FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Related Petitions:
from
W1AW Bulletin via the ARRL
on
October 9, 2003
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Related
Petitions:
ZCZC AG61
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 61 ARLB061
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT October 9, 2003
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB061
ARLB061 FCC invites comments on additional Morse code-related
petitions
The FCC has invited public comment on a second group of seven
Morse-related petitions for rulemaking, which went on public notice
October 8. Comments are due by November 7. Members of the amateur
community may make their opinions known on any or all of these
filings using the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
located on the web at,
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Charles L. Young Jr, AG4YO, asks the FCC to delete the 5 WPM Morse
code test (Element 1) for Technician-plus-Element 1 privileges
(formerly ''Tech Plus''). Designated RM-10805, his petition would
retain Element 1 as an examination requirement for General and
Amateur Extra applicants and give Technicians limited HF SSB
privileges.
Describing CW as ''the purest, most accurate, efficient, reliable and
economical form of radio communications ever devised,'' Frank
Napurano, K2OKA, requests that the FCC retain the 5 WPM Morse
requirement ''in the interest of public safety, the preservation of a
radio art and as a tribute of support for a prized and respected
avocation.'' The FCC designated his filing as RM-10806.
A petition by Robert G. Rightsell, AE4FA and Harry A.M. Kholer,
N0PU, designated RM-10807, would continue Morse testing but give
applicants up to 24 points of exam credit according to their success
on Element 1. The final exam score would be the sum of earned
Element 1 points and the written test score for a possible total of
100 points. Their petition also calls on the FCC to consolidate the
Novice and Technician and the Advanced and Amateur Extra licenses,
boost the number and range of written test questions and give new
Technicians CW and data privileges.
Joseph Speroni, AH0A, seeks to have the FCC delete Element 1 for
applicants who want to operate phone on HF but retain Element 1 at 5
WPM for applicants who want to operate CW. Designated RM-10808, his
petition would restructure the Amateur Radio testing regime to
require specific knowledge of ''RTTY, data, image, spread spectrum,
pulse/test, RACES/ARES and space communications only for those
wishing to operate these modes.'' Under Speroni's plan, applicants
would be under no obligation to pass mode-specific examination
elements for mode privileges they don't wish to operate.
The Puerto Rico Amateur Radio League (PRARL) asks the FCC to delete
Element 1 for Technician and General classes but to increase the
rigor of the written elements for those two license classes. The
PRARL would keep the 5 WPM Morse exam for Extra applicants. The
PRARL also would eliminate same-session retesting and require 30
days between retakes. It's petition is designated RM-10809.
James Roux, W4YA, proposes in his petition, designated RM-10810,
that the FCC cut the number of license classes to two--General and
Amateur Extra--and the number of written examination elements to
one--at the General level. Roux's petition would eliminate the 5 WPM
Morse code exam for General but require Extra applicants to pass a
15 WPM test. Roux also would give Generals all currently available
amateur privileges except the Extra-class CW subbands.
A petition filed on behalf of FISTS CW Club would delete the
requirement to pass Element 1 to obtain Technician plus Element 1
(ie, ''Tech Plus'') HF privileges. Designated RM-10811, it would merge
Tech and Tech Plus into a single class, emphasize technical content,
including digital modes, on written examinations and extend digital
mode privileges within Novice/Tech Plus subbands. It would not
provide additional HF phone privileges for Technicians, however. The
FISTS petition would retain a 5 WPM Morse exam for General
applicants and raise the Morse exam to 12 WPM for Amateur Extra
applicants while increasing the technical level on written
examinations for both classes.
Interested parties may file comments on any or all of these
petitions using the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
which also permits users to view all comments on file.
To file a comment, click on ''Submit a Filing'' under ''ECFS Main
Links.'' In the ''Proceeding'' field, type the full RM number,
including the hyphen, and complete the required fields. ''RM'' must be
in capital letters, and you must include the hyphen between ''RM'' and
the five-digit number. You may type your remarks into a form or
attach a file. ECFS also accepts comments in active proceedings via
e-mail, per instructions on the ECFS page.
To view filed comments, click on ''Search for Filed Comments'' under
''ECFS Main Links'' and type in the complete RM number, including the
hyphen, in the ''Proceeding'' field. ''RM'' must be in capital letters.
NNNN
/EX
Source: W1AW Bulletin via the ARRL.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Rela
|
|
|
by K1ZF on October 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FISTS has the right idea. It's a hobby. Get used to it.
If you can't do 5WPM, you belong in a "home".
Gene
K1ZF
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by W5AU on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hats off to FISTS. This is an excellent proposal.
This is actually the most sensible proposal that
has been submitted so far.
73, Troy
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Is there any possible way to consolidate all these filings? It's getting confusing!!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by W8MW on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It sure is getting confusing. Makes me wonder if FCC is really going to invest hundreds, maybe thousands of hours to thoroughly analyze all the petitions and comments on the petitions. My guess: ARRL is the voice that will be heard.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8MW:
I wonder the same thing, but filed my comments in support of the FISTS proposal anyway. I agree ARRL's position (if and when they take one) on this will be the most persuasive. I also believe FISTS will be taken seriously, since they are organized for a positive purpose (unlike NCI which is organized around a negative).
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by W8MW on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good points Chuck. However the whole thing shakes out, it will be a relief to get past it.
73, Mike W8MW
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by AE4X on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really like this idea. Thanks, FISTS! This is a sensible solution and it satisfies everyone, I think. I am a firm believer in CW. I love the mode and when the conditions are unfavorable CW still gets through. Is Latin no longer required in school? Well..yes and no. It's not required but it's OFFERED. The mainframe of Latin is still very important for medical schools with terminologies, physical conditions, etc. A vast majority of medicine comes from latin words. If you have a grasp on Latin you can figure out many medical terms.
Similarly, CW is a translation mode. It's a simple, early digital mode that can be interpreted in the worst of static, propagation and QRM. If you can grasp at least a few letters in the roughest conditions you can make out what the station is saying.
It's also the earliest form of all the rave today of IM (instant messaging) since much of CW is abbreviated or truncated (UR for your, hr for here, etc.) We hams have been "IM"'ing long before all the teenagers of today caught on.
Does ham radio HAVE TO involve CW? No, absolutely not. It's a choice but since it's a mode I think it should be required in some fashion to be learned--at least for higher advancement.
I'm all for more hams on the bands. But certain segments of the ham bands should definetly be designated for CW. Everytime I'm on the lower end of 40 meters I hear nothing but rattling of CW. It's far from dead.
Just like learning a trade there are many rudimentary skills that should be looked at and learned despite newer technologies.
I recently overheard someone's cell phone chant off "TEXT" in morse code signalling to that person that they had a message. Now, to the layman, it was just a series of noises. To me, it was clear as day that TEXT was available. I was very amused to see today's cell phone companies utilizing morse code.
Morse code is also a great identifying system. I'd rather hear a fast ID of a repeater that takes 10 seconds than a voice moded discertation.
FISTS, your idea is great. Let's hope it's implemented.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by W3JJH on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the matter of )
)
Amendment to Part 97 of the Commission’s )
Amateur Service Rules to Revise Examination ) RM-10811
Requirements and Improve Testing Standards )
)
To: The Commission
COMMENTS OF W. J. J. HOGE
1. I hold an Amateur Extra class amateur radio license. My call sign is W3JJH. As an Extra class licensee, I have already passed an examination in Morse telegraphy and have the broadest operating privileges available. When it comes to my personal interest in the controversy concerning the telegraphy requirement, I don’t have a dog in the fight. I am, however, deeply concerned for the continued health of the Amateur Radio Service. I view telegraphy testing as a needless barrier to future amateur operators.
2. I wish to express my opposition to the FIST CW CLUB’s (FISTS) petition. While I believe that the Commission should eliminate Morse code telegraphy testing for amateur licensing, I believe that only the minimum possible rule changes should be made in the near term. This would be accomplished by eliminating Element 1 from the testing scheme and granting the same operating privileges to all Technician licensees as now permitted to Technician with code operators.
3. In particular, I wish to remind the Commission of its previous Report and Order in the matter of WT Docket 98-143. In it the Commission considered the proficiency requirement for Morse telegraphy and found “that such a license qualification rule is not in the furtherance of the amateur service” and that the Commission does “not believe that it continues to serve any regulatory purpose.”[1]
4. Furthermore, the Report & Order (“R&O”) cited above states, “We have considered the comments on this issue and conclude that the public interest will best be served by reducing the telegraphy examination to the minimum requirement that we have found meets the Radio Regulations ...”[2] As of 5 July, 2003, the ITU Radio Regulations no longer require telegraphy testing for amateur radio licensing.[3] By its own reasoning, the Commission should amend its Rules to eliminate Morse code testing.
5. I agree with the reasoning put forth in the No Code International petition (RM-10786) stating the Commission is allowed by the Administrative Procedures Act[4] and its own Rules[5] to issue an amended rule in this instance without formal notice or public input. The facts and opinions concerning this topic were thoroughly aired during the inquiry relating to WT Docket 98-143. All of the arguments for the retention of telegraphy testing put forward by FIST were rejected in the Commission’s previous inquiry. That the present testing requirement is undesirable should now be considered a settled matter. Removing the requirement will not reduce the operating privileges of any licensee.
6. The Commission should review the present licensing structure and testing regime, but that review should be thorough. It should not delay the abolition of telegraphy testing. Therefore, I strongly urge the Commission to deny the request for changes in Part 97 of the Rules as described in the FISTS petition.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
W. J. J. Hoge
20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
Dated: 10 October, 2003
[1] See the Report & Order, FRCC 99-412, adopted Dec. 22, 1999, released Dec. 30, 1999, at 25.
[2] R&0 at 25.
[3] ITU Radio Regulations, Art. 25, as modified by WRC-03.
[4] 5 USC 553(b)(3)(B)
[5] 47 CFR 1.412(e)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by W3FHW on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I endorse Mr. Hoge's comments to the Commission. If I had not already replied to the latest seven petitions, I would have surley used Mr. Hohe's comments as a templet for my replies.
Fred, W3FHW
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My hats off to FISTS. Finally a group that has a sensible proposal that will actually help ham radio and would lead to better operators. Good job FISTS. I just now decided to become a member.
|
| |
|
FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Rela
|
|
|
by KD5RHF on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am all for keeping the code. The testing requirements need the changes. The farnsworth method leaves something to be desired. Why not go back to actual 5wpm for Tech+ instead of 18wpm characters spaced to 5wpm?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by W8JJI on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is time to drop the morse code requirement.
It has long outlived it's usefulness.
|
| |
|
FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Rela
|
|
|
by KC8KEQ on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What about annual or biannual code retests for all existing amateurs? It should not be a one time test.
As a matter of fact let's just retake the entire test for your class of license every year. This seem to be the only absolutely fair way to handle this issue. Newcomers who couldn't pass would be refused a license and older hams who couldn't pass would have their license revoked until they could pass. Everyone is treated equally, no exceptions.
The degree of difficulty could be what ever was needed.
The length of time in the hobby is no excuse, we should all be held to the same degree of expertise as far as the test goes for beginers and old timers alike. This approach favors neither side of the issue.
There probably won't be as many in the hobby but those that are there will be the best there is.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by KC2LSU on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think the petition that would make morse more of an extra credit thing; having it be 20 extra credit points, added to the written exams score, is a great way slice the meat both ways. It would almost be like the 5, or 10 point veteran's perferance that the post office has.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by HAMSHARK on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC2LSU Said:
<<< I think the petition that would
make morse more of an extra credit
thing; having it be 20 extra credit
points, added to the written exams
score, is a great way slice the meat
both ways. It would almost be like
the 5, or 10 point veteran's perferance
that the post office has. >>>
Uh, hehheh, heh heh . . hey Beavis, if I can copy at 70 wpm, can I get enough extra credits to avoid the written test altogether?
And the CW types always accuse the No-Coders of trying to "dumb-down" the hobby. What a bunch of hyprocrites.
Rock On!
HAMSHARK
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by HAMSHARK on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8KEQ,
My hat is off to you, sir, for telling it like it is, and how it should be. This is the most intelligent post I have seen in a very long time. Thanks for standing up on this one.
Rock On!
HAMSHARK
|
| |
|
FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Rela
|
|
|
by N8YV on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FISTS may have the right idea, but PRARL is the winner in MY book! Way to go, guys!
PRARL's plan is SIMPLE, is FAIR to all, addresses the major problems with the current U.S. system, respects a REASONABLE nod to Morse tradition while at the same time acknowledging world trends in code testing elimination, and is not "biting off more than it can chew".
Final score= PRARL 10, FISTS 7.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
But, I don't want to learn the code. It's too hard for me. I tried for 30 minutes last week and I just can't learn it. So, please eliminate the code. I did however, memorize the answers for the tech exam so I am a ham and once code is eliminated I will be able to become a General by memerizing some more answers.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by WR8D on October 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Notice folks this TECH2003. This is the attitude of the type of person that has the ham community all in an uproar. He's saying things here to try to tick folks off and get himself a laugh. On the bands these types are doing the same thing by using their cb handles on hf and 2 meters. They respect no one! These types will actually get a ham license just so they can continue to do what they did on the cb band.
They play music and are disrespectful to others. Will not follow the rules...and usually call someone trying to elmer them and elite or snob extra or general. Right here infront of all our faces is the downfall of amateur radio in this one guys example. Some of you live in places where you've never had to hear this or put up with this kind of attitude. Many of us have had hands on experiance and thats why most of us are against any type of change. We figure any changes will only make matters worse.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Rela
|
|
|
by KC8WSC on October 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it is fine the way it is!!! You can get a taste of everything as offered!!! As one fella once said, Code seperates hams from CB'ers. Code can be tough, but the 5 WPM makes it a win situation!! It truly does take the ham experience to the next level!!!
I belive with out the code, you would be opening up a can of worms to bring into the hoddy. Just my thoughts! Thanks!!
73's
|
| |
|
FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Rela
|
|
|
by KC8KEQ on October 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have had the pleasure of having QSOs with more amateurs than I can count, both on satellite and terrestrial. From what I have encountered on the air I would say that 99.9% of all operators are a pleasure to talk to and a credit to the hobby. I personally believe, based on this, that it is going to take a lot more than the code verses no code issue or any thing else on the horizon to bring down the hobby. We may disagree among ourselves from time to time but woe to any outsider or trouble maker within our own ranks that thinks they can ruin the hobby. They will find that they picked on the wrong people. Keep up the great work my fellow hams; I'm proud to be one of you.
OK, now back to the regularly scheduled debate.
Thanks, 73
KC8KEQ
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by W8JJI on October 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's time to scuttle the cw requirement.
I'd like to see them hit it with a few more torpedos and send it to the bottom !!!
"Locked and loaded sir" !
O.K. ,... wait... NOW!
FIRE!
FIRE!
FIRE!
KA-BOOOM !
(taps plays from a scratchy old record)
blub , blub,... blub... :)
|
| |
|
FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-Rela
|
|
|
by KC9AOY on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, I have to say a few things here. First off, I believe that the issue is easily solved by giving the techs the tech+ priveledges with a very tiny slice of the Phone section from the General phone band. Or, just give them full data priveledges on the cw portion.
I keep hearing about the "cb" types - this is hog-wash. Anyone that listens to 75 meters at night knows that the CW requirement didn't do a THING for those guys up there. And they are general, advanced, and extras up there. Passing a CW test didn't keep the jerks from sending nude pictures on 14.230 on SSTV either which I have seen in the past. CW did nothing to further the enjoyment we all have playing with the great new data modes we have - PSK, MFSK, and many others.
We NEED technically inclined teenagers getting into this hobby. Most of them are NOT CBers to begin with. There are MANY truck drivers getting tickets and putting 2 meter rigs in their trucks now. Stop picking on anyone that is different from yourselves.
This "hobby" is going nowhere fast if we do not start recruiting more and more younger people into it. This isn't done by continuing with a mode of operation which is not of concern to these techies in high school. They are interested in computers and experimenting with new ideas and ways of doing things. CW is not something that they consider to be a technical advancement of communications theory. In fact, there is no way to IMPROVE on it.
CW has a great place and anyone that would suggest removing the CW subbands would have a fight from me - but those of you that want to do it - do it. I haven't seen a single proposal from anyone that says - remove CW from testing - and remove all CW from the band plans.
If you want to weed out what you call the jerks - then simply make the written test harder. I see a lot of people complaining about memorizing the answers - well I did not - however, lets get rid of the question pool and make people study. I'm a broadcasting engineer the test isn't much of a problem for me - but those "cbers" are the ones that would have to really study to pass it.
This would eliminate the "bad eggs" as well as eliminate the hated CW requirement.
What do you think?
Steve
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Invites Comments on Additional Morse Code-
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve,
W5YI of the W5YI group, NCVEC and NCI board member has already mentioned doing away with the CW only portions of the band plan. His only opposition was from one of his NCVEC buddies who agreed but stated that this is not the time to bring it up. So it is a non-issue, for now. But you can see what the no-code group wants to do once they eliminate the code testing.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
ARISS Contact on Amateur Television and YouTube:
Two Canadian Stations on 500kHz:
Eagle Radio Ham Honored for Long Service:
Bright Spot -- Ray Grob NN8R:
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
|
