at least here is a guy that is trying to do something? For being old, you forget what started this hobby you so-called love so much-CW. The FCC, BPL, ARRL, baud heads and the 2 meter good buddy CB operators (some) can do what they like, it wont matter because If it comes to this, I will operate CW over them and You, and guess who will be heard and come out over the top of the garbage pile? And thats what this hobby/service is becoming-Garbage. No more respect, lack of operating skills, stupid utility rice box operators, lack of togetherness and pride, and fear of challenge. But I am staying, because I dont have to be like that. I never thought I could stoop so low as to say that. Your post hit a nerve & Im an old fart and proud of it. The "Extra Lites"? I dont blame them, They want to be an Extra, so they have to take the testing that the law says they have to take. I blame the FCC and to some part the ARRL for dumbing down the hobby for the dummies. If this didnot happen, then these flaming threads would not exist. Its all about MONEY. The more hams we have, no matter what the caliber, the more rice boxes will sell, the more the membership rolls will increase, more mag.subscriptions will sell. Dont make your own antenna, buy one! Dont put together a kit and learn something, go out and Buy one ready made, dont learn CW-learn how to punch characters on a key-board-let the computer do it for you. This is making me SICK. Yes, Ham Radio Operators Were elite, for those who had the balls to Earn It. If you want to drive a 10-wheeler, you have to EARN that license. If you want to be a Doctor, You have to EARN that degree, if you want to be a Postal worker you have to EARN a high score on the Civil Service Exam, If you want to serve our country in the Military, you have to EARN that rank, But NOT in Ham Radio anymore. Now, your only requirements are the ability to push a mic button, Memorize a study guide and have the money to buy a box of rice krispy's with a ham radio license inside. 3 boxes of rice krispy's will get you an Extra class license. Boy, would I be proud..Well, I am PROUD. I know how to operate well, I know CW & enjoy it, I know a little bit about the inards of a radio, I make my own antennas. This doesnt make me better than anyone else, what is does do is make me feel great because I EARNED my license and shows the caliber of those before me that made this possible for ME. What will the next generation of Hams have? "Oh well, all you got to do is push this little key here, and the letter -A- will be sent out. watch your screen for your reply-You can read cant you?"..My book is finished. I will never, never frequent these threads again, after reading yours. Ken..
|
| |
|
Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by N2XE on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look at it this way Woodbury,
The reason this is such a charged issue is because your position is silly.
For instance, I want an Olympic gold medal for the marathon. But I can't run fast or far. Besides, running is old and what does it have to do with going from point A to point B. If I can use my high tech bicycle, I can be there better, faster and without needing a week to recover. I could certainly win the marathon on my bicycle and it's only a stupid arcane rule that prevents me from obtaining my gold medal. If I had that gold medal, my self esteem would surely rise.
Likewise, say I don't like women. Why can't I have all the legal protection and rights for my lover with whom I have a committed relationship? Defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is old fashioned and has nothing to do with loving relationships.
But let's get real. If you're a Technician and like it, great. The Amateur Radio community welcomes and embraces you. If you want to be a General or Extra, simply do what it takes to become one. You'll be following in the footsteps of hundreds of thousands far less capable than you.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM:
You said: I appreciate your comments, but lets face reality.
Even the ITU indicated that CW proficiency isn't in the best interests of the future development of Amateur radio communication
My reply:
I much appreciate the tone of your comments to me, but there are a couple of things I want to say in response.
Now that you have examined the data concerning the usage of Morse on HF bands, you seem to have changed arguments. I don't mind changing the topic, however I believe you have distorted what the ITU actually said. I think your statement would be correct if you include the words "testing for" in front of CW proficiency.
I also fail to see how eliminating a very modest Morse testing requirement constitutes moving to a "higher plateau" in amateur radio. The most convincing arguments I've heard along these lines have been from G5FSD and KD5YDY who claim that it is somehow a justice issue. But so far, I'm not willing to concede that allowing ignorance of an important language in radio communications and an extremely effective and simple communications mode is a matter of "justice."
I believe that this whole controversy has been fueled by the likes of W5YI who has made an industry of amateur radio licensing since its privatization. I think that people need to pay careful attention to the potential conflict of interest here.
Thanks for listening, Charles, and 73 to you!
ChucK NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6BBC Wrote "Drop the Tech class. Techs become General."
Hey great idea but lets give the Techs General AND Advanced Privs! What do you say about that K6BBC? Would you grant them Advanced Privs also,if not why not and would adding the Advanced be too close to your comfort zone???
Sorry W8VOM – you are correct. We do need to fix the colossal mess created by the ARRL and the FCC a few years ago. Advanced class should be given the option to become Extras, or keep their Advanced. I would remove Extra Class phone privileges. I still believe in incentive licensing, I just feel the code in an anachronism that should not be forced on perspective new hams. It’s a turn off. It’s too esoteric for today. It’s not good for the image of ham radio to be mired in dinosaur modes. And, I have yet to hear one convincing argument to keep it. In fact, the single argument I hear over and over is that it is a filter. That argument plays to the lowest in society and frankly, my view is far more optimistic. Good people are turned off to the hobby by the code – and we need good people.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by N2XE on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6BBC wrote "Good people are turned off to the hobby by the code – and we need good people"
You know, that's not been my experience. Most good people I introduce to the hobby find the art and science of radio communication to be pretty ho-hum and common place. They find Morse Code to be mysterious, clandestine, and interesting.
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2XE Wrote: "They find Morse Code to be mysterious, clandestine, and interesting"
Russian women are mysterious and interesting. Code? Not.
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't want to run a marathon. I don't want a gay marriage. And, I don't want any code.
The code is outdated and useless. You oldfarts need to get with it. We are moving ahead with or without you. CW is stupid and a dinosaur, like some of you old farts. Say good bye to the code and hello to us new hams on HF.
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A little hyperbole goes a long way N2XE.
73s,
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6BBC:
Only someone who is unfamiliar with the effectiveness and simplicity of amateur Morse communications on the CW mode would dismiss it with words like "dinosaur" and "anachronism." Many of the contacts I've made on CW would have been simply impossible. even under the best conditions, using any other mode. The Phillipines on 80 meters last winter, for instance. DU is a chip shot for you folks in California, but it's a difficult polar path from here in the Midwest. For me to have made this contact on SSB would have required an expenditure of upwards of a half-million dollars of real-estate to accomodate the necessary antennas. I do not exaggerate.
I agree with your contention that the "filter" argument is a poor one; however there are better arguments, such as the one I described above. At any rate, the filter has been set at an extremely low threshold for several years now.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On the other hand-- when I read the ignorant comments by TECH2003, perhaps filtering isn't a bad idea. I'll say hello to you on HF when you "Know Code," pal.
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear N1OC, Chuck
Thank you for your comments. Are you referring to me when you stated “Only someone unfamiliar with the…”? Okay, now I’ll be an old fart for a moment. I passed my Novice in 1968. My General in 1969. I passed the code by copying 1 minute of solid CW at the FCC office in Los Angeles - 13WPM. To this day I operate CW QRP. There is a picture of my station on QRZ.com. Notice the straight key? Sorry about all that. Just had to respond.
Your point is valid for amateur communication. That’s what makes it fun and challenging. But, not essential. I can call DUland on my cellphone. Get my point? Today, ham radio is a hobby. Our day has passed to provide service to the public. That said, I don’t want to take CW away from anyone. I just want to see it as an option, not a requirement.
And, thanks for not saying, “You fruitcakes in California!”
73s,
Tony, K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Chuck, perhaps your are correct about that filter.
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Tony, K6BBC:
I respect your knowledge of the code and stand corrected. I agree with you that the usage of Morse should be optional. So that leaves us in disagreement concerning testing of Morse as a pre-requisite for HF privileges. It is my belief that such testing should be retained because of the unique advantages Morse communications provide (in the world of amateur radio).
I take issue with those who speak from ignorance concerning amateur Morse communications. Those who don't "know code" simply aren't qualified to dismiss it as archaic.
As far as "fruitcakes" go-- gosh, I would never say that. I spent some time in Lancaster, licensed as W6GZW. I also have a sister living in Hollywood, and a step-daughter, son-in-law, and grandchild in Fresno.
73 again,
Chuck (that's ni0c)
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Chuck, thanks again for your letter. I am glad to see that I'm not the only one who has ever had trouble with your call <grin> You might be interested to know that I just sent away for a morse tutor called "code Quick", they guarantee I will be copying 5 wpm in just two weeks! Well, we will see. In my case, I think they have their work cut out for them, but I am going to give it my best shot. At this stage of the game, I think I would just like to get it over with and be done with it. If I see you around here or at QRZ, I will let you know how it's going.
73 to NI0C from N3TTN
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K0RGR on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Uff Dah! The Norwegians up in these parts know what that means! It's something similar to 'why did I step in that?'.
Excuse me, but ham radio still provides valued public service in this part of the country. Sorry to hear about yours. When I lived out there in the Bay Area, we provided important services too. I remember spending the night in a freezing shelter with a group of newly homeless persons put there by a terrible landslide, handling logistics and H+W traffic for the Red Cross.
That being said, I never used CW in any of the drills or real emergencies, and I'm a pretty proficient brass-pounder, too. I handled traffic on CW for a long time, and don't remember any emergency messages in that time.
The November CQ magazine had a rather interesting editorial - it reported the results of their reader poll on this subject. 85% of those who took the poll had HF priveleges already - not many Techs. Overall, there was a broad concensus that Technicians should have at least some HF priveleges. It was nearly 50-50 on the question of the General code test. Oddly enough, the people most strongly in favor of dropping the requirement were the Extras - us old 20WPM geezers. I guess we don't think it really matters.
So, W8VOM may be right - it's a conspiracy by us 'elite' to dump our problems on the poor Generals.
Actually, though, in all of my comments and correspondence on the various RM's, I advocate eliminating the Advanced and Extra phone bands. Since the Advanced ticket is no longer offered, and apparently a huge number of 13 WPM Generals find it too hard to study for the Extra written test, it's not fair to retain the Advanced bands.
I do favor keeping a 5 WPM code test and the exclusive 25 Khz. CW bands for Extra, so that there is some incentive for people to learn the code, beyond being eligble for a 1X2 call if somebody dies and gives one up.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I’m hearing some great ideas here to reinvigorate ham radio through CREATIVE license restructuring. With all do respect, why can’t the dummies at the ARRL ever have a creative thought???
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi, Scott! Getting my callsign in these forums isn't all that big a deal, except that I don't want N1OC (whoever that may be) to get blamed for my utterances here!
Well, good luck with the "Code Quick" program and I hope it works as advertised for you! I've seen comments about it in the CW forum here on eHam. I learned code from a LP vinyl record by AMECO. I think it is easier to learn when you are young. (I was 14).
Let me know, perhaps we can schedule a QSO on HF someday soon!
73 de Chuck
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NN6EE on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eventhough AD6WL may be sincere in his proposal from the get-go but in reality it's one of those many that is doomed to been relegated to the trash heap!!! My thought is to eliminate entirely the Code requirement for the General class ticket now, secondly to allow ALL classes of licensees access to ALL CW frequencies including those now below .025 on 80,40, 20, and 15m. because the trend even for newly licensed EXTRA-LITES is to forsake CODE in favor of FONE so it's glaringly apparent just by monitoring the EXTRA exclusive CW bands there's NO ONE USING them especially @ 5WPM, and only in major contests is there a up-swing in their use, but from my point of view and sense of fairness that's not justisfication enough to let them continue to have their mostly un-used exclusive CW frequencies!!!
Secondly bring back the 20wpm code requirement for the privilege to have achieved the "Top Ticket" aka Extra. Let's face the real fact here in that 5wpm for the EXTRA is a INSULT to all who worked their Butts off to get to 20wpm when the EXTRA really meant something!!!
But what I fear is that EVENTUALLY the whole Shoot'n Match will be offered, all privileges on all bands for anyone who takes a SIMPLE test on Rules&Regulations and a few questions on Operating Procedure and includes in his or her application $20 USD!!! When that does happen we will truly be (UGH!) "Glorified CBers"!!!
EE
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by N2XE on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tech2003,
I don't want to run a marathin either, I just want the olympic gold medal.
I don't want gay marriage either, I just want health benefits for whoever I happen to be boinking at the moment.
I don't want code, I just want to operate HF without lifting a finger.
Seems to me, you don't really want to be a ham. It's not in your blood. Back in the good 'ol days (1990) I would have walked over broken glass to get my ticket. Nobody was bitching about code, it was something you just did to become a ham.
If you can't muster up the motivation to learn 5 WPM Morse--and it's not really learning anything, you simply train yourself to respond to a certain sound. Just like Pavlov's dog, the bell rings, you salivate. Anyway, if you don't have the motivation to pass 5 WPM morse, there is no way you'll pass the General written exam. Or do we need to eliminate that to accomodate you also?
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K4CDK on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Goodness gracious, what a mess ! ! ! Never hurd such a mess in my life.....
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3TTN wrote:
"Russian women are mysterious and interesting. Code? Not. "
Well, I've talked to Russian women on 20 meters CW. So, get going with that "Code Quick" program!
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Marathons, Gay Marriage and No Code
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C Wrote: "Well, I've talked to Russian women on 20 meters CW. So, get going with that "Code Quick" program!"
Well, you've got me there Chuck, it's hard to argue with logic like that :-) Strange as it may sound, I'm actually kind of looking forward to the challenge, go figure?? BTW, thanks for pointing me to the reviews of Code Quick here at eHam, they were mostly positive, and I think this may be the best way to go for me, they use a novel concept called "sound alikes"...at any rate, we shall see...but thanks for the encouragement.
73, N3TTN
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD5YTO on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I used code quick and in 14 days passed the exam. it was easy and fun. Tying to get my speed up right now. 13 wpm is new goal.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KE2IV on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In addition to it's origins in landline telegraph communications, one of the reasons why CW was once considered a vital component of ham licensing was its "universality".
CW, as we know it, was based on both the "Western" alphabet (absolutely) and on the "English" language (to a lesser degree such that we had the use of Q-signals and numerical designation like "73" to over come western language barriers).
Since this was a key element for international communication during the early days of ham radio, it is not surprising that knowledge of "the Code" became a licensing standard. It is further unsurprising that increased speed in sending and reception became a secondary standard in allowing greater frequency allocations to "qualified" ham radio operators.
Today, we face greater challenges.
While in the most extreme circumstances CW can probably still overcome "voice" communications (n.b. recent developments in digital voice may render this aspect moot) for the vast majority of ham radio contacts, CW is not necessary, although for some, it remains desirable.
More necessary, in this 21st Century global era is to advance the capabilities of hams to commuicate with each other in voice mode - regardless of language.
Since the most prevelant languages on Earth begin with (various dialects) of Chinese, likely followed by Hindi and then, perhaps English and Spanish - it would seem incumbent that future ham radio license requirements should:
1) Dispense with CW as an ancient "artifact" no longer "universal" in its capabilities;
and,
2) Require all hams to demonstrate some form of bi-lingual communications using two of the top five global language systems.
Further:
All hams, globally, over the age of 50 shall be exempt from these two new requirements since we clowns are rapidly disappearing anyway! :-)
73,
KE2IV
George
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>HEY! FIVE WORDS A MINUTE IS NOT A BIG DEAL, FOLKS. <<<<
Hey, when are you gonna get it? It's not about being able to do Morse Code.
It's about the ITU dropping the requirement, The military no longer requires it, many other countries all around the world no longer require it.
Do you realize that if you are an Amateur from another country visiting the U.S. under the current FCC reciprocal operating agreements would no longer be valid?
If an Amateur is from a country that does not require you to have the Morse Code element under the new ITU agreement, and then you wish to apply to the FCC for a U.S. license (which is quite a common occurrence) The U.S. would no longer be able to grant foreign Amateurs an FCC license because their "new ITU" license class did not require morse code.
This would automatically disqualify any Foreign Amateurs from not only holding an FCC class license,(as many already do) but they also would not be able to operate an Amateur station in the United States unless they had the U.S. Morse Code requirement to operate a station in the U.S.
These are the ramifications of what will happen if we keep Morse Code as a requirement in the United States.
It's not all about being able to do Morse Code or not being able to do Morse Code that is the question.
Charles KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>I say, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it!" Keep the current CW requirement for General-and-above privileges. I also say that the burden of proof is on those who would abolish CW testing to show how this change would benefit amateur radio <<<<
The problem is we have to change it. The ITU already broke it. If we DON'T fix it... expect to start losing those reciprocal operating agreements that currently allow you to operate in a foreign country.
The operative word here is "reciprocal" meaning both sides have equal operational requirements. If one of those sides decide to change the parameters of the agreement in their favor, and it becomes a one sided agreement, then it becomes invalid doesn't it.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We don't have to change anything, and to say we do because of the changes at WRTC '03 is just plain dead wrong. At the conference, it was decided to let each member nation decide whether or not to require a Morse test. There was no requirement to eliminate Morse testing, and this will not affect reciprocal licensing agreements.
The Russians are keeping their Morse requirement, because there are some people in their government who recognize the utility of Morse and the value of having lots of well-trained operators (who trained on their own dime). They are about as big, population-wise, as Europe, and land-wise they are the biggest country on the planet. Why are the Russians wrong and the Europeans right? Of course, I don't think the Russians are wrong... and I don't think we should base our licensing standards on what the western Europeans do OR on what Russia does. We should base them on what is best for us.
The military is resurrecting Morse... it is required training for special forces troops and I don't think you can be a qualified SF radio operator if you can't do code. What have they learned in the past couple of years? Perhaps that simple radio gear that can be operated without having to talk and that doesn't need a lot of power to work long distances is of value in a tactical situation? I guess they believe that it offers some benefit, otherwise they wouldn't waste valuable time and money training people. So, the stories of Morse's obsolescence and death are greatly exaggerated.
The ITU/IARU/etc., doesn't run the USA, and thank goodness for that. They work on concensus... they have to pass rules that everyone agrees to because if a country doesn't, it simply won't follow the rules. There is no enforcement mechanism that can be applied to individual nations... if North Korea wants to start broadcasting propaganda at 7.040 Mhz, then there really isn't a darn thing anyone can do about it. That is why the decision to require Morse testing is left up to the individual members... some wanted it gone and some wanted it to remain.
The way reciprocal licensing works is, we give those amateurs in recognized countries the same privileges as they have in their home country. If they don't need to pass a Morse test to get HF privileges, then they don't need it to get a reciprocal license here. So, saying we need to eliminate Morse testing to allow for reciprocal licensing is incorrect, and shows a misunderstanding the subject.
I reiterate my previous challenge to the no-coders: the burden of proof is upon you to show why eliminating the code will improve the hobby in general. I see lots of people claiming that it would benefit THEM because they are too lazy (don't want to do it), hard-headed (absolutely will not do it), or dim-witted (don't have the capability to do it) (these are the reasons THEY give) to pass Element 1... but how adding lazy, hard-headed, or dim-witted amateurs to the ranks benefits the hobby is beyond me.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KE2IV on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AND ON AND ON THEY BABBLE
YOU CANNOT EVEN MAKE A LIGHTHEARTED JOKE WITH THESE "CW FOREVER" FOLK,
ARE THEY NEVER GOING WAKE UP AND REALIZE THAT CODE V. NO-CODE IS A DISTRACTION FROM THE REAL THREAT?
GOOD-BYE TO HF...HELLO TO BPL.
--... ...--
-.- . ..--- .. ...-
(er...I added a couple of spaces to keep the CW within the real readability level of most of the die-hard code crowd:
So:
dit dididit dit dit dit ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>The way reciprocal licensing works is, we give those amateurs in recognized countries the same privileges as they have in their home country. If they don't need to pass a Morse test to get HF privileges, then they don't need it to get a reciprocal license here. <<<<
Nope, this is apparently the problem right now in other countries as you will soon see, it will happen here too.
I simply didn't make up this information, it comes from reliable sources.
Incidently, did you know that as I am writing this, a U.S. Amateur with a Technician class license is now already allowed to operate HF in other countries under CEPT licensing agreements.
Here's a latest headline to support my information:
Luxembourg Grants CEPT Class 2 Licensees HF Privileges, Effective Sept. 18, 2003
The Institut Luxembourgeois de Régulation has issued a notice entitled "Decision 03/69/ILR of September 18, 2003, Radio Amateur Services" that grants CEPT Class 2 licensees full HF privileges, effective Sept. 18, 2003."
U.S. Technician class license holders under CEPT have "FULL" HF operating privledges effective Sept 18 if they travel to Luxemburg or other similar CEPT countries. Yet,they are not allowed to operate any HF spectrum in the U.S.???
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>The way reciprocal licensing works is, we give those amateurs in recognized countries the same privileges as they have in their home country.<<<<
Are you then suggesting that we give a "no code" CEPT class 2 licensee Full HF priveldges if they are from Luxemburg?
Think about it.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K4GLM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
I like it. It looks like you have spent some time thinking about this. I like having two code speeds. I like having two options for all classes but extra, as people have different strengths(and weaknesses.)
I am concerned about those people who are entering amateur radio. I want them to be turned on to the possibilities. I think this is the biggest priority, as they are the future.
RE: All the flames, When I see that tone, I skip your letter. Just like I quit listening when I find out it is someone's lawyer speaking for him. If you want to be heard, speak the truth, kindly. Flamers are unkind. Lawyers......
73 de Shannon Boal K4GLM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN6EE:
Maybe I'm in the minority but I took the Extra exam specifically to GET access to the exclusive CW segments. It seems every time a new country I needed popped up on the DX spotting cluster it was in that forbidden Extra class CW segement. Oh a few were in either the Extra or Advanced phone segments but most were in the CW portions. Most of the rare DX stays down in these segments. Also, on 80-40-20 M I have observed little difference in activity between the Extra CW portions and rest of the band. On phone it is like night and day, little activity in the Extra/Advanced portions, wall-to-wall in the General portions, especially during openings.
73,
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE2IV:
Digital vs analog voice.
As the current crop of digital cellular phones prove every day, digital voice is an all or none situation. If signals become marginal, you get nothing with digital voice whereas analog voice can frequently get enough information through for the message to be understood, the Spint PCS ads notwithstanding. Although it has been successfully demonstrated on HF, it was also subject to drop outs just like digital cell phones. Analog voice is usable down to lower signal strengths than digital and so will likely remain the dominant voice methodology in the amateur radio service, at least on HF. Be interesting to take part in a digital voice contest though.
On VHF and UHF with repeaters being the norm, it will likely become the dominant voice methodology in the future but will likely need more repeaters to provide reliable coverage. That is what the public safety agencies who have switched to the 800MHz digital systems are finding. They need more repeaters to provide the same coverage as the analog systems provided.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why is CW referenced in a derogatory manner as a "beeping cypher"? There is nothing
"beeping" about pure CW. It is the on/off keying of a dead-carrier, or continuous wave (CW).
The "beeping" is introduced from mixing an offset "carrier" introduced by a receiver's
Beat Frequency Oscillator (BFO), variable in frequency to achieve the desired tone
frequency (beeping) the operator wants.
Before dissing Morse/CW as "dinosaur" technology, to be laughed at, dismissed, and
ridiculed with reckless abandon, perhaps those operators who do so should really try
to understand how their "enemy" works?
What is disturbing is the lack of technical prowess shown by many operators today.
Rant off!
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM:
Charles, have you read the actual agreements themselves that permit recipricol operating privleges (not licensing, no license is granted)? Code has nothing to do with it. As KD7KGX stated, under the agreements foreign amateurs in this country get the same privleges as they have in their country (but no more than US Extra class operators). They are also bound by the rules of the host country, eg, a European HF operator could not use phone below 7.150 KHz because that is not authorized to US operators. In general the reverse applies as well, US operators in a foreign country operate based upon their US license privleges but no more than the top license class in the host country. In neither case do you get extra privleges you would not have in your own country unless the host country's radio licensing authority specifically states otherwise. Thus a Tech visiting a CEPT country would not get HF privleges because they to not have them in the US except Luxembourg if the US Tech license is a CEPT Class 2 license.
It used to be when actual licenses were issued that there was a greater correlation between the liscense issued and the actual testing requirements but even then disparities existed. A european operator from a country whose top license for full HF privleges had a technical test similar to our General Class license with a slower code requirement was given an Extra Class license because that matched the privleges they had in their home country.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC5JJ Wrote: "Why is CW referenced in a derogatory manner as a "beeping cypher"? There is nothing
"beeping" about pure CW. It is the on/off keying of a dead-carrier, or continuous wave (CW)."
Mike, thanks for the technical dissertation. Nothing I did not already know, but maybe this is news to some of those you say lack "technical prowess" As for the derogatory reference of CW as a "beeping cypher", that may be true for a certain group of amateurs, but for the general non-ham public it is simply a matter of perceptions. If it sounds like a beep, then it must be a...well...a beep. When my 12 yr. old asked me what kind of antenna I was putting on the roof, I explained that it was for amateur radio, she responed "you mean all those beeps", her EXACT words! with no prompting from me whatsoever. It is indeed unfortunate that most young folks today equate the hobby of amateur radio with "beeps", because it is so much more than that. Before you rip into me for this, I think you should know that I'm in the process of learning the code, but solely for the purpose of upgrading my ticket, other than that I have little interest in it as an operating mode, but I don't deny anything to those that enjoy it and want to continue using it.
73, N3TTN
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KA4PIJ on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
i feel like there is a system in place now and it should not have been changed the last time. my point is if you still had the 13 wpm hf you would not hear the kind of trash you encounter on hf as you do now. i dont use morse code much except with a friend and qrp and this remindes me of the things i have acheved .so what its worth this old fart does not care if nobody uses morse code after they pass the test just that you do have to take a test if it is hard to accomplish something it means a whole lot more to you. and the language heard now a days would not be as the c b spectrum is . i was on 40 meters the other day and my grand chrildren were listening and i had to cut it off due to the type of words used. these people even gave out call signs. they dont have any respect at all for who might be listening , i hear it all day long at work and induldge in it mysely at times but not as to where the public can heare it.thanks for the opportunity to stste my position. RODNEY E FIELDS
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>Charles, have you read the actual agreements themselves that permit recipricol operating privleges (not licensing, no license is granted)? Code has nothing to do with it. As KD7KGX stated, under the agreements foreign amateurs in this country get the same privleges as they have in their country<<<<<
WA3KYY,
I appreciate your comments. The primary focus and intention of the information provided is so we might think a little more about other ramifications that might exist in the code/no code issue.
I am not providing this information for the purpose of flaming or taking a side on the code/no code issue.
We should carefully consider what effect(s) or what might change as a result of these actions or inactions, whatever the case might be.
It's simply good information worth considering.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N3EVL on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The proposed 'compromise' fails, in part because it is far too complex but primarily because, like so many other 'compromises' I have seen lately, it prolongs the falsehood that morse code proficiency testing is a) a necessary and b) effective means of measuring a test candidate's eligibility for an HF license. I submit that morse code proficiency testing is neither. Use the code (if you like it) - but lose the test.
73, Pete
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K4GLM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pete,
As I read it, a general ticket could be had under this plan with elements 2,3,&4, no code at all. It would demonstrate top notch technical abilities, but no CW. There are lots of people who fit this profile, and I hate to exclude them from HF. I know some who I believe would be a positive influence all around, but I don't see much chance of them passing element 1 or 1A. (Slow or medium CW).
Shannon Boal K4GLM
PS I can do slow and medium code, but not fast, so this would suit me there. I am poorly equipped for CW, it was a "Do or die" kinda thing for me.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W2BSA on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good grief Charlie Brown, here they go again. . .
When will you folks realize that Morse Code TESTING is going away, NOT MORSE CODE.
The FCC wants to do away with unnecessary regulations and are, in fact, required to do so by law. Since, there is no REGULATORY reason to require morse code testing, the FCC WILL remove it as a requirement.
The FCC doesn't care about the good ol' days, or that morse code is or is not a filter or that it does or does not make better operators. The FCC does care if a treaty requires it. Well guess what, there is NO international requirement for morse code testing. The international requirement went away July 5, 2003. The FCC in turn will remove the TESTING requirement because it is no longer needed to fulfill a treaty that our government, meaning us, is a signatory to.
NOBODY eliminated, outlawed or otherwise prohibited the use of morse code. And it won't happen. Too many folks like the language. It will be here to stay. You will be able to use it. It just won't be TESTED for anymore.
That's it. That's all. Stop continuously beating this dead horse!!!
73 folks,
Bill Stewart, W2BSA
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3TTN:
I'm not going to rip into you! We're all on the same side, even if it doesn't sound like it at times. I didn't even notice who made the beeping cypher references, didn't even notice the calls, so no calls were attached to my post.
I'm glad you are getting code under your belt, even though you may not use it. You may change your mind about it, once you start using it. If not, that's OK too.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, I studied hard to get my ticket and don't think that I should have to go thru the hassle of learning the code. I should immediately get general portions.
Steve
NCI-3069
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by RFDOG on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No you didn't. And what's an "NCI-3069", some scanner freak number issued to wannabees? Real hams have a right to be incensed by the ARRL sponsored onslaught of just add water insta-hams invading and destroying a once proud hobby. We ARE better than you are, and you codeless germs just can't stand it.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So... as has been stated by myself and others, there is no 'threat' to reciprocal licensing caused by our retention of a Morse code requirement even if other countries drop their requirement. Therefore, we should look at other reasons (if any) to drop the code test.
Again... the burden of proof lies with those who would eliminate code testing to show how it would benefit the hobby in general (rather than their particular individual situation). I am, honestly and open-mindely, still waiting for a valid reason.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Face facts. It’s time to throw CW onto the scrapheap of history – like manual transmissions and fizzies.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K7IHC on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If most of you people are indicative of what I might find on the HF ham bands, then I think I'll stick to the >50 MHz bands (especially >1200 MHz), even if no-code HF privileges are available. Operating CW on 6 meters sounds like a good idea...
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM:
Charles, I understand what you are attempting to say but was pointing out the flaw in your argument, ie that the US is required to drop the code testing requirement to be in compliance with the CEPT agreement that it signed. That is not true.
It is also not true that the FCC is REQUIRED to drop code testing as a result of the WARC-2003 decision. That was explicitly left up to each country to make its own decision in the matter. Morse code proficiency for access to amateur frequencies below 30MHz is simply no longer required by international treaty.
However, the FCC clearly indicated in its rule making when it set the current testing speed to 5WPM that it saw no regulatory purpose being served by retaining code proficiency testing and was doing so only to meet Treaty obligations. So I believe they will drop the requirement at least for General Class if not for Extra unless there is overwhelming support from the amateur radio community to retain it. Contrary to other statement here, the FCC does listen to comments on its proposed rule makings and will propose rule changes and new rules based upon user community requests if they are reasonable and further the purposes of the service under the Radio Communications Act of 1934.
73,
Mike
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N2RRA on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim (AD6WL),
I think it's a fine, well thought out plan and reasonable. Obviousely KE2IV does'nt know:
A. What he's talking about
B. Is a frustrated person that most likely could never get the code right, and more than likely just got by passing it to get his phone previlages.
Like one other gentalmen said morse "is like the pencil. It's a very old tool, but we still use it today". We've come up with other ways to revolutionize the pencil, but nothing beats the original.
We tell our kids everyday how knowlege is power, and the more languages you learn the better off you are. Well morse is another language and it should never be lost just because we have ass's that feel that the world should stop for them. When you learn another language it show's that you really took a special interest in learning it for a meaning full reason. It is a true talent,fun, and when all other things fail might come into play once again. It might not be for everyone one, but as a requirement what's the big deal you still have an option to work or not after you passed the test. If some dont have the ability then there are other ways to accomidate. If we make it so that just anybody can aquire a ham license what are we to expect. I believe a out a control over crowed ham frequencies that will sound like C.B. radio.
Passing this new regualtion will take something away from other hams that still have a passion for it or new hams that would like to experience it and appreciate it. THIS IS NOT COMEING FROM SOME OLD FART LIKE SOME ASSININE OF A COMMENT THAT WAS GIVEN BEFORE, BUT A YOUNG LAD THAT IS ASKING PLEASE DONT ALLOW THEM TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN OR DEAD.
73, To all brothers and sisters around the world
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TECH2003:
Steve,
Did you pass Element 3? Then you should get HF when Element 1 is eliminated. If not, hit the books again and pass Element 3. Otherwise you get to stay above 50 MHz.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N2RRA on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everyone read the post by NCI-3069 by:TECH 2003 a few scrolls up.
It's a perfect example why there should'nt eliminate CODE. It speaks for itself and proves what i said to be right.
Thanks, Steve for your help
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K2ACX on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RFDOG:
<<And what's an "NCI-3069", some scanner freak number issued to wannabees?>>
More importantly, what's 'RFDOG?' Sounds like a CB handle. Whoa, wait, who're the wannabees again?
Brian K2ACX (K2ACX, FYI, is my amateur radio callsign. I don't have a handle.)
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N8CPA on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What N2XE an others have pointed out is true, about the public's first exposure to code.
25 years ago, I was tackling learning code for the last time. I was resolved to get at least a General Class license within the next year. I bought a short wave receiver and started monitoring W1AW xmsns, through all the noise of 80 and 40M, using TV set-top rabbit ears for an antenna. 24 years ago last month, I made General.
In the years since then, I have participated in many public display operations, from traffic booths at fairs, to random set-ups at campgrounds and Field Day.
Unlicensed visitors to the stations have responded almost universally in the same way. Microphone positions are dismissed as CB, or other radio services. Digital positions get slightly more attention, but are perceived as wireless internet, or cellular applications. A CW position, however, always gets attention. It makes visitors stop and ask questions.
Kids are particularly intrigued when a spare oscillator and key are used to render their names in "beeps." And many adults find it just as thrilling to hear their names tapped out.
In this age of instant worldwide communications within a supporting infrastructure, the code is still enchanting folks and introducing them to the concept of point to point long-distance communications. It remains our best publicity tool. In other words, Pounding Brass Still Kicks .- ... ...
For someone who doesn't know it to express an opinion about it, is like an illiterate trying to give a book review. One must first learn to read before there's any credibility to the opinion, even in this age of movies.
If that opinion makes me an "old fart," so be it! I'm really not that old. At least I had my share girlfriends before I got married. I have my doubts about the lot that seems to be coming into radio today, I think they're trying to use a hobby as a surrogate for mating and other social failures.
Steve
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve,
So what does being a self proclaimed STUD have to do with dropping Ham Radio’s version of hazing???
K6BBC
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by AC3P on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I all ready took 20 wpm with a straight key (sending and receiving). Why would I want to drop to 18 wpm? That was at the FCC field office in front of a field engineer.
73
Just Another Olde Phart
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD7KGX Wrote: "Again... the burden of proof lies with those who would eliminate code testing to show how it would benefit the hobby in general (rather than their particular individual situation). I am, honestly and open-mindely, still waiting for a valid reason"
I would respectfully submit that you are incorrect in that assumption. The burden of proof is on ALL of us amateurs to prove to the FCC WHY morse testing should be retained. The FCC has clearly decided that it (morse testing) is an unnecessary burden and is determined to eliminate it. The only reason they are taking "petitions" at all is because they are REQUIRED TO BY LAW! otherwise they would be telling us to kiss their grits, that they will do what they damn well please with THEIR radio spectrum, and make no mistake about it, it is THEIR spectrum, and we only use it at their discretion. Anybody who is under any illusions about where amateur radio ranks (the absolute bottom) of the FCC's priority list is in need a of a serious reality check. That being said, I am still determined to pass the code test so I can upgrade my ticket, regardless of what the FCC decides to do.
73, N3TTN
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To all the ops who base their opinion of Amateur Radio by what they read on these threads; DON'T!
All this sabre-rattling and chuffing has nothing to do with on-the-air operation.
At least all the pro/con effluent on any topic of choice is on the internet, not on the air. Operating on-the-air is NOTHING like the internet.
These forums have their place, but basing your future needs in Amateur Radio by what is posted here is ridiculous.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6BBC wrote:
"Face facts. It’s time to throw CW onto the scrapheap of history – like manual transmissions and fizzies."
The history of technology is as much about technique as it is about particular hardware. Although you will find eight-track tape decks lying in literal scrapheaps, the knowledge that led to their place in the development of audio recording techniques is still retrievable.
In the mid-1960's, digital spectral analysis was made practical by the "discovery" of the Fast Fourier Transform by Cooley & Tukey. Yet these techniques had been applied in the very early 20th century by researchers doing spectral calculations by hand. In this case, the knowledge was "lost" until it was re-discovered. This is a good argument for never depositing techniques in a "scrapheap."
You and I both use Morse code for amateur communications. We could say what we have to say to each other faster (occupying more bandwidth, of course) on voice or teletype. But we choose to use this old, but effective (and bandwidth conserving) means of communicating. The FISTS Club (of which I am a member) calls itself the "Morse Preservation Society." We (now I am referring to FISTS) want to make sure that this language of radio is not scrapped.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RFDOG;
You said; >>>>”…….Real hams have a right to be incensed by the ARRL sponsored onslaught of just add water insta-hams invading and destroying a once proud hobby. We ARE better than you are, and you codeless germs just can't stand it.”<<<<<
What many have said here is true; Learning Code isn’t that tough! (I learned it 45 years ago.) Knowing Code is not what keeps me from “Upgrading” to a “Real Ham”:…………….It’s statements like yours! This sort of pompous, condescending rant, coming as it does from one of the self-proclaimed “Elite”, makes me realize that I cannot think of ONE good reason to search the HF Bands for people like you to talk to!
If you’re trying to keep HF an exclusive little private club, you have achieved your goal. Have fun with your cronies! (Fewer every year!) I’m sure that within your little club, you don’t realize how pathetic you sound.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>"If you’re trying to keep HF an exclusive little private club, you have achieved your goal. Have fun with your cronies! (Fewer every year!)"
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL<<<<
There are more Generals and Extras then ever before. The numbers are going up every year, not down. There are MORE hams on HF every year. They are rising to the challenge and earning their privileges to operate on HF. Good job.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RFDOG:
<<And what's an "NCI-3069", some scanner freak number issued to wannabees?>>
No Code International member 3069
The opposite of a FISTS number.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13;
Weren't you the one who said this back in October, in another thread?
>>>>"Yeah, ok. I don't have a license but I have enough sense to realize that earning a license has more meaning than just being givin one because you cry loud enough and long enough that the welfare state just gives YOU one."<<<<
Does anybody else find it strange that this guy is preaching to us??
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>by KB9YZL on November 14, 2003
OLDFART13;
Weren't you the one who said this back in October, in another thread?
>>>>"Yeah, ok. I don't have a license but I have enough sense to realize that earning a license has more meaning than just being givin one because you cry loud enough and long enough that the welfare state just gives YOU one."<<<<
Does anybody else find it strange that this guy is preaching to us??
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL<<<<
Ok Carroll lets see if I can espalin this so even a tech can understand it. Another ham who wanted a free ticket onto HF, like yourself, stated that I did not have a license since I used an alias to post under. So, I facetiously remarked that “I did not have a callsign.” Those with average intelligence fully understood this but you were not even close to the mark. In my opinion you should go crawl back under the rock that you were hiding under. It seems you only appear when the code/no-code debate comes up and you can get your two cents in to try and get a free ticket without earning it.
Or possibly, I’m not a ham at all. In fact maybe I’m the anti-ham and am just bringing total anarchy to hams by posting on eham.net. Think about it. Perhaps you suffix should be XYL.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by K6BBC on November 14, 2003
" Face facts. It’s time to throw CW onto the scrapheap of history – like manual transmissions and fizzies. "
================================================
Interesting analogy. (I'll disregard the "fizzies" remark. I was never impressed by them, anyway.)
It's now the high performance automobiles that still have "manual transmissions," and the the "appliance operator's autos" that have automatic transmissions. (See what kind of response to that you'd get from NASCAR drivers! I'd bet you can count on less than one finger how many of them use an automatic transmission.)
So I guess it's only the high performance operators that have learned and use the code?
Code is NOT ready for the scrap heap. It will always have a place in Amateur Radio. (And NO, I do not support a total elimination of Morse testing from Amateur Radio.) There will always be those that wish to use Morse as their preferred (or choice at the time) mode of operation. No one (within reason) is trying to ban the use of Morse! Or even take away the Morse only frequencies.
But the FCC will probably eliminate Morse testing (save, perhaps for the Amateur Extra Class) in the near future; they as much as said so when they restructured in 2001; with the internattional requirement now removed, they have no reason to continue Morse testing, and it meand LESS PAPERWORK for them. That's their bottom line.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD6YDP on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does learning a new language (Morse Code) make you a better radio operator? Would a ham licensed 40-years-ago be able to pass today's tech, general or extra tests?
I don't want the FCC to take away the CW bands, I think they should stay. I just don't think they should be part of the test required for advancement in this hobby.
I had to diagram a circuit over ten years ago to get my license and you know I never did make anything.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13;
Unlike some, I will not step down to your level in a public forum.
All I did is quote your own words, exactly as posted. Back-peddle all you want!
Anyone reading my posts and yours will observe a general trend in both, and judge accordingly.
If you really want to make this personal, email me with a REAL name, and a REAL return address……….if you have either! We can then continue this without troubling others.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
Unlike some, I will not step down to your level in a public forum.<<<
Too late, you already did, repeatedly.
>>>All I did is quote your own words, exactly as posted. Back-peddle all you want!<<<<
Quoted out of context you did. No back-peddling. If you’re not smart enough to understand what you selectively quoted then please don’t try and misconstrue my words again.
>>>>Anyone reading my posts and yours will observe a general trend in both, and judge accordingly.<<<<
I only replied to you when you stated that the number of HF hams was going down every year and you went on a rant about how I wasn't licensed. You couldn't reply to my post so YOU resorted to name calling and accusations.
>>>If you really want to make this personal, email me with a REAL name, and a REAL return address……….if you have either! We can then continue this without troubling others.<<<
I would like to contact you; any frequency on HF.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KE2IV on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD7KGX states:
"So... as has been stated by myself and others, there is no 'threat' to reciprocal licensing caused by our retention of a Morse code requirement even if other countries drop their requirement. Therefore, we should look at other reasons (if any) to drop the code test.
Again... the burden of proof lies with those who would eliminate code testing to show how it would benefit the hobby in general (rather than their particular individual situation). I am, honestly and open-mindely, still waiting for a valid reason."
KE2IV notes:
1) Well I am not so sure that this amusing forum of tired old farts have been empowered to determine reciprocal licensing privileges. What, sir, is your basis of authority to state such?
2) Elimination of the code as a testing requirement will probably have a minimal effect on increasing the number of new hams. But, given the situation of rapidly changing techonologies and alternative means of communications, it MAY help butress our numbers in an effort to both a) protect our spectrum allocations; and, b) provide a "sufficient" number of adherents to keep at bay either i) alternative users of that spectrum; or, ii) incompatible users such as BPL.
The reality is that not only is CW no longer necessary to maintain effective communications, but also as a "Western-based" communications system (i.e. it relies on the "western alphabet"), it is irrelevant (if not insulting) to suggest that it should have remained a "universal" licensing requirement.
If American hams are successful (for the time being) in retaining CW as a licensing requirement, so be it.
That will NOT increase the activity on the CW bands. And, with it's global elimination - we are much more likely to (hopefully) see more non-Western stations on the phone bands.
Imagine working Mali with some real local hams; rather than those fat old white guys on a DX-pedition that you see pictured in QST and CQ!
73,
KE2IV
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13;
Previously, you said; >>”I would like to contact you; any frequency on HF.”<<
Sure……No problem! I know several operators with General tickets. I will have to rely on their good graces, since as a mere “TECH” , I would never trespass on frequencies I do not have credentials for.
What’s your Call and preferred frequency?
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD5ALU on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is to much arguinng over the code vs. no code issue. Other countries have done away with the code requirement and I see no postings that it is ruining amateur radio in thier country. Are we to parinoid on this issue or just the only country that cares about the quality of the hobby. I think it is the fisrt. How many that have cried about either side of the issie in this forum actually let the FCC know thier fellings. Now is the time to do so. Then when a decession is made they (the FCC)is responsible for the decession, not any one person/group that is for or against the continuation of code testing.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I like three classes. General, Advance, and Novice. General would have all of the phone band we now have. Extra could use phone on all of the band. Novice could use phone on the present novice bands. They would be required to keep this class for 90 days and would be required to take a course given by ham clubs. Clubs would be required to teach these courses to keep their special station calls. I just like the idea of a learners permit. My main concern with the present system I have heard a lot of people who get on the air by buying a book passing the test and getting a radio. They really have no idea what it is all about. At least this way they would have some contact with a live person. Oh yes, I would upgrade all the present advance to extra. (Got to take care of myself) Terry WB4QNG
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by WX1NCC on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree in regards to change can be good, and some times difficult to stomach. I will give you an example. When I earned my Black Beret in the US Army, I was very proud of EARNING it. When the Sec of Def and Chief of Staff made the change to all US Army soldiers to where the same Beret, You could say I was a bit P.O.! Any how change was inevitable. So the thing I have learned in regards to that and this, from Ranger School-"Suck it up, and move on!". In regards to calling it a language, I agree. To get a real feel of nostalgic tradition, I think the written exam should be written in Latin for General, and Extra as well. I keep studying code and moving on, old farts stay and mill in their own………what ever that keeps them grumpy.
De Opresso Libre
73
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If I am correct I believe NCI refers to the group called No Code International as previously posted by Steve
NCI-3069
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by W4XN on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Jim,
I believe the compromise has already been made. The licensing sttucture once called for 5wpm, 13wpm and 20wpm and it now calls for -0-wmp vs 5wpm. What more of a compromise is there to make except to remove the code requirement altogether?
In my opinion, code step privileges should remain in place or perhaps scaled up just a bit. How will folks ever come to know the joy of CW if they never learn it? CW gets through when A3J has no chance.
It's just my 2 cents worth!
73,
Mike, W4XN
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by AC7GO on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
People who must make a serious investment of some form in order to use communications bands are much more likely to use them responsibly them than those who make no such investment. The history of the Citizen’s Band illustrates that when the cost and complexity of equipment and the requirements for licensing are low enough to make it easy for the average person to get on the air, the investment of time, effort, and money is not high enough to prevent misuse. And when a large number of people use a communication band, and when the investment is low, enforcement cannot keep up with the level of abuse that occurs. Citizen’s Band history also demonstrates that abuse on HF bands, because of their long-range propagation, is a much more serious problem than abuse on HF or VHF bands. In my area, for example, most inappropriate traffic on CB comes from points in Mexico, more than 1000 miles distant.
I believe that we will continue to have usable Amateur bands as long as the investment required to operate on them is high. The equipment cost and the investment in time and in the development of technical know-how will always be high. We should also work to keep the exams meaningfully challenging, as well as relevant. Whether or not code proficiency is kept as a requirement is not as important, I believe, as whether the exams are kept challenging.
Some would suggest keeping code proficiency testing just to keep entry requirements challenging and thus prevent abuse. I do not entirely agree with that point of view. The use of Amateur bands should be encouraged because of the great service rendered by Amateurs during emergencies, and because of the technical know-how the Amateur service encourages. I also believe CW is worth keeping and protecting for its own merits. In manually transcribed emergency communications, CW is just as accurate and time-efficient as phone. In poor signal conditions CW is more reliable than phone, adding to its utility as an emergency communications mode. The simplicity of CW transmitters and receivers makes CW an ideal entry level mode for home-made equipment, thus encouraging Amateurs to gain technical knowledge and proficiency. For many, including myself, CW is simply enjoyable.
My opinion is that it would make sense to continue code proficiency testing for use of Amateur bands allocated to CW, and eliminate CW testing for use of Amateur bands allocated to phone, all the while keeping the exams challenging enough to discourage the irresponsible.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB3JTX on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More classes is a terrible idea. It is just more paperwork and the difference in class will be minor technicalities. The testing for CW is old and has nothing to do with phone, or data modes. Why should it be a factor in hf privelages. If you want to operate cw you should be tested and classified cw proficient. No cw use by untested hams period. Cw has it's place for those who use it.
We need more technical training before we are licensed. I am learning CW so I can upgrade to General. It will not make me a better Ham. I admit I need more technical training and the testing is too easy in that area. Code or no code makes no difference in my ability to operate a radio.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB3JTX on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More classes is a terrible idea. It is just more paperwork and the difference in class will be minor technicalities. The testing for CW is old and has nothing to do with phone, or data modes. Why should it be a factor in hf privelages. If you want to operate cw you should be tested and classified cw proficient. No cw use by untested hams period. Cw has it's place for those who use it.
We need more technical training before we are licensed. I am learning CW so I can upgrade to General. It will not make me a better Ham. I admit I need more technical training and the testing is too easy in that area. Code or no code makes no difference in my ability to operate a radio.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB3JTX on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More classes is a terrible idea. It is just more paperwork and the difference in class will be minor technicalities. The testing for CW is old and has nothing to do with phone, or data modes. Why should it be a factor in hf privelages. If you want to operate cw you should be tested and classified cw proficient. No cw use by untested hams period. Cw has it's place for those who use it.
We need more technical training before we are licensed. I am learning CW so I can upgrade to General. It will not make me a better Ham. I admit I need more technical training and the testing is too easy in that area. Code or no code makes no difference in my ability to operate a radio.
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB3JTX on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More classes is a terrible idea. It is just more paperwork and the difference in class will be minor technicalities. The testing for CW is old and has nothing to do with phone, or data modes. Why should it be a factor in hf privelages. If you want to operate cw you should be tested and classified cw proficient. No cw use by untested hams period. Cw has it's place for those who use it.
We need more technical training before we are licensed. I am learning CW so I can upgrade to General. It will not make me a better Ham. I admit I need more technical training and the testing is too easy in that area. Code or no code makes no difference in my ability to operate a radio.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NN6EE on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When are the "OTHER GUYS" going to "GET IT"???
We're not MILITARY and we're not COMMERCIAL we're "AMATEUR RADIO"!!!
What in the Hell is wrong with MEMORIZING the alphabet in Morse-Code, especially @ 5wpm when you LOSERS are already "MEMORIZING" the Technical part of the Amateur Radio exam and after "Plugging-in your-Rig" forget about everything you had supposedly learned???
Code is a "HURDLE" that should STAY as a TESTING ELEMENT to make the "HAM RADIO" license really mean something!!!
EE
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NN6EE on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA3KKY,
If that's the case of what you had exposed then why is the volumne of ACTIVITY on the EXTRA CW so LOW???
When was the last time that you WORKED a brother EXTRA in the lower portions using 5WPM???
Get Real!!!
EE
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KE6DKI on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Morse code testing issues & more ham licensce classes - R.I.P.! Our hobby needs to move on and grow. This includes embracing new technologies if they will improve the hobby. Also, we should try to develop operators of greater skill and improve on our technical skills. If we don't we have extinction to look forward to. Let's face there are plenty of entities willing to cough up cash for our frequency allocations not to metion all those technologies that will create massive noise on some of our bands. So let's bury CW testing issues and additional license classes once and for all.
Lou Barrio
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N2RRA on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Back at e-ham.net Home there is another topic called "CW BAND USAGE". Check it out and i think you will find some pretty interesting opinions on the matter at hand.
Towards the bottem dated Nov. 15, is something everyone should read that should make some sence and logic to this problem. Stop sounding like a bunch of Cyber C.B.er's and become the solution not the problem.
Lets get it together and take some action instead of being all talk and doing nothing. Typeing away on this websight should be a way of communicateing, because it's certainly not the solution or going to fix anything. ACTION is the key word. Everyone should'nt be at each others throats over this. We are supposed to be intelligent human being's ,and sit at the table so that a compromise could be thought out. If everyone put this much time too giveing your opinions it could have been done writeing out a proposal that everyone could agree on and would win.
This issue like many other's in the world sounds like everyone expects the world should stop for them when they want it too so, THINK! What are we really doing about this. I think the answer that might help is on the other topic at the home page.
73, To all
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N2RRA on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I meant this to go to the other topic at the home page on morse compromised, but a good point i think given once again. Please pass this idea around, and lets work together on this. Lets show our kids were better than this, and show how we could make a difference rather than makeing things worse. Not to mention that they too could do it in life if an obstacle of any kind comes their way.
73,
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N8CPA on November 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No, I'm not proclaiming myself a stud. I included that comment because one of the most vociferous anti-code posters on here, also does a lot of name calling against OFs. So I threw a barb back at the troll. I threw it in as a little dig in reference to a comment he made somehwere, wherein he complained about wanting to get married but doesn't yet have a girlfriend.
Cart before the horse, don't you think? In his case, it's like wanting an HF license without Element 1. The same factors that keep him from finding a girlfriend probably stem from the same causes that keep him from learning Morse. He probably demands too much on the first date, if he has ever been on one. And he certainly demands too many privileges for an entry level license. That's how dating relates to KC v NC.
Remember the clause in the Amateurs' Code about balance? Amateur radio should augment, not substitute for, a healthy social life. Something which a lot of new hams just don't seem to get from what I see at hamfests and hear on VHF, and some HF, allocations.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmmm………It’s amazing how many people are ready to do an in-depth psychological analysis of another posting individual, based on a one or two paragraph post! They can obviously “see it all”, right down to the other person’s sexual problems!……..Such an astonishing volume of deductions from an almost non-existent amount of data!
It doesn’t do anything positive for the analyzer’s credibility or the credibility of their argument, but it sure does make for entertaining reading!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD7KCP on November 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am not an old timer. I Got my first license Tech with H.F. ( which mean of course the I passed element one) on 8/15/00. On 8/8/02, I had to pass element one once again to get my General. I have never, not even once, used C.W. on the air. My daughter passed element one her first time at the age of 15 ( tech with H.F.), and once again at the age of 17 (General). She also has never used C.W. other than to pass the test.If you and your kind would spend half as much time studying for element one as you do whining about it, you could pass it.
Sincerely,
Richard Ziebol, KD7KCP
73
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by DIGITAL on November 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I passed my Tech license this last Thursday and am eagerly awaiting my name to appear in the ULS database for my callsign!
That said, I totally think morse code should be MANDATORY! I am eternally grateful to the Ham Radio gods that the code requirement was dropped from 12WPM to 5WPM. That is a fair enough compromise. I am learning it at 20WPM and as much as it's difficult, it's fun. I look VERY forward to getting on the HF bands and having this as a requirement makes me more eager to learn it rather than be frustrated with how many people use it, how often they do use it, whether or not our modern society should be using such an "old" way of communicating, etc. I think that is besides the point. For me, it's been more of a personal thing knowing that this method has been used on subs in WWII and the distress call from the Titanic and other ships was sent via morse. That makes it fun. If it's what I need to do to get on the HF bands, I'll do it.
Thanks for hearing me out and some people on this board really need to take a chill pill...no need to get soo worked up about all this. When your dead and gone, you won't be workin your radio, trust me!
digital
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13 Wrote: "Ok Carroll lets see if I can espalin this so even a tech can understand it. Another ham who wanted a free ticket onto HF, like yourself, stated that I did not have a license since I used an alias to post under. So, I facetiously remarked that “I did not have a callsign.” Those with average intelligence fully understood this but you were not even close to the mark. In my opinion you should go crawl back under the rock that you were hiding under. It seems you only appear when the code/no-code debate comes up and you can get your two cents in to try and get a free ticket without earning it."
That "other ham" would be me, and the notion that I "want a free ticket on hf" is just another lie, and anyone who wants to read those posts will instantly recognize that. In yet another post you state: "Yeah, I have a ticket, but I stopped posting my call because morons kept e-mailing me". So which is it??? you are a ham, you're not a ham?? I guess you will have to forgive most of us if we have a problem with the truthfullness of your statements Bob, or whatever your real name is. It's pretty clear that your credibility around here at this point is ZERO, ZIP, NADA, and that you are nothing but an ordinary, garden variety liar. We eagerly await your next lie, so please....don't disappoint us.
N3TTN
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N5AMZ on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If we go to two license classes, the no code would still be crying and want an end to it and then our license would be only one and they would have all the bands anyway. Just chipping away the differences.
Galen N5AMZ
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Anyone too stupid or lazy to pass a lousy 5 wpm cw test doesnt deserve HF privledges, plain and simple. Get off that lazy ass, quit whining and crying and bitching, and learn something that thousands of others have learned and be proud of the accomplishment of actually earning a ticket instead of being handed a gimme. If some of these jokers spent one third of their time learning cw instead of crying like a spoiled little brat who cant get their way, they already would be an extra. Hasnt the hobby been dumbed down enough already? Does the arrl need members that badly as to look the other way and not bother to lobby the FCC to keep the testing we now have? Sickening! I guess the love of money has polluted this hobby like the rest of present day society where the dollar is more important then principles and values. Pathetic!!
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know, after all the mountains of crap that has been written on this subject, I have to confess that I still don’t get it. Maybe it’s true what some of my critics say about me not being very bright; but no one on these forums has been able to explain it in a way that actually makes sense…………So I’ll ask the question again: “Why do some of you regard Code Proficiency as the ultimate test criteria?”
I’ve known code for 45 years, and I have to say that it didn’t help a bit when I was trying to understand antenna theory. It didn’t help in electronics class when I was fighting my was through RC circuits. It didn’t even help me figure out the different menus on my Icom! ……..and last, but not least, it didn’t keep me from sounding like a newby in my first on-air contacts.
I agree that licenses should be worked for. There are too many responsibilities that go along with what we do: we can’t have “CB Style” licensing.
I just don’t understand why we don’t insist on technical expertise, rather than the simple memorization of 26 letters, 10 numerals, and a small handful of punctuation!............. I don’t understand how the same people who moan about the “Simple Memorization Tech Test” can turn around and say that memorizing Code is what really ‘Makes The Ham”!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nobody said that Morse was the ultimate test criteria. As has been explained in these forums, Morse has been a universal language of ham radio since the hobby's origins, and we've already compromised way too much on expectations of literacy in this language. I'd suggest you do a word count on your own postings in these forums when you look over "the mountains of crap."
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<It is also not true that the FCC is REQUIRED to drop code testing as a result of the WARC-2003 decision. That was explicitly left up to each country to make its own decision in the matter. Morse code proficiency for access to amateur frequencies below 30MHz is simply no longer required by international treaty. >>>
Thanks Mike... Your comments are well recieved. We will have to wait and see what happens. Simple as that I suppose.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now really Chuck,.....that wasn't very nice!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C Wrote: "I'd suggest you do a word count on your own postings in these forums when you look over "the mountains of crap."
Hi Chuck. I honestly have to say I have not really noted anything in Kent's postings that I would regard as inappropriate. By and large I think he has kept pretty cool, especially considering the personal attacks and inuendo he has been subjected to by OLDFART13 (a bold faced liar) and a few other blowhards. Just my $.02 worth.
73, N3TTN
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Kent:
I tried to provide you with a succinct answer to your question concerning amateur licensing requirements. The "mountains of crap" was your reference to these postings, not mine.
73 de Chuck NI0C
BTW, I like that you sign each posting with your name and callsign. There are many others who, for one reason or another, choose to remain anonymous.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Chuck;
Really, no problem! Maybe "Mountains of Crap" wasn't the best way to put it. But you have to admit, there has been an awful lot of “keyboard pounding” on this issue.
I have no problem with people taking exception to my opinion, as long as it is well thought out criticism! I would never claim to have the only valid viewpoint!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K0EWS on November 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the whole issue comes down to one question, and one question only:
Is the knowlege of morse code neccessary to communicate on the amateur bands?
It's a complicated answer for sure. Once, a long time ago, it was an absolute neccessity. Times have changed, and we've developed newer, more efficient ways of communication, that is true. We certainly don't "need" morse to be a good operator, as I've known many fantastic operators who never touch a key, much less own one. On that point, morse is not neccessary the way it was.
On the other hand, CW is still a very popular, and very viable means of communication. It is, after all, the 2nd most popular mode in ham radio, and it still gets an awful lot of use. It is still in wide use because it stands up on its own merits. I've run pretty much 90 percent CW in my ham radio experience, and I'm not THAT old, only 38, and was licensed under the restructuring that took place in 2000.
I can understand some of the arguements of the no code position. I feel that it's the operator, and not the mode that determine the quality of the QSO for me. That being said, I also feel that due to the popularity of morse, it should still be tested. Morse is unique in ham radio as it is the only mode that requires an entirely different skills set to operate. Anyone who can read can run digital. Anyone who can talk can run phone. Anyone without the basic knowlege of the morse characters cannot run CW. Sure, there are keyboards, (I even use one sometimes myself for contesting, or when I'm being lazy) to help send, but I've not yet seen a decoder that can beat the one between my ears. The skill of copying morse is an absolute neccessity to operate on a great deal of the HF spectrum.
All that being said, I think that the "compromise" that was made in 2000 is the way to go. 5 words per minute is basic recogniton. I feel that is fair. 40 years ago, that 5 words per minute bought you a 1 year, non renewable novice ticket. We've come a long way since then. Also, there are so many learning aids out there now to learn morse, just about anyone should be able to do it. I'm not about to call anyone who struggles with it lazy or stupid. I'm a music teacher by trade, and I do recognize that some people are auditory learners, and some are not. 5 wpm is very easy, and many operators upgraded in 2000 as the thing that hung them up were the faster speeds.
I can sympathize with any of the folks who cannot get the morse barrier, and would be more than willing to do what I can to help any fellow amateur operator to learn. Hams, no matter what side of the issue they are on, are Hams in my book. To the no coders, keep trying! You may hate CW, but learn it anyway. You will feel a sense of accomplishment when you pass, and you never need touch the key again if that is your wish. I don't feel that morse is a barrier to ham radio, but just a speed bump for some. Anyway, that's my opinion, and it is submitted humbly, and respectfully to all, no matter what side of the issue you are on. Warmest 73 to all.
k0ews
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K1MKF on November 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, now you all see why a compromise will not work - neither side wants to compromise, they want to win!
I've heard many suggestions and proposals and some are O.K. with me. No change is also O.K. as well as going backwards. But, I want more of my fellow HAMs happy so they will get on the air without an attitude.
So, how about this: All Techs will get the previous Novice HF subbands with no additional testing BUT limited to 5 or 10 watts. I would also propose a one-time adjustment for the sake of bookkeeping that upgrades all Novices to General and Advanced to Extra upon the renewal of their license.
Go ahead - Flame me!
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD4DBF on November 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow! So much fighting.
As a no code Tech, I recently visited a friend and he pulled out the trusty RS 10 Meter rig. He worked CA and the Caribbean. That is all it took to get me motivated. OK, so it's 5 wpm. At least I am going for it. Hope I am one day considered a REAL HAM! The more I study this dreaded communication form, the more I am beginning to like it. I hope to pass the requirements this next week along with the technical portion for upgrade to General.
I purchased one of the RS 10 Meter rigs and listened. Far more activity was working on the CW portion of the band than was present on the voice portion. Hmmmm! Wonder what that should be telling me!
Mike
KD4DBF
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD7KCP on November 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is what I have to say to the lazy, slothful technicians who lack the desire to spend the energy to pass element one. I received my first license, Tech with H.F. ( which means of course that I passed element one) on 8/15/00. On 8/8/02, I had to pass element one once again to get my General. I have never, not even once, used C.W. on the air. My daughter passed element one her first time at the age of 15 ( tech with H.F.), and once again at the age of 17 (General). She also has never used C.W. other than to pass the test. If you and your kind would spend half as much time studying for element one as you do whining about it, you could pass it. So stop your whining, pass the test, and be a hero not a zero. Sincerely, Slow code General, KD7KCP
P.S. I love this guy He has it exactly right.
see below
"Anyone too stupid or lazy to pass a lousy 5 wpm cw test doesnt deserve HF privledges, plain and simple. Get off that lazy ass, quit whining and crying and bitching, and learn something that thousands of others have learned and be proud of the accomplishment of actually earning a ticket instead of being handed a gimme. If some of these jokers spent one third of their time learning cw instead of crying like a spoiled little brat who cant get their way, they already would be an extra. Hasnt the hobby been dumbed down enough already? Does the arrl need members that badly as to look the other way and not bother to lobby the FCC to keep the testing we now have? Sickening! I guess the love of money has polluted this hobby like the rest of present day society where the dollar is more important then principles and values. Pathetic!!"
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The post by KD7KCP leaves me with the sick feeling of shame to be associated by association with such hams.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on November 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In order to maintain a little balance here, I have to point out that not all of the “Techs” that remain “Techs” are “stupid or lazy”, as another poster put it.
In my case, everything I’m interested in is happening in VHF and higher! According to some on these forums, that makes me some sort of “2nd Class Ham”. If that’s really the majority opinion, then I guess I’ll wear my “Butterbar” with pride, and get on with my hobby!
I already have the only HF privilege that I’m even remotely interested in:…..27.185 Mhz, AM;…… when I want to find out why traffic has come to a complete stop!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
Really, guys! Let's be fair about this.
|
|
|
by RADIOWIENER on November 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Morse code should be abolished. It is unfair to those who are frustrated at the thought of having to learn the alphabet (in Morse). If someone does not wish to operate Morse code, then they should not have to learn it and pass a test on it. If they DO want to operate CW, then they should learn CW at 5 wpm. This is only fair because the operator would be demonstrating the needed proficiency in his, her, or its chosen mode of operation. By the same token, if someone wishes to operate phone, then they should be tested on phone. Is this not fair? The phone exam would consist of questions in the form of "field demonstrations" on which the candidate would graded by the team of three VEs:
1. Picking up the microphone with the RIGHT hand if the candidate is right handed (and with the LEFT hand if the candidate is left-handed). This is very important. If the candidate picks up the microphone with the wrong hand, then he may make a mistake by causing QRM. After all, if he squeezes the transmit button on the microphone when he only intended to hold up the microphone, then a QRM producing wrongful transmission would result. Not very considerate of our fellow hams, is it? So once the microphone has been picked up with the correct hand, it must be held for a period of at least 5 seconds. In order to successfully complete this first phase of the phone examination, it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (though not required) that the candidate be able to count to "5". Some VEs may select the option of requiring the candidate him/her/itself to count to "5" out loud while holding up the microphone so that the VEs will not have to count themselves. But even if it is not required, the wise prospective candidate might do well to realize that it would behoove them to extend this sycophantic courtesy to the VEs. It would give the VEs a sense of empowerment and would give the candidate a feeling that he/she/it was doing something worthwhile. Once all three of the VEs see that the candidate has indeed mastered the procedure of the proper way to pick up a microphone, the second phase of the exam will begin.
2. We are now ready for phase two-- Pressing the transmit button on the microphone. Now this is a matter which should be taken very seriously, mastered effectively, and executed responsibly. In fact, many hams believe this to be the most enjoyable and rewarding aspect of ham radio.
3. Once the microphone button has been pressed, talking begins. It is important that not more than 5 seconds elapse before the candidate begins talking. We can all see that this is important because we all know that there is entirely too much 'kerchunking' and unidentified transmissions going on out there today. This would be an excellent way to "clean up the bands" by educating all would-be and wannabe amateurs from 'square one' that 'kerchunking' and unidentified transmissions are not good operating procedures. The talking phase of the examination is an opportunity for the candidate to not only demonstrate a working knowledge of phone operations, but to also demonstrate that he is capable of participating in a QSOs that are 'relavent' or 'appropriate' to amateur radio such as "code vs. no-code", bestowing sycophancies to the repeater trustee or club officers, and correcting those who do not adhere to the local repeater procedure. An example of this would be scolding those who say "Break" or "CQ" in order to use the repeater. And to demonstrate completion of the talking phase, it would be helpful for the candidate to indicate such completion by saying something such as "QRT", "QSL?", "10-7", or "here's them ole' three-e-es to yuh, good buddy"-- Yardbird, we go" .
4. Once the talking phase has been completed, phase four of the examination would begin-- Releasing the transmit button on the microphone. Here again the candidate needs to remember the '5 second rule'. In accordance with 'good amateur practice', not more than 5 seconds should elapse between cessation of the act of talking and releasing the transmit button of the microphone. This is true for the same reason as was the case in phases 1 and 3-- that of preventing QRM such as 'kerchunking' and unidentified transmissions on the ham bands.
These four phases are sufficent to demonstrate an adequate understanding of established amateur radio phone procedure and practice as we currently know it. It is not important to have a fifth phase consisting of the candidate demonstrating that he knows how to turn OFF the radio because it is HIS radio and he can leave it on all he wants to and can even burn the sumbitch plum up if he wants to.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KC0LRM on November 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I would love to learn Morse code some day and I think that it should remain a part of the upper levels of amateur radio (such as Extra or General Class). Anyone who has gone to the trouble to learn Morse code deserves their own haven from voice communicatons. However, I am a full time student and work full time and I am tone deaf in one hear. I can't tell a . from a - most of the time and right now I don't have the time to be learning code. I am presently a no-code tech, but I would like to be able to use some part of the HF band. Even if just a little bit. That would be nice. As I read some of the replies here it makes me think of the days when I operated a CB radio.That is all I have to say.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by CODEBASHER on December 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All those who support the retention of the Code Requirement are a bunch of sore loosers!
Good luck on keeping it as a requirement.
The FCC is looking for a reason to drop the requirement. not to keep it.
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by JF1GWJ on December 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ah. Another long thread of waste...
I am a CW operator and have over 99% of my QSO's on CW, but I haven't seen any conclusive argument showing that CW requirements bring any good to our hobby. I passed 5wpm test at 12, 9wpm test at 14 and 12wpm English + 10wpm Japanese test at 16, but I don't think it makes me anything better as a ham. It's just a piece of laminated photo-card licence and nothing better than a driver licence. Do code tests filter out morons? No. I've had enough of them in JA - all those "Do Japanese Morse or Die" kind of farts, running KW's for domestic QSO's in Japan. I've recently taken the UK RAE for the full licence over here in Manchester UK, but we have eliminated a Morse test some time ago (this is what common sense means). Guys. We (Japanese) finished this argument in 1960 and have been pissing off the ITU-RR ever since. Let's move on. I'd never become a ham, had we not the no-code HF ticket.
--
JF1GWJ/M3GWJ
|
| |
|
A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD7KCP on December 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My fellow Hams, now lets be honest about this whole "keep the code get rid of the code " thing. A lot has been written about the prose and cons of keeping the code some on both sides rather well written, and some not. I myself have been rather sharp tongued on the subject, and I have received a few interesting responses because of it. One ham KB9YVG in a obscene response writes "You think like an old timer.. I learned CW in a three hour seesion when I was around 12. I have no particular in interest in HF. You seem like on of those operators who like to have their daughter (obscene response) when they hit that key. I thought '73 met "please don't do my kid", whoops that must be CB talk." and another response by KG4YJR writes "What a moron". It is obvious to all that the defensive vitriolic responses of the "get rid of the code test "crowd is due to the fact that their argument ,no matter how will crafted, is intellectually dishonest. The truth is (and every one knows this ,both pro and con camps) that some are willing to earn their goal and others are not. You see some think that just because they want something they should get it even if it means cheating (changing the rules). Some of these lazy slothful types will argue in an intellectually dishonest manner that their concern is "saving Ham radio" when in fact they simply lack the desire to spend the energy to pass element one. To these lazy slothful types I ask: Why not be honest? And just say the truth ,come on and repeat after me: "I just don’t want to take the five words a minute CW test, so change the rules just for me!". Sincerely;
slow code general,
KD7KCP
73
|
| |
|
RE: A Morse Exam Compromise
|
|
|
by KD7QAJ on December 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello,
I've been a no-code tech for two nearly two years now. I got into amatuer radio to #1, get away from the bad apples on CB, #2 build and experiement with radio equipment such as antennas (getting the most out of every watt), and #3 talk to the good people on HAM radio. I'm studying code, but not just to get HF priveldges, but to use this exciting mode to make long distance contacts that are otherwise impossible via phone. Do I think that code testing should be retained for HF priveldges? No. I do not feel that mode testing should not be used to keep VHF/UHF no code operators off of HF when too many HF operators study and pass code to get their General ticket, only to never use CW again. ButI do feel that CW testing should be required to operate on frequencies desingated only for CW operation. I also feel that more rigourous testing should be conducted in radio theory and TVI interferrance. I've heard many stories about HAMs being shut down by local authorities due to TVI complaints. I've met many HAMs that know all about CW operation on HF frequencies, but have no idea what makes their radio tick or how to keep CW out of neighbors homes. Now many no code and HF HAMs are loosing out on not exploring the exciting world of CW, but I also feel that many HF operators are loosing as well by not being able to make contacts with people who are no-code licensed. Many of these people are good, hard working professionals who either do not have the time or the left cranial thinking to study another language such as CW. I freely admit, my life style leaves very little time to study a new language such as CW. I will close with a note to those have resorted to flames and name calling on this thread, pro-code and no-code alike, SHAME ON YOU! Aruguing has no place in amateur radio, but if you feel that you must flame and argue, buy yourself a CB and go to 27.025 (Ch.6) to launch your attacks.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Editorial Articles
Project 'Take Back 146.52'
|
|
|
