CQ Magazine Survey

$\'\'$

eHam.net Home | FAQ | Log In Help! | Please Subscribe!

Welcome Anonymous Become a member! or Login!

$\'\'$

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

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

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

$\'\'$

CQ Magazine Survey

Jim "Elvis" Seifert (AD6WL) on November 25, 2003
View comments about this article!

I have read the results of the September CQ survey and I must say that I am a bit confused. Of all the respondents to the survey 71% had voted to keep some type of code test as a requirement for a license and only 29% had voted to eliminate all morse code testing or replace it with a code recognition test. However, the powers to be at CQ magazine decided to ignore its subscribers. They, in their infinite wisdom, filed comments with the FCC that all code tests should be eliminated. This, in my opinion, is a slap in the face of all CQ magazine subscribers. I am very upset with CQ magazine and I don't think that I can subscribe to their magazine anymore with a good conscience since they do not have any faith in their subscribers who pay for their magazine and their salaries. I don't even know why CQ magazine would even bother to take a survey of it's subscribers, if when they get the results they just ignore what their subscribers want. I would have no problem with CQ magazine if it's subscribers had voted in favor of eliminating the code requirement and they filed these comments with the FCC. It's apparent that CQ magazine had already made up its mind on this issue and did not care what it's subscribers thought.

This is from the CQ magazine survey:

Whether you think the FCC should (choose one):
Response: % of all respondents
Eliminate the code test requirement for all amateur license: 25%
Eliminate the code test requirement for General, but keep for Extra: 21%
Replace the current 5wpm code test with a code recognition test or similar: 4%
Leave the code test requirement as it is: 50%

That is 71% who wish to keep some type of code testing and 29% who wish to eliminate all code testing or replace it with a code recognition test.

Member Comments:

This article has expired. No more comments may be added.

CQ Magazine Survey

by KC7MM on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

This is really starting to get boring. It reminds me of the people who whine when their local paper lists a series of candidates for office, and some of them don't fit the whiner's views. The whiner still has the right to vote for any candidate he/she wants.

CQ, you, I, and everyone else can submit comments to the FCC over this. Quit pouting and grow up.

BTW, I just read the Zero Bias column in the latest CQ. It is very apparant that CQ wants our service/hobby to move forward and attract some new young blood into the fold before we all die off of old age. I support them 100%

Elsewhere in this month's issue, the editor's bemoan the loss of 73 magazine, and rightly point out that our hobby should be able to support than just two magazines. So here is your opportunity. Start your own magazine! I even have a name for it: "Spark Gap".

Dale KC7MM

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by N6AJR on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

not again...please let it drop for a week

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by RobertKoernerExAE7G on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Yawn.
I don’t read CQ.
Me thinks this letter to the editor belongs in CQ.
Bob

CQ Magazine Survey

by KG4YJR on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

It's so painfully clear that the code is some of these boy's highest life achievement and it's the only thing that they can point to that makes them feel like they're superior to somebody else. If you take that away from them then what will they have left?
I'm beginning to feel sorry for these people. I couldn't wake up everyday and be so miserable and fearful about the code requirement being dropped. They worry more about the code than BPL.

73
Dave

CQ Magazine Survey

by KB9YUR on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

So, what should we call this dead horse this time ?!?

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by NI0C on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I'd say the bulk of the whining and pouting has been demonstrated by the "No Clue International" crowd.

CQ Magazine Survey

by KB3FHN on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I think KG4YJR hit the nail on the head on this one. Ham radio will move forward with or without CW. There is more to ham radio than CW. If you like it use it if not don't force it on other's that do not. I think CQ can do whatever they want with the survey, and yes I am a General who had to pass a code test just to use only phone on the air!!

CQ Magazine Survey

by N3TTN on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Only 25% of ALL licensed U.S. amateurs subscribe to an amateur radio publication of any kind. So, even if EVERY CQ subscriber (or reader for that matter) participated in the survey (highly unlikely) the results only represent a tiny fraction of all U.S. hams. This kind of survey is pretty much meaningless.

N3TTN

CQ Magazine Survey

by N2HBX on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

One of the things you need to keep in mind is that CQ has always more or less catered to the contest crowd who heavily favor CW contests and CW operation. So the results of the survey should come as no surprise to anybody. At least their editorial position favors dragging the hobby kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

73,
Larry, N2HBX

CQ Magazine Survey

by KR1ST on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CQ Magazine has subscribers, not members. The ARRL is a membership organization which represents its members.

The ARRL does not survey its members, except for meager solicitation to let your representatives know what you think.

To the ARRL, the CW issue is (obviously) not just about code:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/AandF.html

Especially the first 4 paragraphs under the header "Where Do We Go From Here?" may be of interest.

73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W8MW on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

It would have been "safe" for CQ to take no position. They could have focused only on their short-term financial interests and not run any risk of lost revenue from disgruntled subscribers. You know, like the politicians who tap dance around controversial issues instead of taking a stand on what they believe is right.

I am impressed CQ Editor Rich Moseson W2VU and his team showed some brass and stepped forward. Leadership is not a popularity contest. Quote from CQ Communications Inc. comments filed on FCC ECS site:

In light of ITU's action at WRC-03, the Commission's previous statements that a code proficiency requirement no longer serves a valid regulatory purpose, the longstanding disconnect between passing a code test and being a good ham, and the need for the Commission's licensing rules to be more inclusive and inviting people with a wide variety of technical and communication interests, we support the immediate removal of the code requirement as a component of the amateur licensing structure.

CQ Magazine Survey

by W1DLS on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Since we published the test pool, reduced the number of licenses to three, and the code to 5wpm, we are making it possible to go from zero to Extra in one day. Check out this post from the vanityhq.com bulleting board (go to "latest messages")

Posted by: Franco Venturi, AI4CG on October 25, 2003 at 11:34:03:

"Hi,
I got my Extra license about a week ago (I did the three written tests and CW at the same time, so this is my first call sign), and I was looking for your opinions about a vanity call sign. I'd like a 1x2 or a 2x1, and since I live in Florida, which is in district 4, I don't have any hope to find any 1x2 or 2x1 with the number '4'. I see that most people apply for vanity call sign in the same district where they live, so is for any reason, having a vanity call sign that doesn't reflect your geographic district considered 'bad taste' or 'bad etiquette'? Again, I am very new here, so I apologize if my question may sound silly.
Second, I found a few nice call signs with my initial, N1FV, N8FV, N9FV, and KF0V, and a couple more. I like KF0V better than the other, but I see that 1x2 are more 'sought after' than 2x1, so perhaps I should pick N1FV.
I just like to know the opinion of this message board, just out of curiosity.

Thanks,
Franco Venturi, AI4CG"

Franco seems like a nice guy, and is in no way to blame for this, but we sure seem to have gutted our testing system. The problem is the published test pool, which turns the exams into a reading comprehension test, not a radio test. As much as I love the code, I think our real problem is the "open book" test.

David W1DLS

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W8JI on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CQ is a business trying to make ends meet.

I think it is nice they ask readers what we want, even if they ignore them. The most important thing is they survive by getting more people in the hobby regardless of what people in the hobby want.

The next thing you'll want is accurate technical information in articles! Geesh, give me a break. This is a business based communicators hobby, not an educational technical hobby! If you want an educational technical hobby, play golf or go fishing!

73 Tom

CQ Magazine Survey

by W5GNB on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I agree that CQ magazine is in business to make a buck but I feel that thier objective to the reader is in the right direction. They at least offer something besides CONTEST RESULTS in thier text. Also, I tend to agree with the opinion of W1DLS in that any accurate testing for ham radio has gone by the wayside. The next move we will see after the code is dropped will be using your car license plate for your call sign. (This happened in CB for a short while many years ago just before they completely dropped the license requirements)

CQ Magazine Survey

by W8VOM on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

AD6WL makes a very good point that many here fail to see! The CQ survey results clearly show that subscribers *favor* retaining Morse testing. Then CQ slaps their subscibers in the face by ignoring them.
The point here is *not* about Morse testing,it is about representation of it's readership. Yes,CQ has the right to do whatever it wishes but we also have the right to end our subcriptions! Sadly this is a money issue for many organizations.

It looks like the ARRL will not lobby the FCC to retain Morse testing.This is SMART..the ARRL will simply let the FCC be the "fall guy" for the loss of Morse testing.This will fool most of the Amateurs out there but not all of them!

Should Morse testing be retained? That is a good question! I have had my fun in this hobby for 23 years,time to let the "2nd String have some fun" if they can't cut the code I say give them HF access!
I hope they get everything they *worked* for!!!

CQ Magazine Survey

by N9AVY on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Now I know why I never subscribed to CQ ...

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W3JXP on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Hi All:

I keep seeing statements about the "dumbing down" of the tests. As a VE I take part in 4 or so tests a year and if the test were dumbed down why do people of normal brain power still fail them? At every test we see a few people fail the tec test and or the high class tests. I would like to see the test change a bit myself, with much more on rules and regs and practical operating than electronics in the tec and general tests. This is because hams are doing a much poorer job of training new comers to the service than they used to. I've been licenced for 33 years and was a SWL for several years before that and I rember how clueless I was when I became a ham. But there was a lot of local hams who shared what they knew and made me a better ham operator. I think we are in danger of lossing that if we don't change how we act to new comers.
W3JXP

CQ Magazine Survey

by K0RGR on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I think you need to read their editorial again. You're not interpreting the numbers the way the editors did.
According to their FCC filing, 63% favored granting HF priveleges to Technicians, 50% favored dropping the General code test. Perhaps they are misreading their own results, but since they designed the survey, I presume they know how to read it.

I also read their filing with FCC, and they virtually agree with the FISTS proposal 100%. They do not specifically call for the elimination of the General code test in their filing, though they say that "they would choose to side with the 50% who favor a change".
You can read their filing and the full survey results at the CQ website. They oppose a couple aspects of FIST's proposal in regard to the written tests that I also find odious, and support some others.

I particularly like their proposal to give Techs/Novices full 10 meter priveleges - something long overdue. Where's that 10 meter FM monitor receiver now that I need it?

Another very interesting aspect of the survey was the very high percentage of respondents that were Extras with over 25 years as hams. This is the group that most would think would be vehemently opposed. In fact, they seemed to be the most strongly in favor of the changes.

In fairness, CQ and its allied publications have long supported dropping or modifying the code tests. Clearly, they have a financial interest in increasing the amateur population. But their proposal is really very moderate as compared to most, and not at all what I would expect from someone acting only in their financial self interest. Why else would CQ not advocate a Japanese or British style no-code license for the masses?

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W1DLS on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To W3JXP,

Yes, publishing the test pool makes the tests much easier. I took both my Advanced and Extra as "Open Book". Here's how I did it: It's not really that hard. First realize that there is ONE and only ONE goal. That is to achieve a passing grade on the test. Learning something is NOT the goal. Second get the W5YI study guide, and highlight ONLY the correct answers. NEVER read the incorrect ones. Read each question, then the correct answer. Do this several times, and when you take the test, the correct answer will pop out at you. As for the math problems, W5YI tells you how to work them by rote. Check out the W5YI book, they are very clear that this is the goal. They tell you how to work the problems without needing to understand what you are doing. If there are a few problems which are too advanced, remember what the goal is... To pass the test. Attempt to memorize correct answers of the too difficult problems only, and guess if needed. THIS METHOD TURNS THE HAM EXAM INTO A "READING COMPREHENSION" TEST. I got 100% on the Advanced, missed one question on the Extra, and forgot everything within a week.

Of course we need to be kind and helpful towards newcomers. But that doesn't mean that we should lower our testing standards. There is nothing wrong with being a "General" for a while.

David, W1DLS

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W5EEX on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Well....73 Magazine went belly up....which is OK with me. Now it's time for CQ Magazine to do the same thing......they won't get any more of my money...never did anyway. Looks like QST will be the last "survivor".
Wish Ham Radio Magazine would come back....it was one of the best.
73

CQ Magazine Survey

by KG4YJR on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Whether it's CQ or QST Magazine, you can find almost the same articles free online and literally page for page you can't tell the difference whether you are looking at one of their magazines or an HRO or AES catalog, also free.

73
Dave

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by AC3P on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Hey. I wouldn't mind reading some "Spark Gap" articles.

CQ Magazine Survey

by CWTITAN on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Now you know why I havent read a "Cq" mag in years.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W5HTW on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

<<W8VOM on November 25, 2003

<<Should Morse testing be retained? That is a good question! I have had my fun in this hobby for 23 years,time to let the "2nd String have some fun" if they can't cut the code I say give them HF access!
I hope they get everything they *worked* for!!! >>

I agree! And after my 47 years in it, I think it's the "third string." And like you, I hope they get 'exactly' what they have 'worked' for. With the appropriate value.

Ed

CQ Magazine Survey

by W5LSD on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Well at least they cared to survey their
readers and dared publish the results.
Look at what the ARRL has done...NOTHING.
They will hide in the shadows and blame
the next dumbdown on the FCC.

CQ Magazine Survey

by W6EZ on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I saw that survey and responded with my vote like many others.While the published results may or may not be what one would expect, at least CQ published the results.

As to the proposals by CQ, I may not totally agree with them but I do feel that they have presented a workable idea.

Let's face it, NO plan that can be presented by anyone at this time will be accepted by all hams. When the change comes, and some sort of change IS comming, we will each have to decide if we are going to just adapt to the changes or throw a temper tantrum and make life miserable for the new folks that show up on the bands. I would assume that some will even get mad enough because they didn't get all they wanted, or "they" gave away too much, that they will just pick up and refuse to use the radio anymore.

I feel sorry for the folks who have made this issue so important that they squander so much of the fleeting time we have on earth being distressed over something that they will never be pleased about.

I am not going to just give up on radio because it doesn't fit my own idea of what it should be. So if the bands are opened up to more people I am sure I will make some new friends on the air. If the CW requirements are totally dropped, I will survive. If the CW requirements remain, people will have to decide how bad they want to upgrade. But,it is not something that will ruin ham radio, one way or the other. We are spending way too much time fighting about this. This is just a hobby, it is not like some one was trying to put people into forced labor camps or something.

CQ Magazine Survey

by WB2WIK on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The League already published their position several times, and that was that their input to the FCC was not considered urgent, because the FCC decision making process was not imminent, and they will file their comments on behalf of their constituency in January 2004. They deemed fighting BPL more urgent than this, and I tend to agree with them. They are the only organization lobbying on behalf of amateur radio against BPL.

But anyway, because CQ sponsors four major HF-DX contests annually, plus the WAZ award, all of which have a long time loyal following, it's probably not going anywhere soon. Although if they don't start sending out certificates and trophies to the winners in a more timely manner (some have waited 2+ years to receive them), *that* might finally P.O. the wrong people, and put them in serious trouble!

WB2WIK/6

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by CURMUDGEON on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

We can attract lots of newcomers to amateur radio if we just give them licenses. But , is that really what you want? I don't. And you fill in the rest.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by CURMUDGEON on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

People of normal intelligence keep failing tests because they have not adaquately prepared for them. They are the types that are quite content to squeek by in all endeavors in life. Hell, take the tests 25 times if necessary.

CQ Magazine Survey

by G0GQK on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Just because CQ magazine asks its readers for an opinion on a subject does it mean that the management of CQ magazine has to agree.? Obviously the vast majority of US hams think that it should. Does your congressman in Washington DC take any notice of what the citizens think ? Perhaps he does sometimes, but most of the time he votes for what he believes is best.
So what`s the difference ?

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KC0LPV on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Newspapers run surveys, too.

Newspaper editorials are not required to reflect the results of the survey--in fact, they are known to reflect only the opinions of the newspaper editors.

Why should CQ be held to a standard which no other publication can expect to be held to?

Jim
kc0lpv

CQ Magazine Survey

by G0GQK on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Reading the Executive summary it says that CQ Inc.believes strongly...........that morse code continues to be important, but that there is "no continued regulatory purpose in retaining the Morse proficency examination ". Therefore we (CQ) generally support the proposals to eliminate the code test.

No beating about the bush there, is there ?

They also propose other changes. So, what's wrong with that ? They told the reader of their considerations before the poll. Would you then expect them to change their decision on the proposal, after the poll results ?

Free speech and thought was, and still should be one of the cornerstones of the rights of citizens of the United States of America

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W9WHE on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Vote with your wallet. Communicate with the universal language...Money!

CANCEL your subscription!

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W1DLS on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

For clarification on the study guides I was talking about, I meant the GORDON WEST Series of study guides that W5YI sells. They tell you how to work the math problems on the ham exams without really understanding the theory behind it.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by NC5C on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

What do you expect from a company that has not yet figured out how to get my copy of their magazine to me with its cover still on. I subscribe to a long list of magazines related to a long list of subjects. CQ is the ONLY one that I receive moth after month with the cover either completely off or coming off.

CQ Magazine Survey

by K0RGR on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Sadly, many newcomers today downgrade themselves, because they buy the argument that the test is now easier than it was 20-40 years ago.

OK, back in 1965, three people really learned the material. The thousands of others memorized the license manual. This involved committing a few pages of questions and answers to memory. The questions and answers were fairly broad, but sufficiently well written that if you remembered the basic idea, you would choose the correct multiple-guess answer.

My father gave me my first license manual when I was 6 and he believed I was ready for the Novice exam at age 7. I didn't get my code up to 5 WPM for several years, though. But I could easily pass the AMECO sample tests in second grade.

Now, you are compelled to study a pool of over 300 questions and answers. Yes, many of the questions are easy - the same was true back in 1965. But some of them are fairly sticky and I think at least a couple of them are technically wrong. You must memorize the correct answer. If you are really working hard, you will read the detractors (wrong answers) and learn why those are wrong.

If you look at the Q+A manual today - that is very similar to the older License Manuals. However, it is many times thicker! They have to cover ALL the questions, instead of just one generic one for each part of the syllabus.

I think that the current level of effort for the Tech exam is about right. If we went back to the old system, people would be opening the book on the way to the test and passing it (like I did when I passed my Advanced test in the early 70's).

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KG4YJR on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Good thoughts Bill, K0RGR

It's a safe bet that over 60% of the hams that have had a license for 20 - 30 years plus would not be able to walk right into an exam session, take the current tech license exam without studying and pass.

73
Dave

CQ Magazine Survey

by W3DCG on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CQ is a magazine? I thought they just sponsored contests...

Only joking. I usually enjoyed the covers of CQ. And the thickness of it always prevented me from subscribing. They were thick enough to require no spine.

And so, if you placed multiple issues side-by-side in a magazine archive holder, you can't tell what issue you're seeing. Surely the content is interesting? I'm just too cheap to buy thin magazines and find out! But I used to browse CQ at magazine shelves in some of the finer bookstores, radio outlets...

I simply do not subscribe to spineless magazines.

QST is even cutting it awfully fine these days, but there are obviously other reasons and benefits for having a subscription to QST. Even in the current era of thinner magazines, The League has managed to

RETAIN IT'S SPINE, hi hi. ;)

CQ Magazine Survey

by KI6LO on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Who cares what CQ magazine thinks! I quit trying to get a subscription to CQ magazine after having paid for it and contacted them several times over the last year, I still have nothing and the subscription term has already expired. It will be a cold day in you know where when I ever look to CQ magazine for anything. Hope they go bust but getting paid subscription fees and delivering nothing, I doubt that will happen. Nice profit margin, don't you think.

Gene KI6LO

Bravo! Bravo! RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KQ6XA on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Bravo to CQ Magazine for standing up for the future of ham radio on HF.

They also are speaking up for the vast majority of the population who are interested in becoming HF amateur radio operators, but have been turned away by Morse Code for years and years.

They are right when they say Morse testing no longer serves any regulatory purpose for amateur radio.

Bonnie KQ6XA

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by AB8RU on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Well anyway you look at it I passed my Extra, and recently applied for my VE credentials, this is going to be interesting, by the way I will be looking into my G.R.O.L. commercial license, and frankly was not impressed by the way things were handled in one group I looked into, but I was advised to go to a different Org. primarly they are more into other certification and Testing courses that is more appealling to me.

If those who want to wait out the elimination to the Element 1 Morse Code requirements you people will probably good chance have more bigger Exam Pool for Elements 3 & 4 maybe Tech might but just a guess.

I had alot of time spent reading Gordon West's Book which was not very detailed in theory, and found the ARRL book was more detailed in theory and other sections of the test, by the way they already have a web site for GROL exams as well Computer A + certification, however one organization does not do open book, and to look at what to expect on their exams you buy the disk and I do not recall if it had all the answers though, and that area Does specify you must have a combination of GROL and Amater Extra depends on certification you are persuing.

Other thing High Caliber people who attain respectable status of a strict rules and policy which means if someone is an idiot who thinks kerchunking repeaters, open up 10 Mter rigs to 11 M. Cb and all of the stuff is ok and as well inappropiate conduct will not even be considered.

may sound snobbish but thats a License revoking statement & as well responsibility, and by just reading posts tells me alot, and these people dont fool around either.

CQ Magazine Survey

by KJ6WM on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I didn't know CQ was still published. Do you have to pay money for it?
As for me -- I think that the publishers are %@#!* #%$@( and &^%$@* ))(*@&^$%!
What's wrong with keeping the code?

CQ Magazine Survey

by KD7KCP on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I was going to sign up for another year of (CQ) now I will not. I do not use CW myself, but I have lived through two element one tests (passed both). I think it is ok to take a five word per minuet Morse code test, it's just part of earning your privilege to use HF. What I don't get is how can one argue that one should receive such a privilege without earning it. Can someone please explain this "even though I don't want to earn something I should get it just because I want it" thing?
Sincerely; slow code general, KD7KCP 73

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W9CW on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Regarding a "spine," and magazine publishing . . . or, perhaps the previous poster intends to imply another meaning using the word "spine," i.e. intestinal fortitude. Nevertheless, I think what he means to say is "perfect bound." A magazine such as QST uses a "perfect bound" binding. CQ Amateur Radio uses a "saddle stitch" binding. It's not a function of the magazine's thickness, rather one of cost. If the average ham only knew the printing costs involved in publishing a monthly national magazine . . .

It boggles the mind that a magazine dares to make money. What do you think most magazines are in the business of doing - losing money? I think not. Those in the magazine or newspaper business typically don't challenge those who earn their living in other fashions, so why should hams always harp on hobby magazines' profit motives?

CQ chose to run a Readers' Survey on the Morse Code question, and then took their own editorial stance. This indeed takes a "spine" to do so. Morse Code is being phased out by practically every country around the world in the ITU. CQ is only being a realist, and a pragmatist, in the communications reality of the 21st century.

For many of us, I included, CW will continue to live on independent of editors or the majority vote. However, one must realize not everyone shares our beliefs on this subject. The debate will continue "ad infinitum," or perhaps "ad nauseum," whichever may be applicable depending upon one's position.

73,
Don W9CW

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by AG4XD on November 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

K0RGR: Sounds like you are suggesting periodic retesting. Perhaps a biennial review such as those pilots undergo to be certain operators are current on technology and regs would be in order.

CQ Magazine Survey

by K1VZ on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Full marks to CQ for at least taking a postion on the number one issue, namely the licensing conditions under which we as hams operate at an international level. Unlike the ARRL! I for one am disgusted at the lack of a position the ARRL has taken on this subject. Despite using many thousands of members dollars over a number of years preparing for an international conference that comes around so infrequently they decide the outcome is not important and is led by an FCC that may not "even consider the outcome unitl 2004 at th earliest"! What a great position for a major voice in ham radio!!! BPL may be an important issue but it is a national issue and should be dealt wiith accordingly.

Back to CQ Magazine. I am not great supporter of the downgrading of the license entry requirements, but CQ magazine has taken a position. That position is in line with what most other countries are implementing due to the Geneva conference outcome, and by doing so has opened up the debate. Again, full marks CQ Magazine.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by K6BBC on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I passed my General and Advanced exams in front of an FCC examiners. The code requirement was 13 WPM with 100% copy for 1 minute. The questions and answers were not published. The FCC can keep their Extra Class license.

K6BBC

CQ Magazine Survey

by KE2IV on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Well I look at it this way:

All those U.S. dudes who hate anyone who hates the code are sooner or later (mostly) gonna die in the next decade or two.

Meanwhile, all the DX countries are going to eliminate CW as a licensing requirement.

So, in a few years, the only DX CW is going to be U.S. hams going off to play DX-pedition.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will either keep chattering away on phone or migrate to other activities.

And, slowly but surely, ham radio will die in the U.S. because we still insist upon people learning a mode that no one else uses!

So what? Who cares?

CW and die...that's the ticket!!!!

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by AG4XD on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To David W1DLS:

Cut Franco some slack. The tests are not open book. Yes, the question pools are published, but so are they for the FAA Private Pilot, Commercial Pilot, etc. writtens. If they were not published, there would be an industry built around selling the questions just as there are today for all those IT certification tests. You don't know whether Franco is an RF engineer, physicist, or just someone who can apply common sense and remember a few formulas, which is what most of the questions require to determine an answer. To pass all three written tests and the code test at one sitting is quite an accomplishment.

73,

Jim

CQ Magazine Survey

by W8VOM on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

WB2WIK Writes:"The League already published their position several times, and that was that their input to the FCC was not considered urgent, because the FCC decision making process was not imminent, and they will file their comments on behalf of their constituency in January 2004."

The ARRL is not going to Lobby the FCC until the very last minute! This makes no sense to me unless the ARRL wants the FCC to be the "fall guy" Cmon..if the ARRL has a position why wait? They should get a letter off the the FCC and not hide behind the BPL issue.I am sorry but this Ham thinks the ARRL does not want to lobby the FCC until it is too late.Simply put..the ARRL is in no hurry to loose membership either way.The time to take an official stand on the Morse issue is NOW and not at the last minute.W8VOM

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W3DCG on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Yes. Yes... thank you Don. It's wonderful when you can read a thread and actually learn something, eg. the difference between perfect(ly) bound and saddle stitched.

Now I know the term Spine in publishing, is a term usually intended to describe a part of a book, not a magazine.

Thanks again, Don.

Wellness to all.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W2BSA on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

>>>W1DLS said<<<: Since we published the test pool, reduced the number of licenses to three, and the code to 5wpm, we are making it possible to go from zero to Extra in one day. Check out this post from the vanityhq.com bulleting board (go to "latest messages")

Posted by: Franco Venturi, AI4CG on October 25, 2003 at 11:34:03:

"Hi,
I got my Extra license about a week ago (I did the three written tests and CW at the same time, so this is my first call sign), and I was looking for your opinions about a vanity call sign. I'd like a 1x2 or a 2x1, and since I live in Florida, which is in district 4, I don't have any hope to find any 1x2 or 2x1 with the number '4'. I see that most people apply for vanity call sign in the same district where they live, so is for any reason, having a vanity call sign that doesn't reflect your geographic district considered 'bad taste' or 'bad etiquette'? Again, I am very new here, so I apologize if my question may sound silly.
Second, I found a few nice call signs with my initial, N1FV, N8FV, N9FV, and KF0V, and a couple more. I like KF0V better than the other, but I see that 1x2 are more 'sought after' than 2x1, so perhaps I should pick N1FV.
I just like to know the opinion of this message board, just out of curiosity.

Thanks,
Franco Venturi, AI4CG"

Franco seems like a nice guy, and is in no way to blame for this, but we sure seem to have gutted our testing system. The problem is the published test pool, which turns the exams into a reading comprehension test, not a radio test. As much as I love the code, I think our real problem is the "open book" test.

David W1DLS

David, this is not the first guy to make his extra in his first shot. I saw a guy do it in March of 1993. I was sitting for my techinician exam and had the experience of watching a gentleman come to test center run by the Laurel (Maryland) VEC, pass his 20 word per minute code test the pass ALL of the written exams and earn his extra class license on that Saturday. So anyone can pass it all at one shot if they put there mind to it.

Me, I'm still a technician licensee. I haven't had the time nor the desire to play HF. When I listen to HF I hear way to much garbage from folks. Actually, about as much trash as I read here. Give me a good reason why I should take my time, which is far better spent elsewhere, to get a license that lets me deal with such things as folks using obcenities, ordering another ham off of the frequency because it was "HIS and he's there every night". Excuse me for living, but if learning CW buys me that kind of abuse why should I want to learn it.
Folks, leave the CW dead horse alone the FCC will do what it wants, when it wants.

73,

Bill. W2BSA

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by NI0C on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Steve, WB2WIK said: "But anyway, because CQ sponsors four major HF-DX contests annually, plus the WAZ award, all of which have a long time loyal following, it's probably not going anywhere soon. Although if they don't start sending out certificates and trophies to the winners in a more timely manner (some have waited 2+ years to receive them), *that* might finally P.O. the wrong people, and put them in serious trouble! "

Just to clarify this, I think Steve was only referring to contest awards being tardy. Their WAZ program is working very well thanks to the efforts of K5RT, and those awards are issued promptly!

I operate mostly CW and am a loyal CQ subscriber as well. I hope they continue to publish for a long time.

73 de Chuck NI0C

CQ Magazine Survey

by W9TM on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I think the point of the article is that CQ magazine took a survey and then did not consider the results of that survey in formulating their editorial policy. They certainly have that right although it sends a clear message to readers that the opinions of current subscribers are not an important consideration to CQ magazine.

Like any for profit business, CQ exists to make money for the owners. For a magazine, that means selling ads and ads are priced based on circulation numbers. CQ will support whatever policies lead to more hams and, they hope, more subscribers. I can tell you, from personal knowledge, that the owners of CQ would support elimination or extreme simplification of the written tests if the eventual outcome was an improvement of their bottom line. They aren't pro-cw or anti-cw. They are against barriers to entry to the hobby of people who might subscribe to their magazine. And that means any barriers whatsoever.

Why not eliminate barriers to the hobby? I'm currently working with two young gentlemen who are, I believe, what you call "freebanders." I'd like to see them licensed. I know they'll never learn cw and, frankly, I doubt they will study to pass an exam that involves digital modes, electronic theory, etc. What they're into is yakking on ssb. Would a simple test covering only rules and regulations be inappropriate for them to gain full hf privilges? I can't see any more reason for them to understand how to distribute gain across stages of a receiver or how to design an antenna tuner than I can understand why they would need to copy cw.

It's easy to see where CQ magazine is coming from with their position. It would be silly for them to not want to broadly expand the population of possible subscribers. The opinions of the majority of their subscribers will never impact their editorial position. Only maximization of their bottom line is important to them.

Jim W9TM

CQ Magazine Survey

by WC4SKY on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

A survey and comments to the FCC, what a concept!
Should we tell the ARRL?
Of course for them 'the time isn't right, YET, and there is no rush'
Jim

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by CURMUDGEON on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

This is the single most divisive issue in amateur radio today and the proponents of elimination of morse as a testing requirement have caused a fracture so deep that it will never heal. Its ramifications will not even be fully understood or appreciated for years to come.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W1DLS on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To Jim AG4XD,

My apologies to Franco. I should not have dragged him into this, since he is not a willing participant, and you are correct that I do not know his background or all the circumstances.

But... Let me say more about the published test pool. I am fully aware that the FAA uses this system. This is where I developed my system for hightlighting only the correct answers, and not confusing myself by reading the wrong ones. Although I do not fly professionally, I hold a commercial pilot certificate with a CFII rating. (look me up on the landings.com pilot database) People often point to the fact that the FAA uses the published test pool system. BUT what they fail to mention is that NO pilot certificate or rating is awarded based on that written test ALONE. A passing grade on the written test buys you your ticket to the flight exam, and that is ALL that it does. The flight exam is comprised of two componants. First there is an oral exam, second there is the in the plane flight exam. It is common to fail either the oral or the in-flight exam. If either one is failed, you don't get to retest until you have completed remedial training.

I understand that radio exams do not involve public safety, however, it is not correct to draw an analogy to pilot exams.

CQ Magazine Survey

by W1DLS on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To AG4XD and W2BSO,

My apologies to Franco. I should not have dragged him into this, since he is not a willing participant, and you are correct that I do not know his background or all the circumstances.

But... Let me say more about the published test pool. I am fully aware that the FAA uses this system. This is where I developed my system for hightlighting only the correct answers, and not confusing myself by reading the wrong ones. Although I do not fly professionally, I hold a commercial pilot certificate with a CFII rating. (look me up on the landings.com pilot database) People often point to the fact that the FAA uses the published test pool system. BUT what they fail to mention is that NO pilot certificate or rating is awarded based on that written test ALONE. A passing grade on the written test buys you your ticket to the flight exam, and that is ALL that it does. The flight exam is comprised of two componants. First there is an oral exam, second there is the in the plane flight exam. It is common to fail either the oral or the in-flight exam. If either one is failed, you don't get to retest until you have completed remedial training.

I understand that radio exams do not involve public safety, however, it is not correct to draw an analogy to pilot exams.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CQ Magazine Survey

by K5MAR on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

A survey is just that, a SURVEY, and dosen't imply any commitment on the part of the survey taker, not even to compile the results. While CQ and it's sister publications, CQ-VHF and Popular Communications, are always "taking the pulse" of their readers, I have never seen any indication that the results of the surveys were intended to bind the publisher in any way. (BTW, I subscribe to all three.) They are interested in what their readers think, and it MAY have an influence on their future actions, but they make no promises.

To those who have criticized CQ for it's "profit" motive, GET REAL! There is more at stake than just the saleries of the staff at CQ. The cost of paying the printer that prints and binds the magazine (a tip of the hat to Don - W9CW for explaining saddle stitch vs. perfect binding) pays the wages of many people involved, some of whom may just be hams also. I work for a different printer, Quebecor-World (the world's largest printer - adv), and I've been involved in Amateur Radio for years. Your subscription fees and the advertising sales indirectly pay my wages and enable me to continue buy equipment and participate in Amateur Radio.

If you only subscribe to magazines that agree with your beliefs 100%, you are going to have a pretty small stack of magazines on your coffee table. I don't receive a single magazine (and I read a lot of magazines) whose entire content I agree with. If I am sufficiently annoyed with something I read, I write a Letter to the Editor, but I figure that for every article I read and "hate", there's an article I really enjoyed that pissed off somebody else. It takes all kinds to make the world, get used to it.

Mark Schneider - K5MAR

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by CURMUDGEON on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Does BSA stand for B--- S--- Artist?

CQ Magazine Survey

by K0RGR on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Well, I have been helping out with teaching the local radio club's Technician classes the last two years. I don't think any of the instructors got perfect scores on the practice test we gave at the end of class! I managed to miss two, and I still don't like their answers!

I know that when my son studied for his exam, we focused on actually learning the material. We actually built a receiver kit, and talked about how all of the circuits worked. We measured resistors in series and parallel, we listened on the air to see how propagation works, learn the band edges, hear the different modes. Basically, we spent at least an hour every night for an entire summer actually learning the material, actually demonstrating most of the things in the 'Now You're Talking' book. He spent hours taking practice tests online, and consistently passed them. Yet, he flunked the exam the first time very badly!

After 10 more days of studying the questions, he aced the test.

If I have an argument with the current tests it is that they are, indeed, now structured like an 'open book' test. I don't know about you, but I truly hated open book exams in college. They asked you relevant questions like "On which page of the text book do they discuss the Roundheads?". This was an actual exam question in my Economics class. The Roundheads were discussed in one short paragraph in this monstrous book with no index. Some of the current exam questions have this same sort of relevance. Next time, I will MAKE time to volunteer for the question committee.

I taught Novice classes back in the 60's and 70's, and the level of effort for the modern Tech written exam seems much higher.

Someone interpreted my comments as support for periodic retesting. No! Never! I think I know a lot more than I did when I passed my Extra, but I am not at all sure I agree with the people who wrote the current tests. I think I'd have to memorize all of their questions and answers.

I think one thing is for certain. If you listen on the air today, you may be amazed at the amount of CW activity on the bands. 10 meters was actually crowded this morning - a condition I haven't heard on a mid-week morning in a couple decades. I think that this debate has caused a lot of us to find our keyers and get back on the air! Hardly anything on SSB - but lots of U.S. and VE CW. 40 was very busy last night at midnight, but 80 was oddly dead save for W1AW and one QSO up in the Novice band.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by CURMUDGEON on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

KE2IV, your turn to die will surely come also. And if you're lucky enough to survive to old age you'll also get to enjoy another generation denigrating your opinions. But you've got it all wrong. Its not cw and die! Its CW or DIE!

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by WB2WIK on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I agree that many hams with vast knowledge and experience would not likely pass the Tech test today without at least studying the questions and answers in the pool. This isn't because they're stupid, it's just because the questions really have changed, and as another said, it's become a bit of a comprehension test; and as another said, not all the "correct" answers are technically correct. But you have to know which incorrect "correct" answer is the right one!

One big difference, though, between "then" and "now" is that while ARRL, Ameco and others published License Manuals which were study guides for the amateur FCC exams, the questions in the books were not exactly the same ones on the tests. In fact, they were "sample" questions, and very likely not on any test at all. Similar questions were on the tests, but not the same ones. That makes it very different. With today's "question pool" published verbatim, someone with an excellent memory and zero understanding of any of the questions could pass.

In the classes I've taught, we always strived to teach the students not what the correct answers were, but how to derive them for themselves by actually understanding the questions and the theory required to do so. More importantly, we taught why it was important to know this stuff, because most of it had practical applications relating to the hobby/service. Knowing how to design a 12-section modern network filter doesn't mean much if you don't know why anyone would use one.

The code test has been the only proficiency test in any subject relating to the amateur radio service and its licensing system. Feel free to replace it with a different, related proficiency test and I'd be all for it. I just can't think of one that can be easily implemented.

WB2WIK/6

CQ Magazine Survey

by K5MAR on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

A survey is just that, a SURVEY, and dosen't imply any commitment on the part of the survey taker, not even to compile the results. While CQ and it's sister publications, CQ-VHF and Popular Communications, are always "taking the pulse" of their readers, I have never seen any indication that the results of the surveys were intended to bind the publisher in any way. (BTW, I subscribe to all three.) They are interested in what their readers think, and it MAY have an influence on their future actions, but they make no promises.

To those who have criticized CQ for it's "profit" motive, GET REAL! There is more at stake than just the saleries of the staff at CQ. The cost of paying the printer that prints and binds the magazine (a tip of the hat to Don - W9CW for explaining saddle stitch vs. perfect binding) pays the wages of many people involved, some of whom may just be hams also. I work for a different printer, Quebecor-World (the world's largest printer - adv), and I've been involved in Amateur Radio for years. Your subscription fees and the advertising sales indirectly pay my wages and enable me to continue buy equipment and participate in Amateur Radio.

If you only subscribe to magazines that agree with your beliefs 100%, you are going to have a pretty small stack of magazines on your coffee table. I don't receive a single magazine (and I read a lot of magazines) whose entire content I agree with. If I am sufficiently annoyed with something I read, I write a Letter to the Editor, but I figure that for every article I read and "hate", there's an article I really enjoyed that pissed off somebody else. It takes all kinds to make the world, get used to it.

Mark Schneider - K5MAR

I'm reposting this, as it didn't appear the first time, my apologies if it ends up appearing twice.

CQ Magazine Survey

by HAMDUDE on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Why would anyone care what CQ magazine thinks? They publish a magazine to make money,just like the ARRL recruits members for money and in turn gives them a rag like QST that is nothing but ads for radio equipment companies. Its all about money with these folks,they could care less about amateur radio.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by AG4XD on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To W1DLS:

Your point is well taken with regard to the practical test aspect of the flight certification requirements of pilots. The closest thing to it in amateur radio is the code test, which is why I have suggested in previous discussons on this topic that a reasonable alternative to the code test would be a practical test (or tests) on other modes of operation.

73,

Jim

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KD7EZE on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

YAWN...........S.S.D.D.

CQ Magazine Survey

by AB0SI on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

The original poster seems to think a magazine should NEVER lead; rather, it should simply follow the opinions of the majority of its subscribers. This strikes me a very bad idea. (Please note that I am NOT commenting on code test/no code test.) IF a magazine strives to be more than a collection of ads, it must take stands. Some of these stands are hidden (for example, are there more do-it-yourself projects for keyers or microphone equalizers?) Some are mor obvious (editorials).

OK< now kindasorta talking about the code issue. I would guess that teh CQ eidtors think that code testing (that's testing, not usage) is going away in the not too distant future. Given that assumption, they are likley trying to lead their readership into the best possible post-code test licensing scheme. This is a reasonable position rather than beating a dead horse. I grant that some lost causes are worth fighting; some are not. It appears CQ puts code testing in the NOT column.

Paul AB0SI (wishing there was a spell check here)

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by K4FAU on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

why do so many folks feel that the ARRL is a lobby group for pro-code. The hve never came out one way or another... and doubtful they will ever... The FCC did exactly what is was suppose to have done -- it asked the citizens of the US to comment on proposed submissions -- over 1800 folks did -- with a mjority stating that they wanted to do away with the code requirement -- thats what is in front of the FCC now...

The ARRL can lobby all they want -- but the way i see it -- the populace has spoken -- and the ARRL has as much of voice, or as little, as No Code Interntional -- either way -- the ARRL is in it for the money -- whatever the FCC decides the ARRL is going to mke sure that it looks good and can somehow make money off the decision.

Brian

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by K4FAU on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

why do so many folks feel that the ARRL is a lobby group for pro-code. The hve never came out one way or another... and doubtful they will ever... The FCC did exactly what is was suppose to have done -- it asked the citizens of the US to comment on proposed submissions -- over 1800 folks did -- with a mjority stating that they wanted to do away with the code requirement -- thats what is in front of the FCC now...

The ARRL can lobby all they want -- but the way i see it -- the populace has spoken -- and the ARRL has as much of voice, or as little, as No Code Interntional -- either way -- the ARRL is in it for the money -- whatever the FCC decides the ARRL is going to mke sure that it looks good and can somehow make money off the decision.

Brian

CQ Magazine Survey

by KC8TDP on November 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Hello,
My name is Charles Clark. I have been a ham for about a couple years now. I first passed my tech in Feb of 2002. I then passed my General written test in April. Then in May I passed the 5 WPM code test. I am now preparing to take the Extra test. I will pass it the same way I did the others. Memorize the answers. Lord have mercy on me a Cheat!! I think not. It takes alot of hard work to memorize all of those answers! Now let's suppose I went to classes or bought a theory book. The results would still be the same. Learn the answers and pass the test. So why go to the expense of classes or buying books when the test pools are free?
Before you hang me at high noon let me ask you a question or two. First of all how many of you guys out there who are high ranked amatuers truly understood the answers you were giving on the day you passed the tests? I dare say that precious few of you REALY understood the answers you were giving. Most likely after all the theory study you didnt realy know how all the electronic parts worked together to get the signal into the air. All that you REALY knew was that when part A and part B were connected you somehow got a signal. Kind of like plug and play computer components. I dont know how that modem works but I do know that when I put it in the right slot and boot up the computer it works! Modern Ham Radio equiptmentis the same!! Do you realy think that reading and somewhat understanding the Extra level theory qualifies you to crack open a new Yaesu , Icom or Kenwood transceiver without voiding the waranty??!!! I think not!! As an extra class theoratician you have no more business in those radios than does my 4 year old boy!
Plug and Play Baby!!! Thats the way we ALL do it. Unless you are one of the very rare ones who have constructed your own. Again I say VERY rare.
Now as for the code I do humbly step aside and tip my hat to all you hams who have succeeded in surpassing 13 wpm. What of the 20 wpm guys? I am not worthy to stand in the same room with you. It is to you folks that I am greatly indebted for the keeping alive of this great hobby so that one such as I may be able to participate.
As for the code rules, neither I,or those who follow behind can be held responsible for their rise or fall. I can only be held responsible for upholding and abiding by the rules in place at the time of my testing. I did not wish to learn the code but because my desire to operate on the phone fregencies outweighed my disdain for the code I learned it well enough to pass the test. If it had still been the 13 wpm standard I would have met the challenge. Alas it was'nt so I did'nt. But I DID abide by the rules that were in place at the time of my testing as I will again when I test for my Extra ticket AND as all of you did when you tested for your tickets!!!!!!!! So in that way we no or little code folks are no different than you. We all went by the rules that were in place when we tested.
Just a thought or two in closing. How many of you folks who were driving cars way back when the fastest anyone was allowed to go was 55 still only drive 55 even though by law you are allowed to go 65??????? Ahem...... Didnt think so.
Also were you guys aware that at the most recent national VE meeting that 59 % of the attending VE's were in favor of dropping the code?
73's KC8TDP

RE: CQ Magazine Survey--QUESTION

by N8YV on November 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Did CQ promise to represent their readers' survey results, i.e., along the lines of "Let's all tell the FCC what we think!" ?

Unless the magazine indicated its intent to forward their survey results to the FCC without mitigation, there is no point whatsoever in attempting to connect their "official" stance with that of their readers'.

If they DID somehow indicate they would faithfully pass along their readers' viewpoints, THEN there would be grounds for argument if the survey contradicts CQ's "official" opinion.

This whole thread's validity hinges on the answer to my question. Otherwise, it's just another way of phase-shifting the issue into yet another code/no-code wasteland.

N8YV

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by NJ0E on November 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

To W9TM

the 'basis and purpose' of the amateur radio service;
from part 97.1:

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

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the
amateur service to the public as a voluntary
noncommercial communication service, particularly with
respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven
ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio
art.

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

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the
amateur radio service of trained operators,
technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique
ability to enhance international goodwill.

if the two young gentleman "freebanders" you are
attempting to "mentor" into the amateur radio service
because they want to "yak on ssb" will not contribute
to helping us already in service fulfill this
"basis and purpose", you are not doing them or any
of the rest of us any favors by helping them get
started in amateur radio.

73
scott
nj0e

CQ Magazine Survey

by AA5GO on November 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

You can say what you want but it is all about one thing and one thing only! MONEY!!!!! more subscriptions means more money. It doesn't matter whether your talking about the arrl or cq magizine, or the radio manufactures. If they stop testing they think that will open the flood gates and have alot more ham radio operators which just equals more money for them. Wake up! They could care less whether it helps or hurts ham radio! It is all about the money and nothing else. It doesn't matter if those numbers were 99% for code and 1% aginist, they are going to do what they want to further there cause (pursuit of the buck) and the hell with what anyone else thinks!

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by AA5GO on November 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Oh another thing too. Not all of you live close enough to canada for it to bother you, but I can tell you that there is nothing more irratating that being in the middle of a nice cw qso and having a canadain ham come right in on top of you with his wide obnoxious ssb signal. Well you really can't blame him, he doesn't know any better, like you said he just memorizes the bood and now he is on the air. I'm also a VE and have had alot of people come test and then not even know what a repeater offset is. Not that I mind mentoring them, its just if you throw the cw test out why not throw the theroy out to? People don't learn anything from them. Lets just make it like cb and then it will suffer the same fate and no one will want to be apart of it. Then guess what? no one will want subcriptions to CQ or QST or to buy a ham radio and they will all go out of busniess anyways

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by OLDFART13 on November 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

My subscription to CQ magazine is about to expire. I will not renew. I will keep up my FISTS membership and my subscription to World Radio and yes, I am still an ARRL member.

Perhaps if CQ magazine had at least supported retaining the CW exam for Extra class they would have gotten some support. Good-bye CQ, perhaps you will go the way of CQ-Contest.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by OLDFART13 on November 27, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

>>>>>by N6AJR on November 25, 2003
"not again...please let it drop for a week"<<<<<

Then why did you respond? Go back to your CB, good buddy.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W6JE on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

How about a spelling test?

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by HAMDUDE on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Cq magazine...you got to have something to line your birds cage with dont you?

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by K1CJS on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

>>What's wrong with keeping the code?<<

Nothing at all! Keeping and using the code is fine--for people who want to do so. Requiring it by keeping the current testing scheme is the whole point of the argument.

Why don't we just wait and see what the FCC is going to do instead of arguing about it here? There is one thing nobody has brought up yet--If the comments made here were made to the FCC, those comments would be tossed out before they were completely read and noted.

The comments made here should be considered and considerate, not rude and in-your-face as they have been.

CQ Magazine Survey

by KG4YJR on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

It's funny how the rest of the developed nations have moved ahead and dropped the code requirement along with changing their license structures. America used to set an example for the rest of the world to follow, now we wait to see what the rest of the world does for fear of offending someone.
We've sent our technology, jobs and apparently our balls overseas.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by OLDFART13 on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

>>>by KG4YJR on November 25, 2003
Good thoughts Bill, K0RGR

It's a safe bet that over 60% of the hams that have had a license for 20 - 30 years plus would not be able to walk right into an exam session, take the current tech license exam without studying and pass.<<<<

So with your less than 1 year of experience as a tech you have determined that most older hams couldn't pass the current Tech license. How did YOU come up with these numbers? My guess is that you pulled them out of your rear end.

Is it any wonder that no one has any respect for you. At least around this area there are a lot of new hams that are good ops and not a bunch of cry babies like you are. If you had any intelligence whatsoever then you would have the mental capacity to earn a general license and not just memorize the answers for the tech exam.

CQ Magazine Survey

by EARTHLING on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"If you spent 1/2 the time studying that you do whinning about learning code you would already have passed your code test!"

But that's YJR's problem, he's too busy whining about the code test and about fellow hams to study! Just like the rest of the complainers. Although he's one of the worst that I've seen. Don't worry, he'll burn out in two, three years tops.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KD7KCP on November 28, 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 73

I think John is right on the money, 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 butt, quit whining and crying 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: CQ Magazine Survey

by K1CJS on November 28, 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.<<

My friend, there are those out there who are as you speak about, but there are technician licensee who advocates code testing abolishment because of their inability to learn code. There are those who continue to try but just cannot get the code down to the point of actual useage because of one reason or another. To state everyone is just too lazy to learn code is a sign of intolerance and just plain stupidity. Please don't put yourself in that class.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KG4YJR on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Richard, KD7KCP sure has a hard-on for CW. He made sure I read his post like his opinion would make me feel bad. What a moron. I never could understand the dumb mentality of some individuals who say that because somebody chooses not to study something that they're too lazy or can't, the fact that they don't want to isn't even a consideration to them. It's obvious that to some, learning the code is their highest life achievement.

CQ Magazine Survey

by EARTHLING on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

<<<Richard, KD7KCP sure has a hard-on for CW. He made sure I read his post like his opinion would make me feel bad. What a moron. I never could understand the dumb mentality of some individuals who say that because somebody chooses not to study something that they're too lazy or can't, the fact that they don't want to isn't even a consideration to them. It's obvious that to some, learning the code is their highest life achievement.>>>

Once again we have YJR badmouthing a fellow ham and resorting to name-calling. And once again I am going to suggest anger management counseling.

As for 'I never could understand the dumb mentality of some individuals who say that because somebody chooses not to study something that they're too lazy or can't, the fact that they don't want to isn't even a consideration to them.' Then stay a technician! If you want to upgrade learn CW and pass the test. If you want the testing revamped just for you then you have some even more serious issues to deal with! The world does not revolve around you nor should you expect it to change for you. Deal with it.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KG4YJR on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Richard, KD7KCP said:

>>This is what I have to say to the lazy, slothful technicians<<

EARTHLING said:

>>Once again we have YJR badmouthing a fellow ham<<

EARTHLING, Do you have double standards or do you only apply your criticisms to my posts and exempt the pro-codes who typically begin the name calling? Do you not recognize words like stupid, lazy, dumb? If you don't then you need a better education or you are a hypocrite.
Angry? Not at all. It tickles me to see all this stupidity over a hobby. You are correct...there are more important things in life and I have many of them. It will never ruin my life if they keep the code or if they drop it. Even if BPL blows the HF bands away I won't lose sleep.

73
Dave

CQ Magazine Survey

by EARTHLING on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

>>>Even if BPL blows the HF bands away I won't lose sleep.<<<

Then you do not care about ham radio and you shouldn't be a part of it. No self respecting ham would make such a statement.

As for KD7KCPs' comment, I didn't care for the generalizations nor the wording, and you didn't see me cheering him on, did you? I didn't feel the need to criticize someone for mere a generalization. However someone as bitter, selfish and seemingly anti-ham as you does need to get a grip on reality. Your lack of respect for the testing requirements, your fellow hams and ham radio is simply appalling. You do not care about the HF bands because you do not have the privileges to operate on them. If you did I bet your attitude on BPL would change, dramatically.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KG4YJR on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

EARTHLING,

You call me anti-ham? I would have to disagree with that. My wife and I have probably done more for ham radio in my short period of time than some of these white trash non-bathers have their entire life.
I've contributed finances to a retirement home so that the residents could afford the study materials on their fixed incomes. Oh yeah...so they could become techs. I've also helped hams with physical and financial hardships that I've read about get their first radio. Even paid for one totally. What you think is good for ham radio I might think otherwise. I don't care if we disagree. No big deal. Plus whether a person loves ham radio or not isn't a license requirement.
Deal with it. I'll be around a lot longer after most of you are silent keys, which in my opinion, will be the second best thing to happen to ham radio after dropping the code.
BTW - Anybody want to buy some good shortwave receivers cheap if BPL comes about?

73
Dave

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KD7KCP on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I do not use CW myself, but I have lived through two element one tests (passed both). I think it is ok to take a five word per minuet Morse code test, it's just part of earning your privilege to use HF. What I don't get is how can one argue that one should receive such a privilege without earning it. Can someone please explain this "even though I don't want to earn something I should get it just because I want it" thing?
Sincerely; slow code general, KD7KCP 73

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KD7KCP on November 28, 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

CQ Magazine Survey

by EARTHLING on November 28, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

<<<I'll be around a lot longer after most of you are silent keys, which in my opinion, will be the second best thing to happen to ham radio after dropping the code.>>>

There's maturity! Your attitude alone is a good justification for the morse code requirement. After all, it's keeping you off of the HF bands.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W1RFI on November 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> We can attract lots of newcomers to amateur radio if
> we just give them licenses. But , is that really
> what you want? I don't. And you fill in the rest.

I can't say as I have seen anyone seriously propose that the FCC just give away licenses. Those few that propose it are, IMHO, just trolling, and the above is no exception.

I personally like the idea of including a reasonable number of questions about the content of sent text as part of the overall written exam. That is a compromise that keeps Morse code testing part of the exams, but tests it the same way that all other modes are tested.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W1RFI on November 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> 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.

For some, that is true, but I have seen people struggle with learning code for over a year. Besides, if the two examples you provide never use CW except to pass the test, perhaps you are offering examples that demonstrate something entirely different than you might have thought.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by KG4YJR on November 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

EARTHLING,

What will your excuse be if I do decide to take the CW test? After all, I do know two foreign languages, something half of your are not capable of accomplishing and the benefits are a lot more useful. CW would not be much of a problem at all. Plus, I guess you don't listen to the trash on 80m. Most of the HF crowd I know personally even criticize the idiots on there.
Personally though, I'm sad for you folks that let amateur radio and CW run your entire lives. Over the years, living in three different countries and cultures I've learned to adapt to changes, another thing you are not capable of. I wouldn't miss ham radio at all if it were gone tomorrow but for some of you it would kill you. Just like in one country I lived in without a television and a telephone for close to two years. Didn't miss it at all. I'm capable of accepting changes, your "maturity" probably wouldn't allow you to. I know that if you don't get the last word too it will keep you up tonight so this will be my last post.

Until the next CW debate...73 and happy holidays :-).

Dave

CQ Magazine Survey

by EARTHLING on November 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

<<<What will your excuse be if I do decide to take the CW test?>>>

You will still have the same bad attitude. And I predict you will burn out in two to three years, tops.

<<<After all, I do know two foreign languages, something half of your are not capable of accomplishing and the benefits are a lot more useful>>>

Another generalization. Many hams speak foreign languages. I know four different languages and am working on a fifth.

<<<I guess you don't listen to the trash on 80m>>>

There isn't any trash on 80M CW. You're referring to the phone portion on the band, 75M. And you’re right I don’t listen to it. I simply go to the more civil portions of the bands, no trash there.

<<<I'm sad for you folks that let amateur radio and CW run your entire lives.>>>

You're the one constantly complaining about it. I choose to use it and enjoy it.

<<<Over the years, living in three different countries and cultures I've learned to adapt to changes, another thing you are not capable of.>>>

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? You know nothing about me.

<<<I lived in without a television and a telephone for close to two years. Didn't miss it at all.>>>

Please go back we won’t miss you.

CQ Magazine Survey

by N1RWC on November 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Don't feel bad about CQ listening. They are just like the ARRL, TAPR, W5YI, and other "Non-Profit" Give me the money and run companies. I do think that you are a little under informed just as they are. The Survey only works if readers send them in. I have yet to send one in.

One other way to look at it is this way.

70 out of 100 people are criminals because they interviewed 100 people outside a courthouse.

Kinda one sided.

Good luck and 73

Matt N1RWC

Subscription Not Renewed

by K7LA on November 29, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I have declined to renew my subscription to CQ.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W8JI on November 30, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

70 out of 100 people are criminals because they Interviewed 100 people outside a courthouse.
Kinda one sided.>>>

Not actually.

Statistically there is nothing that slopes the reader response one way or another. Because of that, even a small sample or response would represent what the majority of CQ readers feel.

It isn't like they put the survey cards only in copies sent to supporters of one side or the other. For example, you seem to not support the results and I do, yet both of us never sent replies in. That's how statistics work, and they work very well as long as the conclusion doesn't misrepresent the poll.

Of course the people who disagree with a result will use the arguement that it is a small sample, but in fact that is an extremely lame argument unless there is some skewing caused by distribution or the way the poll was worded.

For example, a Republican Congressman sent out a poll on how he should vote on NAFTA. One question was worded something like this:

"Do you favor a system where free trade and economic growth is restricted or do you support NAFTA and the resulting creation of jobs for all Americans?"

A similar amateur poll would be:

"Do you favor keeping testing to demonstrate useless CW skills or do you favor modernizing testing by eliminating this barrier to amateur radio?"

A poll like that is useless.

73 Tom

CQ Magazine Survey

by N3TTN on December 1, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

W8JI Wrote: "Statistically there is nothing that slopes the reader response one way or another. Because of that, even a small sample or response would represent what the majority of CQ readers feel."

Precisely. And that is exactly why a survey like this is almost meaningless. It only shows what a majority of readers of ONE publication think on a given subject, and since only 25% of all licensed U.S. amateurs read a ham radio publication of any kind (source: 73 magazine final issue) it only represents a fraction of what all licensed hams in the U.S. think on the CW issue. Beyond being a window into what CQ readers want, it is of no value whatsoever.

CQ Magazine Survey

by AA8X on December 1, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CQ only has an interest in selling more magazines. They have no interest in listening to their current subscribers.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W1RFI on December 1, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

"Full marks to CQ for at least taking a postion on the number one issue, namely the licensing conditions under which we as hams operate at an international level. Unlike the ARRL! I for one am disgusted at the lack of a position the ARRL has taken on this subject. Despite using many thousands of members dollars over a number of years preparing for an international conference that comes around so infrequently they decide the outcome is not important and is led by an FCC that may not "even consider the outcome unitl 2004 at th earliest"! What a great position for a major voice in ham radio!!!"

The ARRL Board of Directors is actively seeking member input on code testing and related issues. I can respect their decision to base any change in ARRL's position on input from the membership. Although in some cases, such as BPL, the League has had to make a pretty fast policy position decision, in this case, they DO have the luxury of time and can set a position that can be carefully considered.

The most important part of that is that members make their views known.

For info on how to contact your ARRL director:

http://www.arrl.org/divisions

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

CQ Magazine Survey

by WB8NUT on December 1, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CQ has to do what they think is best for ham radio. Just because a majority of their readers that responded to a poll (not a scientific poll mind you) want to retain the old, outdated code examination, does not mean it is the right thing to do.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by TECH2003 on December 2, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

>>>>>by N3TTN on December 1, 2003
>>>>>>W8JI Wrote: "Statistically there is nothing that slopes the reader response one way or another. Because of that, even a small sample or response would represent what the majority of CQ readers feel."<<<<<

Precisely. And that is exactly why a survey like this is almost meaningless. It only shows what a majority of readers of ONE publication think on a given subject, and since only 25% of all licensed U.S. amateurs read a ham radio publication of any kind (source: 73 magazine final issue) it only represents a fraction of what all licensed hams in the U.S. think on the CW issue. Beyond being a window into what CQ readers want, it is of no value whatsoever.<<<<<<

I totally agree. 25% of all licensed US hams is meaningless. The CQ survey is only proff that the code shoud be eliminated. They are doing what is best to get more hams and who cares what those old farts think anyway.

CQ Magazine Survey

by KD7KCP on December 2, 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

Sign me up for a subscription!

by WB8NUT on December 2, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

BTW, because of CQ's clear thinking on this old code subject, I have decided to purchase a subscription. You just have to support a company that goes against the tide to do something right by supporting getting rid of this old outdated code test and requirement. To help pay for the subscription, I will not renew membership in FISTS since they support holding on to the old code testing requirements instead of supporting the use of the mode.

CQ Magazine Survey

by WA7NDD on December 2, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

One question, have you seen a QST, or CQ in the last few years that you would keep for a reference on the shelf? I don't put them on a shelf any more, I throw the QST in a box, and toss the CQ's out. I took all the rest off the shelf.

I go to eHam.net almost every day and find more. I'll have to admit I am in a struggle as to drop QST or not, and I may. I get CQ for fee from the collage Library they give them to me a the end of the year. I look at them an toss them out.

Jim, WA7NDD

RE: Sign me up for a subscription!

by CURMUDGEON on December 2, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

WB8NUT, your call gives you away.

CQ Magazine Survey

by N3TTN on December 2, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

A troll/ham wannabe wrote: "WB8NUT, your call gives you away. "

At least he HAS a call. End of story

RE: Sign me up for a subscription!

by WB8NUT on December 2, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Curmudgeon, what a clever response. How long did it take you to come up with that little funny? It is a shame eHam lets cowardly people hide behind an alias.

CQ Magazine Survey

by N9OH on December 3, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I became tired of reading CQ and its associated junk articles on things I don't care about and 100 pages of advertising which I don't read. I've thrown away countless "final chance to renew" offers which come in the mail from CQ, but they just keep coming. I only get QST because its part of membership in the ARRL.... otherwise it'd be outta luck also. Why do ham radio mags contain so much advertising? Its like cable tv... you're paying for tv so you shouldn't have to see as many commercials. I wish! :)

73, Steve

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by W1RFI on December 4, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> Why do ham radio mags contain so much advertising?

I can think of a number of periodicals I buy or subscribe to because I *want* to see the ads. Imagine how little you would know about amateur equipment if it were never advertised anywhere.

Advertising is also a source of revenue -- adding to profits for commercial magazines and funding programs and projects for ARRL. Without advertising in QST, either your dues would have to be quite a bit higher or ARRL would have to stop doing some of its programs and projects. My IEEE membership is over $100 a year, which is pretty close to the value you receive for your ARRL membership. By allowing the postal workers to deliver your QST and not even reading the ads, you get advertisers to pay for matching funds for your membership dollar. The remainder of the difference between your dues dollars and your benefit dollars is funded by revenues over expenses from the sale of ARRL publications and from donations and grants.

It might make a good survey question to ask hams whether they find advertisements in magazines to be of value. I do.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

CQ Magazine Survey

by W7MD on December 4, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

I like CQ and I like QST. I am a long time subscriber to CQ mag and a Life Member Of ARRL.
It is no surprise to me that the magazines, equipment makers and vendors want more new hams in any way they can create them. It is good for THEIR business but it may not be the best thing for OUR hobby and the ham radio "way of life".
I came into ham radio as a Novice - working only CW for 6 months until I traveled to Denver, CO to take my General Class exam. I remember the great feeling of personal achievement when I got my General ticket in 1963. I felt that I now had something of great value that I would never want to lose. I had studied and practiced for 2 years to get something that was very difficult to obtain and I have treasured it since.
I fear that "dumbing down" the license requirements will produce hams who will not have the same sense of value for their amateur radio privileges and will be less likely to stick with the hobby for "the long run".
Damon Raphael, W7MD
Tucson, AZ

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by N9OH on December 5, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

> I can think of a number of periodicals I buy
> or subscribe to because I *want* to see the
> ads. Imagine how little you would know about
> amateur equipment if it were never advertised
> anywhere.

You don't "need" what you don't "know" ! The less goodies I come across in hamfests, trade shows, or advertising... the less I "think" i "need" to have!

I've already offloaded about 40% of my ham radio and test equipment in the past 12 months. My wife thinks I still have too much. :)

73, Steve

RE: CQ ? How about ARRL???

by OLDFART13 on December 5, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

CQ magazine doesn't care about ham radio except for the fact that they can make money from it. W5YI, WB6NOA and CQ will sell out what is best for ham radio to make the almighty dollar that they worship.

CQ Magazine Survey

by K6KSG on December 12, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Yes, I am very upset with CQ Magazine. I have been a ham for 45 years and a commercial CW operator for 23 years. Why is it that the new breed of hams want all the privileges in HF and don't think they have to work for it? They can have all the privileges on VHF & UHF without code testing. But no they want the same privileges on HF too.

ARRL has been sitting on the fence as well on this issue. I always thought ARRL was to protect the ham frequencies and help with regulations. Help protect the body of ham radio in general.

The resoning behind all this is that people say why should we learn the code if we are not going to use that mode? Well, same thing, why did we have to study the theory about satellite, packet, slow scan TV, RTTY, fast scan TV, EME, and on an on? If we were not interested in using those modes?

Simple, it gives us the knowledge of the other modes and the theory behind them. It gives the hams a good working knowledge base of the electronics involved. Who knows, down the road we might use these other modes of operation. At least we have a working knowledge of them.

There is a -T- shirt I saw at a Ham fest that read "HAM RADIO WITHOUT CW IS HAM RADIO WITH CB"

Lets keep the code requirement, 5 WPM isn't that difficult to obtain.

Otherwise, lets let the BPL folks go ahead with their plan, then we all can use our computers and Echo net for our hobby, better yet our cell phones.

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by K6BBC on December 12, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

It’s very simple. Attitudes like the above will kill this hobby off in 20 years.

K6BBC

RE: CQ Magazine Survey

by OLDFART13 on December 12, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

It's very simple. 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.

CQ Magazine Survey

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: CQ Magazine Survey

by K6BBC on December 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Oh really OLDFART13?!!! I’ve been on the air for 35 years and I can tell you there are FAR LESS hams using the spectrum than in the past. There may be more hams by number, but not frequency usage. And, as I have been screaming for several years, young people are no longer joining the hobby. Why? Because the hobby is now populated by old geezers who wish for nothing but the status quo. Why? We are a hobby that presents itself as a haven for the wannabee safety officer or volunteer police or the hall monitor. Why? Are public image is one any nerd would take pride in. If we even have a public image anymore.

It is time for a renewed hobby. A hobby that will attract kids again. Kids in the 21st Century have minds that move faster than 5 WPM. There are very few who will be interested in learning a language their grandfather used.

WAKE UP YOU FOOLS!

K6BBC

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles

Canada Seeks to Lower Morse Requirement

Why Learn the Code?

Typing is Just a Mode!

My Quest for the Ultimate Key

No Code Dot Org

Other Editorial Articles

The SB Project

Hamming It Up, The Early Years

Managing Ham Radio Estate Sales

How to Spot a Scam

JARL Ham Fair 2009

$\'\'$