League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 23, No 05
on
January 30, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC:
The ARRL has filed a Petition for Rule Making asking the FCC to amend its
Part 97 rules to complete the Amateur Service restructuring the Commission
left unfinished in 1999. The League wants the FCC to create a new
entry-level license, reduce the number of actual license classes to three
and drop the Morse code testing requirement for all classes except for
Amateur Extra (see "ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF
Access"
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/). The ARRL says
its petition follows in the footsteps of changes in Article 25 of the
international Radio Regulations adopted at World Radiocommunication
Conference 2003. Among those changes, WRC-03 left it up to individual
countries to determine whether or not to mandate Morse testing for HF
access. While several countries--including Germany, the UK and
Australia--already have dropped their Morse requirements, the ARRL
emphasized in its petition that Morse code is not the central issue.
"Changes in Morse telegraphy are one aspect of the proposal, and it would
be insufficient for the Commission to address those issues in a vacuum,"
the League said, calling its licensing proposal "a plan for the next
decade." The ARRL said that plan's overall intention is "to encourage
newcomers to the Amateur Service and to encourage those who enter its
ranks to proceed further on a course of technical self-training and
exposure to all aspects of the avocation."
Last fall a total of 14 Morse-related petitions were filed with the FCC.
Several called on the Commission to drop the Morse requirement altogether,
while others proposed to keep and even expand the requirement or put forth
various license restructuring schemes of their own. The petitions,
RM-10781-10787 and RM-10805-10811, attracted thousands of comments from
the amateur community.
Beyond the Morse question, the ARRL says, the time is right--now that
WRC-03 has finished its work--to follow through on the restructuring
process the FCC began with its 1999 restructuring Report and Order (WT
98-143)
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt98-143ro.pdf. Among
other things, that landmark Order, which became effective April 15, 2000,
reduced the number of Morse code test elements from three to a single 5
WPM requirement for all license classes offering HF privileges.
Simply dropping the Element 1 (5 WPM) Morse requirement, the ARRL
asserted, would fail to address the critical need for an entry-level
ticket other than the Technician. Calling the Technician license "a dead
end" for many people, the ARRL said its proposed entry-level
license--being called "Novice" for now--would offer newcomers a much wider
sampling of Amateur Radio. It would require passing a 25-question written
examination--but no code test--and offer limited HF phone, image, CW and
data privileges at modest power output levels.
"This structure provides a true, entry-level license with HF and other
operating privileges which will both promote growth in the Amateur Service
and integrate newcomers into the mainstream of Amateur Radio," the ARRL
told the FCC. "It will better introduce newcomers to more seasoned
licensees who will assist them."
The League proposal also would consolidate current Technician and General
licensees into General class without further examination. Future General
applicants would not have to pass a code test, but the written exam would
remain the same. Current Advanced licensees would be merged into Amateur
Extra class without further testing, and the Extra exam would remain
intact. The ARRL proposal would retain the Element 1 Morse exam for Extra
class applicants.
The ARRL said its overall plan dovetails with the FCC philosophy and goals
stated in its 1999 Report and Order--to simplify the license structure and
streamline the licensing process. The League said its plan would implement
licensing requirements and privileges that are in harmony with each other
and is designed to attract and retain "technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country" and encourage them to advance in
areas "where the United States needs expertise."
"Now, the issue is not merely whether there should or should not be Morse
telegraphy as an examination requirement," the ARRL said, "but rather what
is the best overall approach for positioning the Amateur Service for
future growth and incentive-based self-training."
A copy of the ARRL's Petition for Rule Making is available on the ARRL Web
site
http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/restrux2-petition.pdf. The
FCC has requested that individuals refrain from contacting or attempting
to comment to the FCC on the ARRL's restructuring proposal before the FCC
issues a Rule Making (RM) number for the ARRL petition and invites public
comments on it. Until that happens, it is premature to comment to the FCC.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 05
January 30, 2004
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by K7FD on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It would be a bit of an oxymoron to receive one's code free license in a box of CW Post cereal, wouldn't you say?
73 John K7FD www.cwoperator.com
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by KC5NMW on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If we want amateur radio to survive in this age of computers and wireless web we have to accept change. No matter how much we may disagree with it. Instead of dumbing down as so many are worried about we might just get some youth interested in the hobby instead of the internet. And who is to say maybe a new and improved influx of ideas as well as inventions. I myself have renewed my membership in the ARRL and will seek to help get this "Plan for the Next Decade" accepted and embrased by both sides of the argument.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by W8VOM on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey...this ARRL Plan for the future will be EXCELLENT for Disaster training!!! Novices and No Code Generals who are also (lite) on theory all thrown together in some cases on the (same band) will be the best disaster training of all time...BRAVO ARRL! Youve done it again... W8VOM
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by AH6GI on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's do it.
It's about time that we correct the errors of the 1960's and get HR moving forward.
While the geezers might want to keep on nattering on 75 meter LSB, hollaring "Dag-nabbit" and "Kids these days!", they can keep doing that while the rest of us move ahead.
I suggest that FISTS, take up issuing CW endorsements that folk can add to their websites and QSL cards, maybe sponsor slow-speed contests and high speed contests. Perhaps they can issue certificates for the most "novices" and "techs" worked. Make it FUN. For CW newcomers, they can get certificates, CW-Century Club - 100 CW QSO's.
You CW nut-cases can help by sending out QSL cards to commemorate the QSOs. I remember when I got my first DX QSL card as a novice. I worked a JA on 15 meter CW!
Since the VEC's are volunteers, what's to prevent them from testing folk at 10, 15, 20, 25 WPM and publishing that info in a Database. It's more work for them but a $5 testing fee might pay for the test. Also CW types could do their part to monitor the tests.
There's no reason that the VEC's couldn't have an "EXTRA-Hard" technical exam. Publish those results in the same database.
de ah6gi/4
de ah6gi/4
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by PH1PH on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I do hope that the ARRL realise that they are going against the IARU's stated policy on morse testing by doing this. Not only that, they are effectively ignoring the IARU constitution which binds members associations to promote IARU policies. Why oh why is the ARRL going it alone ?
PH1PH
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
HAM RADIO, IS RADIO AND/OR ELECTRONICS. Why are all you people trying to tie in computers, internet...etc...we have ALWAYS been Radio/electronis associated with experiments and either CW or Phone. Why are you all trying to make it more. We dont need all the other stuff...Most of you people need to go away real fast and find another hobby. Leave ours alone. The arrl is ruining ham radio with all this garbage. I have resigned from arrl, and have encouraged everyone in my area to do the same. YOU SHOULD DO THE SAME. Its a statement. We have been too relaxed, and let the lazy no goods into our hobby/service; and I am not referring to CB operators. There are lots of them good operators and try to do whats right. I was never a CB operator, but know several and they are nice people as a whole. RADIO-ELECTRONICS-RADIO-ELECTRONICS-RADIO-ELECTRONICS. CW TODAY, TOMORROW, AND FOREVER.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KF4NRM on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The "old-fashioned" ham operators who are against no code HF privileges need to get over it. No code licenses will soon be here to stay. While CW has its uses, it is not for everyone....
"Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin"
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AA4PB on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok CWTITAN, so we should eliminate all modes from Amateur radio that don't personally interest you. Now that sounds fair to everyone :-)
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by SSBDX on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Send the ARRL and the FCC to Mars.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by SSBDX on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The code and no coders have alot more in common than most seem to think. Both groups are filled with morons.
The pro code hams seem to push the "if I had to learn it, so will you" mentality. The no code hams to be are saying "I want the rules to change just for me 'cause I'm too lazy to even attempt to learn any code".
If even a few pro coders would say " I had to learn code but its probably time to reduce test requirements for it", I could have some respect for that position.
If the no coders said " I really don't like code but if its a requirement then I will at least try to learn it instead of expecting the world to change just for me", I could have some respect for that position.
Since neither group seems to want to use their brain, ham radio is what it is today because of how the general ham population thinks. The answer to all those "how do we get more hams into ham radio" questions could be answered "get rid of most of the current ham population first!".
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
the reason you and all the others are here today is because "WE HAVE ALWAYS USED OUR BRAINS" the problem is, you people aren't using yours. WE DON'T NEED THE ARRL, AND YES,,,,TAKE ALL THOSE MODES AND TRASHCAN THEM. LETS GET BACK TO THE REAL RADIO/ELECTRONICS HOBBY/SERVICE. YOU GUYS GO ELSEWHERE,,,,FAST!!!!
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by W8VOM on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey...this ARRL Plan for the future will be EXCELLENT for Disaster training!!!
Novices and No Code Generals who are also (lite) on theory all thrown together (same band) will be the best disaster training of all time...BRAVO ARRL! Youve done it again... W8VOM
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I do hope that the ARRL realise that they are going
> against the IARU's stated policy on morse testing by
> doing this.
Indeed. The IARU has recommended that member organizations support dropping element 1 altogether. The ARRL representative to the IARU, by the way, voted for this policy.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Among other snotty remarks, SSBDX said: "If even a few pro coders would say " I had to learn code but its probably time to reduce test requirements for it", I could have some respect for that position."
In response to pressure groups such as No Clue International, code testing requirements have already been reduced to the absolute minimum, even for Extra Class. How would you "reduce" requirements any further without eliminating them altogether? Memorize only vowels, perhaps? It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N4QA on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll see your Dylan and raise you...The Grass Roots' lament on CW...
"As love is reality
When you are near to me, I am in ecstacy.
I'd swallow the pain and pride
Baby, I just can't hide all that I feel inside, and"
"I'd wait a million years
Walk a million miles, cry a million tears.
I'd swim the deepest sea
Climb the highest hill, just to have you near me."
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by KG4TZY on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In a weird kind of way this whole thing has made me want to learn CW. Its strange and I cant explain why. Hmmmm...I had no desire whatsoever to learn it before.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CWTITAN said: "...HAM RADIO, IS RADIO AND/OR ELECTRONICS. Why are all you people trying to tie in computers..."
Errr...have you looked inside any radio made withing say the last 20 yrs or so? I think you'll find at least one microprocessor there.
In case you haven't noticed, the world of communications is going digital, it's going software-defined, and it's going high speed and that means computers. You may not like it and wish to stick with earlier technology and that's fine but amateur radio as a whole had better embrace it or it'll eventually just fade away into irrelevance.
BTW, last time I looked, computers were still being built from electronic components so what's your problem?
Pete
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N1OC,
What I am talking about is the total stupidity of 2 groups who think only their respective interests are important. Its about 2 groups who think they can dictate to everyone else as if they own ham radio. Its about the general attitude toward new ideas and change if you need a very simple concept explained to you.
I doubt that you get it even after it is explained.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX:
Oh, I understand perfectly what you have said. You've avoided my question, though. Perhaps you'd go so far as to require license applicants to memorize all the consonants, then?
Not all "new ideas and change" are necessarily good for the hobby. Proposed changes need to be examined carefully, especially when they are put forth by groups with vested interests. Most of the so-called "new ideas" put forth in these forums amount to: "I'm so high-tech. I don't wanna learn Morse, it's too much like work for a mouse jockey like me." That's actually a variation on very old idea-- laziness.
Finally, why can't you no-coders ever get my callsign right? I'm not sending it in Morse here!
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by NY7Q on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BOYCOTT THE ARRL. WE DONT NEED THEM
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>I do hope that the ARRL realise that they are going against the IARU's stated policy on morse testing by doing this. Not only that, they are effectively ignoring the IARU constitution which binds members associations to promote IARU policies. Why oh why is the ARRL going it alone?<<<
IARU policy gives the individual member countries the option of requiring code testing. It is the individual countries that have said 'we won't require code testing anymore.' That is whom the ARRL is going against. They are bending to the will of a group of avid CW lovers who can't see that CW is no longer the primary means of communication anymore. Don't get me wrong, CW still has its place, but testing on it shouldn't be required.
The ARRL is simply doing what any organization tries to do--please the greatest number of its members. That's why it wants to drop morse testing for one class license but retain it for the other. This way, the ARRL makes the best of a bad situation. They know they're not going to please everybody, but they hope to please and placate the greatest number.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>HAM RADIO, IS RADIO AND/OR ELECTRONICS. Why are all you people trying to tie in computers, internet...etc...we have ALWAYS been Radio/electronis associated with experiments and either CW or Phone. Why are you all trying to make it more. We dont need all the other stuff...Most of you people need to go away real fast and find another hobby. Leave ours alone.<<<
Sorry pal, it is also our hobby. I suppose computers are made of light bulbs and macaroni? They are electronic equipment also. How much of a modern radio has the parts and circuitry that come directly from computer and electronic research? It is only natural that radio transmitters and receivers and computers have come together.
Get with the times, sir. Like the commercial used to say, 'this ain't your fathers Oldsmobile', so too 'this ain't your fathers ham rig.'
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>In a weird kind of way this whole thing has made me want to learn CW. Its strange and I cant explain why. Hmmmm...I had no desire whatsoever to learn it before.<<<
It is weird, think about it--you want to see what the awful argument is over before you get sick of all the baloney being spewed out because of it and throw up! :-)
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, and BTW, I know Oldsmobile is out of business--the same way ham radio might be in 20 to 30 years if an end isn't put to all this bulls*it.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N10C,
Man, you are pathetic. Is your 13 or 20 wpm cw accomplishment all you have in your life? And does any attempt to retire the cw requirement threaten the little you have to hold on to as any kind of accomplishment in your life?
You are typical thousand year old fart. Why?
You think anyone who isn't a diehard cw supporter must be someone who never passed a code test? You are wrong. I passed more code tests at an FCC facility than you probably have. You know nothing but you assume everything. That is what makes people like you a total dumb ass.
You also think that if someone that has no interest in doing something you did, they must be lazy. How self centered are you? Do you also think the ham world revolves around you and what you value?
And I like your call better as N1OC.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by AC7DX on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I worked hard for my extra...20wpm etc,that was the way it was then, but "times, they are changing". I welcome all people and all license class to ham radio. Just because I passed 20wpm and you may not have to does NOT make me a better operator or a better person or you a less operator or person. Welcome to ham radio and enjoy all you can. Learn all you can be it on VHF or HF. Its a great hobby and has been for me during 50 years
73
Ron
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I hate to put it this way, but I think ham radio (and the ARRL) may be a much better hobby than it is now, when alot of the bitter, arrogant, bossy old 50+ farts die off. (There are some 50- farts too.)
If ham radio is still around 20 years from now, I hope the 30+ hams that become 50+ hams, will be more tolerant than the old farts are now.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> IARU policy gives the individual member countries
> the option of requiring code testing. It is the
> individual countries that have said 'we won't
> require code testing anymore.'
I think you have the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) confused with another organization. The IARU has recommended that member organizations propose removing element 1 (or its equivalent.) The ARRL member of the IARU voted for this recommendation when it was proposed.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX:
You who provide no identification proceed to call my by an incorrect callsign even after being corrected. How arrogant is that? Do you behave that way on the air?
If you want to get into comparing code credentials, let me just say that passing the Extra Class 20 wpm in front of FCC examiners (which I did twice, because I left the hobby for a while and let my license lapse) was a big yawn for me. I was copying 40 wpm with pencil and paper, ragchewing at 55 wpm, and head copying 65 wpm for years before I bothered taking the exam.
I don't expect everyone else entering the hobby to share my interests, however I have consistently argued (to the FCC and in in these forums) that it is important to maintain Morse testing (at the very minimal level of 5 wpm) as a pre-requisite for entry to the HF bands. I don't see it as an absolute necessity; however I maintain that those who argue for the complete elimination of the requirement have failed to assess the impact of their proposals.
What angered me about your earlier post was your claim that the pro-code side was somehow inflexible, and unwilling to compromise on the code testing issue. I pointed out (and you have yet to respond to this) that the testing requirements have already been compromised a great deal. Five words per minute is the speed that most people can handle when they have memorized the characters. This speed indicates literacy, not proficiency with Morse as a language. If that's as fast as I could got, I'd be bored with it too.
So, SSBDX, go ahead and have the last word. I'm not responding to you any more as long as you remain unidentified and refuse to respect me enough to use my callsign.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>I think you have the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) confused with another organization. The IARU has recommended that member organizations propose removing element 1 (or its equivalent.) The ARRL member of the IARU voted for this recommendation when it was proposed.<<<
You're right. Sorry.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by NY7Q on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
boycott the ARRL to save ham radio...we dont need them. RESIGN TODAY. boycott BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT THE ARRL.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by NY7Q on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K1CJS, ANOTHER "LITE" TECHNICIAN. BET YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLDER A PL-259. GO AWAY SONNY.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ny7q said: "...boycott the ARRL to save ham radio...we dont need them. RESIGN TODAY. boycott BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT THE ARRL..."
This seems less than constructive advice and you've failed to convince me that such action is required to 'save' ham radio - save it from what? Sorry to disappoint you but they'll continue to receive my dues and support.
Ny7q then went on to shout: "...K1CJS, ANOTHER "LITE" TECHNICIAN. BET YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLDER A PL-259. GO AWAY SONNY..."
So much for the elmering spirit - this constitutes equally useless advice.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by AK7T on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As an Extra since 1980 I think it is obvious that I went through the code "beltline." That doesn't mean I savored the experience, although I'm glad I did it. I'm also one of the 50+ "farts", but I happen to favor the proposed changes. As emergency cooridinator for a low-population Montana County, I have really had to scrape to find ARES volunteers. Hopefully these changes will enable me to attract some potentially good ops to my classes and eventually to ARES work. Of course, they will need mentoring. It will be up to all of us to help them fit in and learn procedures, etc.
Those who insist on calling them a "lite" whatever are not doing the hobby or its purposes any good. To me a tolerant temperament is more valuable than skill at one particular aspect of radio operating. Also proclaiming negatives about the ARRL and shouting "Boycott" are not solutions; they are reactions! Face it, the ARRL is our voice. If you don't like what that voice is saying, where would you have the most influence for change - from the outside or from the inside?
VIVA ARRL!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, I think CW interest in increasing for several reasons:
A) Compromise antennas lead to the "more miles per watt" meaning CW and PSK31 rules.
B) Newbies are asking the question "why do these CW farts love the mode so much (and why am I missing out on it?)"
C) What do all those dits and dahs really mean below the SSB bands? Secret codes?
And in today's topsy-turvy, youth mentality of "bad is good" and "you aren't normal till you are nonconformal" then
D) If someone tells me CW is bad and terrible and everybody else uses SSB....then by all means, I should be doing CW!!!
Insane....absolutely insane!!
Steve, KE4MOB
dit dit
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K9KJM on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL proposal for the future is great!
A "simple" starter novice class with very limited
privileges, The General class license (With no change in the written exam) And the Extra class, Which still
requires some knowledge of CW, And the same written
exam.
The only part I take exception to is the "transition"
of present no-code tech class to general without taking the general written exam. THIS IS WRONG!
And of many no code techs I have talked to, Even they do not want this! All I talked to said they would be happy to take the written general exam, And to study
HF operating procedures. All they asked for was the
elimination of the CW portion of the test to get on
HF!
The transition can be easily be done any number of ways
properly. Allow a year for present day no code techs to take and pass the written general exam to upgrade.
If they have not done so in a year (Or whatever time)
they will be given the new Novice class license....... (Which, Other than the power limitation on VHF and UHF, Would be giving them more
privileges than before!)
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> If they have not done so in a year (Or whatever
> time)they will be given the new Novice class
> license....... (Which, Other than the power
> limitation on VHF and UHF, Would be giving them more
> privileges than before!)
Downgrading Technician licencees to Novice would eliminate all of their operating privileges above 70 cm. This would be repeating the major mistake made in the incentive-licensing restructuring of the 1960s, taking away privileges.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> boycott the ARRL to save ham radio...we dont need
> them. RESIGN TODAY. boycott BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT
> THE ARRL.
Could you outline your plan to continue the work of ARRL bringing amateur radio into the classroom, supporting emergency communications and interfacing with industry and the FCC to protect amateur access to spectrum. When you do so, also tell us how much of that work you intend to do. To "save amateur radio" requires a lot more than a few eham.net posts and a boycott... But tell us about your plan for the future of amateur radio past your posts and boycott. If it is a better way for me to accomplish my objectives in ham radio, I will join you.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NY7Q wrote:
>>>K1CJS, ANOTHER "LITE" TECHNICIAN. BET YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLDER A PL-259. GO AWAY SONNY.<<<
Another 70 year old 'sour grapes' extra who did it the 'hard way'. For your information, sir, I make my own cables and repair AND MODIFY my own equipment--even the newer SMT equipment. DO YOU?????
|
| |
|
RE: League proposes dumbing down of ham radio!
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ask yourself "What seperates us from CB now"?
Then ask yourself "What will make us different from CB if the ARRL's proposal is adopted"?
W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!
|
| |
|
RE: League proposes dumbing down of ham radio!
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"boycott the ARRL to save ham radio...we dont need
them. RESIGN TODAY. boycott BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT
THE ARRL.
AMEN!
I resigned my membership.....when will you do YOUR PART to help save ham radio?
W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!
|
| |
|
RE: League proposes dumbing down of ham radio!
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Downgrading Technician licencees to Novice would
>eliminate all of their operating privileges above 70
>cm. This would be repeating the major mistake made in
>the incentive-licensing restructuring of the 1960s,
>taking away privileges.
>73,
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
What would be wrong in giving existing Novices priviledges above 70 cm? Since we're thinking about giving Tech-Pluses General privileges and Advanced Extra priviledges, why not give Novices Technician priviledges and call them all Novices?
Novices and techs should be realigned into one Novice class. The permissible frequencies for the "new" Novice class should consist of the HF Novice bandplan proposed by the ARRL plus the existing Tech allocations above 30 MHz.
Tech pluses can be realigned to General with the VEC's responsible for processing and verifying upgrades...heck, charge each applicant for the 610 if the VEC wants whine about it...if the applicant can't prove CW credit, then he/she goes to Novice.
Advanced gets upgraded to Extra per the ARRL proposal.
I think this would be more in line with everyone's operating level.
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
RE: League proposes dumbing down of ham radio!
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Ask yourself "What seperates us from CB now"?<<<
Answer: The testing INCLUDING code testing.
>>>Then ask yourself "What will make us different from CB if the ARRL's proposal is adopted"?<<<
Answer: The testing, but it should be intensified.
BTW, from a PROUD ARRL member. The only mistakes in their proposal is the automatic upgrade from Tech to General (although the theory tests are almost the same) and KEEPING THE BLOODY CODE REQUIREMENT!!
Support the ARRL! They need help to fight for the real threat to ham radio -- BPL!!!
|
| |
|
RE: League proposes dumbing down of ham radio!
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE asks:
"...Ask yourself "What seperates us from CB now"?..."
Hmmm, that would be:
1) A series if licensing levels requiring demonstation of knowledge approriate to the class of license desired.
2) A willingness to follow the rules associated with the granted license class.
3) A desire to participate in communication via radio using a variety of modes and frequencies typically resulting in increased knowledge of the underlying systems and procedures.
"...Then ask yourself "What will make us different from CB if the ARRL's proposal is adopted"?..."
See 1) and 2) and 3) above.
"...I resigned my membership.....when will you do YOUR PART to help save ham radio?..."
I will renew my membership at the appointed time and continue to support the only national organization representing Amateur Radio.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League proposes dumbing down of ham radio!
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whoops!
>>>Support the ARRL! They need help to fight for the real threat to ham radio -- BPL!!!<<<
I goofed! I meant to fight AGAINST the real threat to ham radio -- BPL!
Am I red faced! :-))
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by WB2AZE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I for one, think the ARRL's proposal is a good idea.
I am a District Emergency Coordinator for ARES. For those who do not know, there is more to amateur radio then chasing dx or arguing about CW. One of the reasons the FCC allows amateur radio to exist at all is to assist in the event of an emergency.
With that said, 95% of the members of my counties ARES members are no-code techs! I find that the pro code people that many list as being "Old Farts" absolutely refuse to even participate in ARES. If an emergency arises on the repeater, they are the first ones to leave the frequency to find a spot to continue their rag chewing.
As a person involved in emergency communications, i value everybodies assistance. But when I ask them for assistance with antennas or power supplies, they say they are way "too busy doing other things like chasing DX, or working on satelites".
With answers like that, i learned to appreciate the no-coders that go out of their way to learn emmcomm procedures, help out, and join ARES.......
I would rather have 100 no code hams versus 1 old fart that knows the code and refuses to help.
David Kanitra
WB2AZE
DEC Hunterdon County NJ
Advanced class License (taken at the FCC Office in Langhorn PA)
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KC7MM on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To AC7DX,
As another ham who passed the 20 wpm code exam, I agreed with you 100%.
I realize that propagation isn't the greatest, but I did the "use it or lose test" on the HF bands again this weekend. The vast majority of our HF spectrum was once more a wasteland. Don't believe me? Then try it out yourself. Start at 10 meters and dial away through 160. I did it in the morning, early afternoon, and after sunset. There just isn't this overcrowding of the bands some people complain about.
Let's get this code issue behind us and work together to get more people on the air on HF.
73 & DX,
Dale KC7MM
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K7VO on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi,
While I find the ARRL proposal somewhat flawed I am supporting it. My main objection to what the ARRL is doing is the grandfathering of all Technician class licensees to General without further testing. Back when I upgraded from Novice to Tech in 1984 the written test was the same as for General. At some point (I forget when) that changed and the HF questions were removed from the Technician question pool. People who passed the old General written exam should, of course, be grandfathered. People who didn't should not be. I don't see why there shouldn't be a lame duck Technician class similar to the Novice and Advanced class licenses now. No new Tech licenses would be issued but existing ones would remain unchanged.
I also would like to see the Novice class license be similar to the Foundation class license in the U.K. or the Japanese Novice license. In both countries Novices get HF voice, but at 10W or less. QRP forces one to learn good operating techniques. If you want to operate at a higher power level learn enough to do so safely, to comply with RF biohazard regulations, etc... and take another test.
Having said all that, the ARRL proposal is a good compromise between the no-code and the know-code crowds.
Oh, and despite the tripe posted by some CW ops here I don't believe they are representative of the majority, so... I won't be throwing away my key or my CW QRPp portable rigs anytime soon.
73,
Caity
K7VO
|
| |
|
RE: Proposed "dumbing down" ham radio!
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2AZE writes:
"I find that the pro code people that many list as being "Old Farts" absolutely refuse to even participate in ARES"
I guess I must be an "old fart":
1) Don't own an orange vest;
2) Don't own a badge;
3) No blue light on my dash;
4) I Don't feel important providing "doughnut and coffee communications" for the "Sally Wagon";
5) Don't think we should be referred to as "professionals" instead of "Amatuers"; and
6) I don't think that a bunch of "amateurs" can do it better than the professionals;
And to tell you the truth, I don't want to be associated with people that do. Don't get me wrong. As a former flight paramedic, I think volunteering is great, but I don't want anything to do with orange vest wearing, badge toting, blue light flashing egomaniacs that think they can do what the paid professionals do with far less training and expirence. When I was a paramedic, we called such people "wannabees".
W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7VO:
I like your idea concerning HF privileges with power restrictions, modeled after the U.K. and Japan. I wonder though about the difficulties in enforcing a 10 watt power limit with the availability of so many 100 watt transceivers.
Glad to know you aren't throwing away your code key!
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade
|
|
|
by KH6OO on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THIS IS WHAT MAKES ME SICK! EVERYONE JUST STOP AND TAKE A MIN TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE POST!!!!
Take an honest neutral count of the bashing and name-calling. It is waited about 99 to 100 with pro-coders bashing the hell out of the no-codes while they just try to explain their positions on the matter! I have not seen this kind of disrespect in anything I have ever done in my life.
The one thing you pro-coders had was that you met nice people on the air. Now the walls come down and we see the real attitudes of your "click".
I think Morse code is a fun mode to use and have learned it just to try it but never really thought it should be a requirement in this day and age. I still tell people to give it a try for the fun of it, BUT NOMORE!! You all can have your little party down on the low end were low people loathe. But when you find the band segment shrink with expansions of data and phone in the future, please review this post and remember (or realize) how much of a "POMPOUS ASS" you all were!
I liked code but because of this and other posts, I GIVE UP!!! You can have it; I don't need or want to associate with all your low morals. This use to be a hobby I wanted my daughter to enjoy. Now I have to restrict her veiwing of online fourms regarding it and maybe segments of the band. Maybe its just not worth it.
Anyone want to buy a Dual Imbedic/Straight Key?
Tom
KH6OO
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N5QXP on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I sleep on my side because of the knife that the ARRL has stuck in my back with the proposed automatic "upgrade" of Techs & Tech Plus op's.
Today I get a letter from the ARRL asking me to donate $1000 to maintain the W1AW transmitter site.
What's next? A request from the ARRL asking us to buy life memberships for the proposed new "BoxTop" Generals? Or maybe we should welcome them into the fraternity by buying them all new rigs, at our expense.
It seems that's where we are headed. In this nanny society, the sniveling whiners get everything they want.
I'm just waiting for the PC Police to sue the FCC, claiming that class based licenses should be eliminated - because we might embarass underachievers.
Don't believe it could happen? Check this article out from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110104,00.html
Dubious Honors
Public schools in Nashville, Tenn., have stopped posting honor rolls because to do so might make underachievers feel bad, reports The Associated Press.
After a couple of parents complained that their children might be ridiculed for not making the list, lawyers for the school district said releasing the honor rolls might violate privacy laws.
In an apparent snowball effect, some schools have since put a stop to academic pep rallies and decided not to hang exemplary work in the hallways for fear of embarrassing even more underachievers. There’s even talk of canceling spelling bees.
|
| |
|
League Files Plan for dumbing down ham radio
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N5QXP writes:
"What's next? A request from the ARRL asking us to buy life memberships for the proposed new "BoxTop" Generals? Or maybe we should welcome them into the fraternity by buying them all new rigs, at our expense"
You laugh, but whom among us 2 years ago would have thought that the ARRL would be knifing us in the back with such a plan. Two years from now, these same whiners will be complaining that "its not fair" that some hams have a MK-V and a beam....us no-coders should have them also!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey ssbdx..what most of us are really afraid of for instance is. I'm 49 and may have 30 more years of radioing left in me. What kind of a mess am i going to live to see you turn my wonderful hobby into. I run heavy equiptment and there are cb radios in some of those dozers etc. I cant believe what i hear there usually all the time and you want us to sit on our rears and just let that take over the amateur ranks without speaking up??? "Hell No"...it probably will happen especially if the arrl can make a buck off of it. We're not just going to sit around and watch it go to crap though without speaking up and putting the blame where the damn blame is due. There should be no upgrades without a test. Our bitching is not directed at the advance class guys and gals either. When i took my advanced years ago it was the harder test..now the extra test is a tuff one also. The gripe is a tech that usually knows nothing at all about radio getting a free upgrade..right off cb to general class amateur license. Again this is not about code so guys stop trying to cover up the real issue here. We've simply been sold out by the league for great numbers of cbers that they know will join and pay membership dues.
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
wr8d,
I have no idea what you are exactly accusing me of but I don't really care anyway. But I can tell you that hams can't see that hams are making ham radio suck. Hams are a strange bunch of poorly socialized people, always mad at something, can't control their anger, want to order everyone else to do what they want, blah, blah, etc.. If hams would stop trying to control ham radio (which they can't but some believe they can), and just do their thing, things would be different.
But thats not going to happen.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC7MM Hi Dale...a lot of what you are "not" hearing is due to solar flares and the sun spot cycle is going down. 10 is dead here as is 15..17 comes and goes 40 is a mess and 80 is even coming and going. This by no means though indicates the need to dumb down our requirements to become amateur operators. We just need to let old sol get his act back together. Its especially noticable on 80 meters right now. Folks that you usually hear at 40 over sometimes you cant hear at all. Its just really weird band conditions. We've had some pretty big flares in the last week or so and it always takes a little while to recover after these. Infact this whole summer has been bad for them. 40 managed to open up a few days ago and i could not find a freq to call cq on. People were eveywhere. Its just band conditions...ham radio is not about die the arrl just wants you to think that. They have hundreds of thousands of potential hams who are cbers now that they want to make arrl members. The only way they can achieve this is by helping make the tests so easy a 5 year old can pass them. Just sit back and watch and wait...hopefully it will be clear to you soon just what the game is all about. This is all just a big fund raiser for them..all about the buck. Code or NoCode is not the issue.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX i fell into the 50- group you spoke about up the thread. We just do not want to see the standards dumbed down so arrl can come up with more members from the cb ranks. This is not about code or nocode. I somehow can't imagine bubba and his roger beep on 40 meters on a good day..but that is what is coming.
73 WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
wr8d,
If you are worried about dumbing down, you and others with this concern are focused on the wrong issues. What is really dumbed down and alarming is all the recent (1975 and beyond) college graduates who are now your doctors, engineers, teachers, etc.. In the '60's politicians decided every kid should have the RIGHT to a college education. How do you think the average kid today can get thought college? 90% of recent college graduates could not make it if pre 1970 college standards were in place.
They call it gradeflation. Its dumbing down. Another way of stating the obvious is your $200k college graduate is a dumb ass who isn't trained to do any kind of a job until trained by his first employer and beyond. Why do you think certifications are popular. Employers value them more than the degree.
And you are worried about ham radio dumbing down it's licensing?
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX well i guess you've described our society in a nutshell. One of the posters here recently called it a welfare state which we live in. I agree with you 100percent. I still cannot stand the thoughts of giving a ham license to someone that knows nothing or very little about radio. Especially hf phone where they can make even bigger fools of themselves and make us all look bad. I'm just not for it and dead against any organization that claims to represent amateur radio and insists on doing this.
73 om no hard feelings.
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
At least half the kids on the eHam site who are complaining about dumbing down ham radio would have flunked out of college if it wasn't dumbed down for them.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by KC0NVI on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting...
After reading the replies it is about an even split on the "for" and "against". I look at it this way. I got my license (Tech), because I enjoy it. What another operator thinks doesn't matter to me.
I operate when I wish, and the license is in my name not another. You see I'm not 50 years old, nor am I 20 years old. I learn what I desire to learn, if learning code were required, then do it, if it means that much to you as an individual too attain the license. If not, then purchase a scanner and listen.
I do not know code I admit, but then, I do not make it my life, it is ONLY my hobby. I get out of it what I put into it, just as others.
Some should consider getting a life to go along with the hobby, and spend less time thinking about how they can avoid change.
Embrase the change, for it will happen either with or without you. The future is now, and gas isn't 25 cents anymore, and good luck finding a coke for a nickel. Rigs don't have tubes any more and house phones have gone cordless, and the TV is in color and getting thinner (watching the carbs), so relax...
Take another prozac and get those QSL cards ready, oh yeah, they even have eQSL these days, so you can save a stamp.
Enjoy the hobby, and I support the ARRL ( and I'm not even a member).
Technician License $10... Pissing off old farts... PRICELESS!!!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I notice how the ones who like to throw out the "dumb-down" card as they have no other argument will run in fear if you mention that nearly all the current space station and most of the shuttle astronauts are no-code techs. They turn their backs and cover their ears when they hear that. Being a highly educated NASA astronaut kind of makes their highest life achievement, learning code and getting a ham ticket quite insignificant and it would be pretty retarded to say that the astronauts are "to stupid to learn code".
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And speaking of the astronauts, if you pro-codes hear an astronaut that was previously a no-code tech that got bumped up to general when the rules got changed calling CQ from the space station, looking to make new contacts on HF with their new privileges, don't be a hypocrite and answer the call since you were so opposed to the rule change to begin with. Just keep your mouths shut, stay true to your beliefs and listen.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by WB2AZE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE writes
And to tell you the truth, I don't want to be associated with people that do. Don't
get me wrong. As a former flight paramedic, I think volunteering is great, but I don't want anything to do with orange vest wearing, badge toting, blue light
flashing egomaniacs that think they can do what the paid professionals do with far less training and expirence. When I was a paramedic, we called such people "wannabees".
No where in my posting was any of this mentioned. Blue Lights, vests and badges are non existant in my counties ARES group. Unlike first responders (ie Fire Dept/police/Rescue people), we do not respond to the emergency scene. We respond when requested by organizations such as the Red Cross to do one thing only, provide them with emergency communications when they cannot do it by themselves.
Our ARES members train and respond as a team, capable of setting up multiple stations under adverse conditions and manning them. How many paid professional teams carry spare antennas, radios, batteries, mike's and have the knowledge to go the extra mile to get it to work? How many 'professional' teams are willing to make changes to their equipment in the event that their antenna doesn't work? And can they even put up a new antenna or construct one, like ARES people can?!
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by DIABLO666 on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just love hate and grief over something so stupid as morse code. Those who like it use it, those that don't, don't use it. If you that do use it hold those that don't in contempt. Wo unto you. Personally I couldn't care less. but to force your will on others is nothing short of facisim. Can you say Hitler or maybe Sadamm or maybe Robeius Pierre. But if you cry babies don't shut the hell up! I'll let commish Powell abolish the amatuer service altogether and turn it into commercial bands. Then you can sit at home and cry into your soup. So it is written so it be done.
Diablo666
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by KC5NMW on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I wonder how long it will be before we lose ALL our operating privileges if we don't stop fighting amongst ourselves. Accept change and deal with it.If your goverment raises taxes what do you do?? Complain? Yes, but we accept the change and get on with our lives. So why is change in the Amatuer service any different than having your taxes raised or your laws re-wrote. Change is inevitable. So is taxes.. Acceptance is truly the only way.
|
| |
|
RE: League proposes dumbing down of ham radio!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Downgrading Technician licencees to Novice would
>> eliminate all of their operating privileges above
>> 70 cm. This would be repeating the major mistake
>> made in the incentive-licensing restructuring of
>> the 1960s, taking away privileges.
>> 73,
>> Ed Hare, W1RFI
> What would be wrong in giving existing Novices
> priviledges above 70 cm? Since we're thinking about
> giving Tech-Pluses General privileges and Advanced
> Extra priviledges, why not give Novices Technician
> priviledges and call them all Novices?
>
> Novices and techs should be realigned into one
> Novice class. The permissible frequencies for
> the "new" Novice class should consist of the HF
> Novice bandplan proposed by the ARRL plus the
> existing Tech allocations above 30 MHz.
The entire premise of the Novice class as proposed is to create a true entry-level point in Amateur Radio. We had it in 1963, when I studied 3.5 pages of material to pass my Novice exam. We have gone from that to an "entry-level" Technician exam that requires a 200-page study guide to teach the material that one needs to know to pass their test. If the FCC were to do what you propose, the "Novice" class would have to be the same as it is right now for the Technician, with questions covering RF safety evaluations and operation into the microwave range. By limiting the power and frequency for the Novice, the necessary syllabus of the exam material does not have to cover RF-safety evaluations nor microwave operating techniques. The ARRL proposal takes us about halfway back to the very easy entry level point that was successful in 1963.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by KC5NMW on February 3, 2004:
"I wonder how long it will be before we lose ALL our operating privileges if we don't stop fighting amongst ourselves. Accept change and deal with it.If your goverment raises taxes what do you do?? Complain? Yes, but we accept the change and get on with our lives. So why is change in the Amatuer service any different than having your taxes raised or your laws re-wrote. Change is inevitable. So is taxes.. Acceptance is truly the only way."
You wouldn't be saying all this if you wouldn't benefit from such a change. You are one of those who doesn't want to do the work necessary to upgrade. You've been licensed for 9 years and are still at the entry level. Fact is you've been licensed 3 1/2 months longer than I. Even after the requirements for General were lowered to 5 wpm, you still wouldn't do the work to upgrade. It's only 5 wpm. Anyone can learn code at 5 wpm. If you don't want to do the work necessary to upgrade your license, that's your business. But don't complain that you want the privileges that come with the work form the upgrade. I thought Clinton put an end to entitlements. If you want HF, work for it.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>...It's only 5 wpm. Anyone can learn code at 5 wpm. If you don't want to do the work necessary to upgrade your license, that's your business....<<<
I am sick and tired of these people who insist "anyone can do morse code at 5 wpm". There are people who cannot, even with continual drilling and attempts, pass the 5 wpm code test. I know, I am one of them. I have tried, tried again, and am still trying to pass the code test.
There are some people who try do do other things too. Like learn to spell words correctly. Do we harp on them when they do not? Yes, there are some who do, but not to the extent of the people who insist that morse at 5 wpm is easy.
I wonder how these people manage to communicate using morse when they cannot even spell words properly.....
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> If they have not done so in a year (Or whatever
>> time)they will be given the new Novice class
>> license....... (Which, Other than the power
>> limitation on VHF and UHF, Would be giving them more
>> privileges than before!)
>Downgrading Technician licencees to Novice would
>eliminate all of their operating privileges above 70
>cm. This would be repeating the major mistake made in
>the incentive-licensing restructuring of the 1960s,
>taking away privileges.
That's why a one year grace period was proposed. In my commnets to my Division Director on the proposal I voiced similar concerns about the conversion of Techs to General. I suggested that current Techs keep their existing privledges but be given the new Novice privledges as well until their licenses come up for renewal. If they haven't upgraded by passing Element 3 by renewal time, they lose privledges by becoming Novices. They only person taking away their privledges is themselves if they refuse to upgrade. After all, the proposed three classes with expanding privledges is supposed to be an incentive to study and upgrade. If current Techs are unwilling to do that during the period of their license, they should lose privledges.
Perhaps ten years in the extreme case of newly licensed Techs is too long a time but some grace period between 1 and 10 years should be more than adequate for all current Techs to either upgrade or revert to Novice with loss of privledges. While the current Element 2 & 3 exams are similar in content, there are aspects specific to HF operations that are not covered in Element 2 but are in Element 3 that should be tested for. Under the new license structure with HF privledges for all classes, the basics of HF will be on Element 2 with progressively more advanced questions on theory and opeations on Elements 3 & 4. However, I strongly believe current Techs should pass Element 3 to be given General Class privledges.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One poster writes:
I am sick and tired of these people who insist "anyone can do morse code at 5 wpm". There are people who cannot....pass the 5 wpm code test"
Bull Sh*t.
You can't pass the medical school exam, so you should be given a medical license?
You can't pass the Bar exam, so you should be given a law license?
You cant pass a pilot's exam, so you should be given a pilot's license?
You can't pass a dental, engineering, real estate, paramedic, nursing, police, fire or hair dresser exam, so you should just be "given" the license?
Sometimes, people JUST DON'T DESERVE something, and that is the end of the story!
E ham carries a story about a 7 year old girl that passed her Extra exam (She did 5 WPM when she was 6 years old). That demonstrates the fairness of the exam. If you can't pass it, so be it. STAY A TECHNICIAN!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One poster writes:
I am sick and tired of these people who insist "anyone can do morse code at 5 wpm". There are people who cannot....pass the 5 wpm code test"
Bull Sh*t.
You can't pass the medical school exam, so you should be given a medical license?
You can't pass the Bar exam, so you should be given a law license?
You cant pass a pilot's exam, so you should be given a pilot's license?
You can't pass a dental, engineering, real estate, paramedic, nursing, police, fire or hair dresser exam, so you should just be "given" the license?
Sometimes, people JUST DON'T DESERVE something, and that is the end of the story!
E ham carries a story about a 7 year old girl that passed her Extra exam (She did 5 WPM when she was 6 years old). That demonstrates the fairness of the exam. If you can't pass it, so be it. STAY A TECHNICIAN!
W9WHE,
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>There are people who cannot....pass the 5 wpm code test"<<<
Selective quoting is grand, isn't it? Leaving out whatever will shoot your statement full of holes.
You, sir have a narrow view and no tolerance of people who are still trying--however your point is valid for those who won't even make an attempt at 5 wpm. That is not what was said, however.
People who are trying to pass the morse test do not appreciate being lambasted by the likes of you. If you have any friends, its a wonder, considering your attitude.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can't pass a driver's license exam, so you should be given a driver's license?
Can't read, but should be given a high school diploma?
Can't ballance a checkbook, but should be given credit cards?
And you have the audicity to call me narrow minded?
Sometimes, people JUST DON'T DESERVE something, and that is the end of the story!
W9HWE,
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, I have the audacity to call you narrow minded. The only thing that would be hurt by allowing limited HF access to no code people (who pass the required theory test) is the gradual fading away of your preferred mode of ham radio operation. No one would be killed, and no one would be harmed (other than your ego). As far as your telling us that someone could be harmed by not knowing morse code, thats a billion to one shot...in other words, it won't happen.
I'll keep to my 'limited' bands until I pass the code test or until the requirement is dropped. At least I won't have to put up with your bigotry any longer.
'Best' 73.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BTW, PROUD to be an ARRL member and supporter!!!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
"I am sick and tired of these people who insist "anyone can do morse code at 5 wpm". There are people who cannot, even with continual drilling and attempts, pass the 5 wpm code test. I know, I am one of them. I have tried, tried again, and am still trying to pass the code test."
You're one of them? So was I. I got my Tech license in 7/95. I tried twice in 1995 to learn code, once in 1997, once in 1998 and once in 1999. All five times, I couldn't get past half the characters without mass confusion setting in. All five times, I got frustrated and threw in the towel. I finally did it and passed the test in 2000. The difference between the five attempts in the '90s and the success in 2000 was desire, will and commitment. You have to really want it. If you want it bad enough, you will learn it. My incentive in 2000 was that I no longer needed 13 wpm for the General. I knew that if I really put my mind to it, I could learn 5 wpm. Learning code didn't come easy to me. If I can do it, anyone can. All it takes is the will, the desire and the commitment. When confusion began to afflict me in 2000, I didn't throw in the towel. I just kept on trying until I overcame the problem i was having learning the characters. Persistence paid off.
Long after passing my code test in 2000, after 3 1/2 years of disuse, I decided to relearn code. I began my endeavor on 8/1/03, relearning all the characters. I've been drilling and practicing every day since then. It took a lot of work to get past the 10 wpm plateau. I am now at 13, pushing forward. I am currently doing the character lessons at 15 wpm (character rate of 20 wpm). I am determined to become proficient at a minimum of 20 wpm. It's hard. It's going to take a lot of work and patience. Like I said, code didn't come easy to me. But, I know I can do it. If I can do this, you and anyone else can learn 5 wpm to pass the code test.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K1CJS, I'll give you another example of being able to do the "impossible" once you have the will, the desire and the commitment. After smoking for 23 years (3 packs a day), I quit cold turkey. I haven't had a cigarette since 5/8/94. That's almost 10 years. Just like I said with code, if I can do it, anyone can.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS writes:
"The only thing that would be hurt by allowing limited HF access to no code people...........is the gradual fading away of your preferred mode of ham radio operation"
Such no-code arrogance!
You just make things up as you go along. I'm a SSB guy. I'm not a CW guy.
The only thing seperating us from CB is testing requirements. Take away the testing requirements and we will become more and more like CB.
W9WHE
RECALL ARRL B.O.D.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The only thing that would be hurt by allowing limited HF access to no code people...........is the gradual fading away of your preferred mode of ham radio operation"
I would hardly call General privileges "limited HF access". The new expanded General privileges proposed with the refarming of the Novice sub bands is most of the amateur HF spectrum. The ARRL literally wants to give it all away.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why don't they just divide the Novice sub bands into Novice phone and digital/CW, and give the no-coders that. That way, they would have limited HF privileges on 80, 40 and 15m. The 10m band can be left as is. No-coders would have phone privileges on 28.3-28.5 MHz and digital/CW on 28.1-28.3 MHz. This would make perfect sense, as it would not only give no-coders phone and digital privileges, but they would be able to learn and sharpen their CW skills in these Novice sub bands should they choose to upgrade to General.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> W9WHE
> RECALL ARRL B.O.D.
Only ARRL members have a say in who serves on the ARRL Board. You made a choice not to be a member, and now that decision will be made by others, not you. Those others will also help to pay the fare for those things that ARRL will continue to do that will benefit you as an amateur radio operator.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> My incentive in 2000 was that I no longer needed 13
> wpm for the General. I knew that if I really put my
> mind to it, I could learn 5 wpm. Learning code
> didn't come easy to me. If I can do it, anyone can.
By that reasoning, you could have passed a 20 wpm exam, too, because if I could do it, anyone can. Or does this make a bit less sense when it compares your abilities to others instead of comparing others' abilities to yours?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>>The only thing that would be hurt by allowing limited HF access to no code people...........is the gradual fading away of your preferred mode of ham radio operation<<<
Such no-code arrogance! You just make things up as you go along. I'm a SSB guy. I'm not a CW guy.
The only thing seperating us from CB is testing requirements. Take away the testing requirements and we will become more and more like CB.<<<
Speak of arrogance? I have posted I am against the automatic upgrade of Techs to Generals without an element 3 theory test. I have also posted in the past that theory testing should be made tougher--its way too easy as it is now. The LIMITED no code access I speak about is the novice no-code access--you wouldn't give no code access to the HF bands to anyone, would you???
I have a CSCE for the General theory already. If it expires before I upgrade, I'll test again and get another. I am working on code for the upgrade. BUT I STILL BELIEVE IT IS THE BEST INTEREST OF HAM RADIO TO DO AWAY WITH THE CODE TESTING REQUIREMENTS.
What I believe is my business. Yes, I'm arrogant also, because I don't want to see more bands disappear. It won't only happen to VHF, as in the 200-222 mhz segment, it'll happen to HF too. BPL is still being pushed. The more hams who use the bands, the better the chances of retaining them. And don't try bullshitting anyone about the crowded conditions of the bands presently. The only time the bands are crowded is during contests--the rest of the time they are a virtual wasteland. You know that, I know that, and so does everyone else.
So I'll stay with my original statement. You, sir, are narrow minded and intolerant.
From a proud ARRL supporter.
73 anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed writes:
"Only ARRL members have a say in who serves on the ARRL Board. You made a choice not to be a member, and now that decision will be made by others, not you"
Ed is entirely correct. However, that does not preclude me from ADVOCATING a recall. It is my understanding that it only takes around 10% of members that voted in the last election to trigger a recall the B.O.D.
If that's correct, then I ADVOCATE a recall vote. Ed, care to verify my information?
W9WHE
ADVOCATING a recall vote for ARRL B.O.D.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed writes:
"Those others will also help to pay the fare for those things that ARRL will continue to do that will benefit you as an amateur radio operator"
Like what?
a) Dumbing down ham radio?
b) Opening the floodgates for CBers?
c) Destroying the usefulness of Amatuer radio?
d) All of the above.
I CANCELLED my membership because I will not finincially assist the ARRL reduce ham radio to CB. The only thing seperating us from CB is testing requirements. The more testing requirements that are removed, the more we will resemble CB.
W9WHE
Boycott ARRL and its products.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've read enough of these code related posts to conclude that:
a)For some, learning the code is easy
b)For some, learning the code is hard
c)For some, learning the code may be an insurmoutable obstacle.
In my own case, 13wpm was easy, 20 was a bit harder but manageable.
All of which is entirely beside the point! Look at it this way:
When a person contemplated becoming a ham anytime up to say 1970(+/-), there was an implicit recognition that CW expertise would be required - if you wanted to be a ham you'd probably need to use CW. End of story.
Since that date the picture has changed. While CW is still a valid and useful mode there is no longer that implicit recognition of *required use* of the mode. It is perfectly reasonable for a person in 2004 contemplating becoming a ham to have no interest whatsoever in CW. CW has transitioned from requirement to option. The testing requirements should match reality.
I have seen no posts here that make any convincing argument to the contrary.
It would seem that there is a cadre of holdouts that cannot accept this change. That is the sad part.
The ARRL proposal is an attempt at a compromise and as such, I give it my support. As for the tech to general upgrade - I see no conflict - from an exam content/privileges point of view, it's the way to go.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N5YWP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been a tech. for quite awhile, passed the written general twice.
Have learned about 75% of the code at two different
times but life interupt's me , or that's my excuse for lack of commitment.
If I get the urge to experience HF, I'll find me a friendly elmer who'll drink a pot of coffee and show me his shack.(you elmers need to get on local repeaters and talk with some of the tech's.invite us to check out some HF shack's)
You will make new friend's, spark an interest to obtain those HF privledge's and broaden your pool of folk's for antenna work.
I want to learn the code to gain my upgrade, I want to earn it.When I do get it I will probably use computer on cw band. But I think it is important to learn code so you can operate in an emergency with bare minimum equip.(5wpm covered that,leave it alone)
My 2 cents Reese
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KG4TZY on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wake up and smell the coffee. This is all a smoke screen provided by the FCC and ARRL. When this debate started all pro-coders were against any removal of the Morse requirements for HF access. Now almost every poster accepts a no-code HF access because they are upset over the automatic upgrade of the Tech to General. It's like hitting your finger with a hammer because you will forget about the pain in your foot. The ARRL has done a great job of making you upset about the automatic upgrade so that you forget about the code. My prediction: FCC will not automatically upgrade the Tech, but will remove ALL Morse requirements. Then I only have to take 2 WRITTEN test to be an Extra. Just my opinion. In the end the Morse requirement is gone, but the ARRL has an excuse (they did try to keep it for Extra) and the Techs dont get upgraded thus soothing the existing Generals and Extras. I wish the FCC would hurry up and do this so the fighting can stop.
Cheers
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by W1RFI on February 3, 2004:
"> My incentive in 2000 was that I no longer needed 13
> wpm for the General. I knew that if I really put my
> mind to it, I could learn 5 wpm. Learning code
> didn't come easy to me. If I can do it, anyone can.
By that reasoning, you could have passed a 20 wpm exam, too, because if I could do it, anyone can. Or does this make a bit less sense when it compares your abilities to others instead of comparing others' abilities to yours?"
That's entirely correct. I could have passed a 20 wpm test if I would have worked hard enough for it. I am on the road to 20+ wpm right now. That is my goal. There's no doubt in my mind that I will get there. Ed, you made my point. If anyone wants to learn code bad enough, they can do it. If anyone wants to become proficient at 20 wpm or greater, they can do that too.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N5YWP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You may have a point,but whatever they decide to do I'll abide by it.
If they open it up I'll get some new book's bone up on some material's and see you on the band's.
73's
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KG4TZY, I think you're right. I too wish they'd hurry up and do something--whatever they do. 73!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Continuing my post to Ed, W1RFI:
There's nothing to fear but fear itself. It is fear of not being able to learn code that kept me from becoming a ham when I first wanted it in 1978. I should have gone for the Novice back then. It is fear that kept me from earning my General in 1995 when I first got my Tech license. Correction. It is fear that kept me from earning my Extra when I first became licensed. It is fear that kept me from learning code. Having gone through electronics school and getting my 2nd Class Phone license with Radar Endorsement in '81 and '82, I could have passed an Extra class exam back then. Did I moan and complain that code testing should be dropped just for little old me, so I could become a ham, just so I could be an Extra? Certainly not! Isn't it something, Ed? I was afraid I couldn't learn code back then, but I'm doing it now. I'm pushing toward 20+ wpm proficiency. Fear is what is keeping these people from learning code.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N5YWP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like to see some tradition left in thing's.
That in no way prevent's ham's from moving in new direction's, ONCE they have passed the requirment's for the operating privledges.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
ED, I stand corrected. It's fear + the mindset that "I can't do this". Get rid of the mindset that you can't, kick fear in the butt and get up the determination, the will and make the commitment, and you will be able to learn code.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N5YWP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Instead of "got mine get your's" how about"got it,love it,here's the tapes I used, if you need help practicing here's my number Good Luck.
73's
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N5YWP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
HEHEHE by the way can someone reccomend a morse program for window xp while we're on the subject.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by N5YWP on February 3, 2004:
"Instead of "got mine get your's" how about"got it,love it,here's the tapes I used, if you need help practicing here's my number Good Luck.
73's"
and
"HEHEHE by the way can someone reccomend a morse program for window xp while we're on the subject."
N5YWP, I use two, and they do work on XP. NuMorse and Ham University.
http://www.nu-ware.com/
http://www.hamuniversity.com/
Never mind using tapes or CDs. You will only wind up memorizing the contents on them after a while. You need the unlimited random runs that software will give you.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N5YWP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thank's AG4RQ ,I'll go get them now,appreciate the link's so I don't have to google. lol Reese
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
G4FON code trainer software is also excellent... highly customizable and free. Get it here: http://www.qsl.net/g4fon/.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...Fear is what is keeping these people from learning code..."
Errr, no, since this statement presumes that learning the code is a valid, necessary, logical, and essential thing to do. I contend that these conditions no longer apply hence the reason for the dropping of the code by numerous other organizations that once used and relied upon it but have seen fit to change their outlook. Despite the almost religious zeal that some code proponents express in this forum, could it be that 'these people' just don't see any relevance in learning the code? I seems to me that what is 'feared' is the imminent loss of status of those who hold their own code skills in such high regard.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to N3EVL, "Errr, no, since this statement presumes that learning the code is a valid, necessary, logical, and essential thing to do. I contend that these conditions no longer apply hence the reason for the dropping of the code by numerous other organizations that once used and relied upon it but have seen fit to change their outlook. Despite the almost religious zeal that some code proponents express in this forum, could it be that 'these people' just don't see any relevance in learning the code? I seems to me that what is 'feared' is the imminent loss of status of those who hold their own code skills in such high regard." Hitler's theory on "The Big Lie" has it that if you create a big lie and repeat it often enough, everyone will begin to believe it. Hitler mastered the art of this very well. Now, NCI and ARRL are using it. N3EVL, you are either a paid employee of ARRL, a paid employee of NCI, or you are a member of the Communist Party. Which is it?
73,
DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmm, interesting, I'm either a fascist (as per your Hitler refs) or I'm a communist!!! You seem to have covered all the political bases (and you're still wrong! hahaha).
No, I'm not an ARRL employee.
No, I'm not a member of NCI since my (possibly incorrect) perception is that they do not favor the telegraphy mode whereas I just do not favor testing for the telegraphy mode.
Now, if you'd like to set aside the politics and submit a valid, rational, substantive argument as to why I'm wrong, then be my guest, and I'll give it my full consideration.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4DG on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< HEHEHE by the way can someone reccomend a morse program for window xp while we're on the subject. >
Code Quick! I call it "Morse Code for Britney Spears Fans".
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Hitler's theory on "The Big Lie" has it that if you create a big lie and repeat it often enough, everyone will begin to believe it.<<<
Hmmmm......sounds like "Morse code is essential to Ham Radio today." comes under this as well........
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No, its "Morse code is essential to HF ham radio today."
I correct myself........
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While we're on the subject, let's take a look at this other much bandied-about subject of the imminent hoardes of CB enthusiasts that are about to invade (so we are led to believe) the sacred domain of HF Amateur Radio.
For starters, I'm having a hard time picturing these droves of stereotypical 11m malcontents, big rig engines revving, just waiting for the proposed changes to come into effect so that they can quickly demolish what we once new as civilized HF behaviour.
Now, let's suppose that some CB enthusiasts do in fact show up bright and early for their local test session, take the tests and depart with HF privs: what is likely to happen? My take is as follows:
a) Some will give the ham bands a try, realize it's not for them, lose interest, let their licenses lapse and head elsewhere.
b) Some will act like lids and indeed attempt to impose unwelcome change upon the rest of us.
c) SOme (and I predict the majority) will come to realize that they made an excellent choice and will embrace all the hobby has to offer.
Those in category 'a' are probably inevitable.
Those in category 'b' will only succeed in their aims if the ham community sits back and allows them the freedom to do so. I contend that suitable measures of elmering, welcoming, and rule enforcement are all that is needed and required to address this potential problem.
Those in category 'c' will only make that determination if they receive a friendly welcome from the rest of us - an outcome that appears to be in some doubt if one reads enough of these threads.
In any event, I refuse to pre-judge anyone who has put forth the effort to obtain a ham license (of any class).
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by N3EVL on February 3, 2004:
"Errr, no, since this statement presumes that learning the code is a valid, necessary, logical, and essential thing to do. I contend that these conditions no longer apply hence the reason for the dropping of the code by numerous other organizations that once used and relied upon it but have seen fit to change their outlook. Despite the almost religious zeal that some code proponents express in this forum, could it be that 'these people' just don't see any relevance in learning the code? I seems to me that what is 'feared' is the imminent loss of status of those who hold their own code skills in such high regard."
"No, I'm not a member of NCI since my (possibly incorrect) perception is that they do not favor the telegraphy mode whereas I just do not favor testing for the telegraphy mode."
I'll address your second statement first. I take it you enjoy CW, but just want it eliminated for testing purposes. Based on your first statement, you could fool me.
There seems to be a big push, or should I say "movement" to just outright eliminate code testing. What do you suggest to put in it's place to fill the vacuum? Ham radio in this country has been dumbed down enough. I don't think the bar should be lowered any further. If code testing is done away with for General, I feel that the exam(s) should be made more in-depth and more comprehensive, and I also feel that the question pools should no longer be published. How do you feel about that? Do you agree? Do you have any other constructive ideas as to how to fill the vacuum if there is to be no code test? Or do you just want to eliminate the code test, replace it with nothing and dumb down licensing further? I think a dual option for General would be a good idea. Either take Elements 1 and 3, or take a more in-depth and more comprehensive written exam with no code test. The option would be chosen by the applicant before the test begins.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Pete, regarding your theory about CBers, doesn't the current condition of 10m and the mass encroachments tell you something. Eliminating code testing will enable them to become "legal", with a license, an echo mic, a roger beep, their CB habits and their lingo.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> No, I'm not a member of NCI since my (possibly
> incorrect) perception is that they do not favor the
> telegraphy mode whereas I just do not favor testing
> for the telegraphy mode.
NCI does not want to eliminate the use of Morse code by hams who choose to use it. They are opposed only to code testing as a requirement to get an Amateur license.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re AG4RQ comments:
"...I'll address your second statement first. I take it you enjoy CW, but just want it eliminated for testing purposes..."
Yes, although based on my apparent lack of synchronization of views with many of the pro-cw crowd here, I feel less and less included to dust of my old straight key - in fact the fun has gone right out of it:( Lately, I'd rather dedicate what ham radio time I have to other aspects of the hobby.
"...Based on your first statement, you could fool me..."
I see no conflict of interests here. Using telegraphy on the air and requiring it as a provable skill for access to HF are entirely different concepts.
"...There seems to be a big push, or should I say "movement" to just outright eliminate code testing. What do you suggest to put in it's place to fill the vacuum?..."
This presupposes that there is a vacuum to be filled. I do not subscribe to this view.
"...Ham radio in this country has been dumbed down enough. I don't think the bar should be lowered any further. If code testing is done away with for General, I feel that the exam(s) should be made more in-depth and more comprehensive, and I also feel that the question pools should no longer be published. How do you feel about that? Do you agree?..."
In general (no pun intended) I do not agree. Others in this forum have given credible evidence that the exam syllabus and exam structure is in fact less dumb than it was some years ago. I am in favor of a sane, balanced licensing structure that is married to exam content that is technically relevant but only as demanding as necessary. The goal is to get people into the hobby with enough technical expertise to do those things that their license class allows safely and without causing interference. Anything beyond that has no meaning at the testing level unless we're trying to exclude people until they're professional RF engineers. I do not hold to the opinion that question pool memorization is a common occurance. However, I would not be opposed to publishing of a study-only question pool i.e. the real exam questions are never published. If a candidate knows his or her stuff then they will pass.
"...Do you have any other constructive ideas as to how to fill the vacuum if there is to be no code test? Or do you just want to eliminate the code test, replace it with nothing and dumb down licensing further?..."
I think my comment above covers my postion on this.
"...I think a dual option for General would be a good idea. Either take Elements 1 and 3, or take a more in-depth and more comprehensive written exam with no code test. The option would be chosen by the applicant before the test begins..."
I do see a particular need for this but do not have strong feelings on this matter - if it had significant support and helped diffuse the code issue then I would not object. In general, I see code proficiency as more of a personal goal and one that could still be demonstrated/proven informally rather than being formally tied to licensing.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...NCI does not want to eliminate the use of Morse code by hams who choose to use it. They are opposed only to code testing as a requirement to get an Amateur license..."
Then I stand corrected. I thought I had read somewhere that they were in favour of eventual elimination or possibly reduction of the cw sub-bands - maybe that was also an incorrect perception or just someone else's incorrect bias.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
...Make that:
I do NOT see a particular need for this...
My typo!
Pete
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If there is indeed abuse of HF such as on 10m as described and if, indeed this was to worsen due to the proposed changes, I see this as an enforcement issue rather than a filtering issue. I would expect to be answerable to the FCC were I to violate any of the rules and I expect those same rules to be equally and fairly enforced with respect to others.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N5YWP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HEHEHE by the way can someone reccomend a morse program for window xp while we're on the subject. >
Code Quick! I call it "Morse Code for Britney Spears Fans". >
was that acrack at me? or did I misunderstand?
73's
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by N3EVL on February 3, 2004:
"This presupposes that there is a vacuum to be filled. I do not subscribe to this view."
If the code test is to be removed, there certainly would be a vacuum. It is only common sense that if something is removed, something of at least equal value needs to be substituted. To not do so would result in dumbing down ham radio.
"In general (no pun intended) I do not agree. Others in this forum have given credible evidence that the exam syllabus and exam structure is in fact less dumb than it was some years ago. I am in favor of a sane, balanced licensing structure that is married to exam content that is technically relevant but only as demanding as necessary. The goal is to get people into the hobby with enough technical expertise to do those things that their license class allows safely and without causing interference. Anything beyond that has no meaning at the testing level unless we're trying to exclude people until they're professional RF engineers. I do not hold to the opinion that question pool memorization is a common occurance. However, I would not be opposed to publishing of a study-only question pool i.e. the real exam questions are never published. If a candidate knows his or her stuff then they will pass."
Syllabus and exam structure is in fact less dumb than it was some years ago? I don't think so. Look at the Tech exam. When I took mine, there was a separate Novice (Element 2 - 30 questions) and separate Technician (Element 3A - 25 questions) exam. Compare the 55-question exam in 1995 that I took with the 35-question Element 2 exam that Technicians take today.
I think most hams would agree that ham radio has been dumbed down from what it once was, and it has nothing to do with code testing. Another interesting point is that there was one exam for either Technician or General prior to 3/87. The only difference between the two classes of license was that the Technician required only 5 wpm while the General required 13 wpm for the code test.
In my opinion, code testing is not really the issue. It's the dumbing down of ham radio. I also think that most who are against the ARRL's proposal would agree with me.
I'm sorry we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but I guess we never will.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KC5NMW on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well,AG4RQ
Mark If you really want to know. I currently hold 3 degrees in electronics and telecommunications. So please don't insult my intelligence by saying I am too lazy and don't want to learn code. I have taken my theory exams several times over the past 9+ yrs and passed all of them 100% including the harder earlier ones only to fail when the code exam was taken. I wonder if you could learn Latin, Spanish, German, Italian and Russian?
Ciao Bofo
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It is only common sense that if something is
> removed, something of at least equal value needs to
> be substituted.
What do surgeons leave to substitute for appendices?
> To not do so would result in dumbing down ham radio.
So, basically, you're saying that in place of the test that serves no purpose, we should put another test that serves no purpose? To what purpose?
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> It's fear + the mindset that "I can't do this".
Hmm... for 20 years I didn't learn Morse for the simple reason that I didn't want to. I had enough fun in my life without it.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> By that reasoning, you could have passed a 20 wpm
> exam, too, because if I could do it, anyone can.
I love this game. So if it's true for 5 and 20, how come it's not true for 10 wpm?
for *any* speed the set of people who can't learn at that speed is non-empty.
But it doesn't matter, because that's not the point of doing away with element 1.
the *point* is that element 1, that is *testing* for morse profficiency, isn't doing anything of any value.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You can't pass a driver's license exam, so you
> should be given a driver's license?
Happens all the time. In CA, it is estimated that somewhere around 25% of the people who get automatic renewals would fail if they had to retake.
> Can't read, but should be given a high school
> diploma?
Happens all the time; especially to prominent athletes.
> Can't ballance a checkbook, but should be given
> credit cards?
Happens all the time.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Sometimes, people JUST DON'T DESERVE something, and
> that is the end of the story!
True. But entry into a hobby isn't one of those times.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, I disagree.
You can't scuba dive without a license.
You can't fly a private plane without a license.
Why should ham radio be any different?
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP writes:
"Can't read, but should be given a high school
diploma?
AE6IP Responds: Happens all the time; especially to prominent athletes"
And you think this is the way it should be?
So, under your logic, just because wives are beaten all the time, that makes it ok?
Liberal thinking - ARGUHHHH
W9WHE
BOYCOTT ARRL & its products.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This cw issue has got to be a controversy in a class by itself. Its hard to believe that so many hams think it makes sense to require a new ham to learn code when they have no interest or intent to ever use it. Code testing is used just as an entrance requirement to filter new hams and everybody knows it.
Code testing will go away but helping new hams learn general electronics, rf technology, and understanding antennas would be far more useful to new hams than cramming code down their throats. Current testing doesn't do much to steer new hams to useful subjects.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Its hard to believe that so many hams think it makes sense to require a new ham to learn code when they have no interest or intent to ever use it".
So...Because I have no interest in:
building or adjusting antennas, RF or electrical safety, FM, AM, satelites, digital modes, the rules & regulations, or good operating practice..
Why test me?
In fact, why not make the test ENTIRELY dependant upon what I am interested in?
The only thing seperating us from CB is testing requirements. The more testing requirementsa you take away, the more we will resemble CB.
Liberal logic....A TRUE OXYMORON!
W9WHE
Boycott ARRL & its products.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's not a question of interest so much as relevance. For example, if you looked at the syllabus of a college's electrical engineering degree in 1920, 1950, 2000, etc., would you expect to see no change in content? Obviously not - some content would have been dropped and some would have been added. It's a dynamic process. Explain to me why the amateur radio exam syllabus is any different.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w9whe,
Since a ham license gives the authority to a person to a operate radio transmitter, it makes sense to have a ham have some knowledge of rf technology to get it to work and stay within technical standards. Come on, you know that! The oxymoron here is your reasoning that everything is a liberal conspiracy, which you kinda worn out long ago.
A better idea is to require that every ham be retested with the added requirement that they speak 2 foreign languages since ham radio is an international hobby. Makes sense to me.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok, Pete:
Some topics are fundimental. Want a B.S. degree, most quality Universities require Psychology, economics, & math. Now, if you are interested in Art history, you might argue "why take math?". The answer: it is an important fundiment to a well rounded education. Also to weed out those with no real intellectual abillities beyong "art".
Want a Masters degree? you will likely be required to pass statistics. But why if you are a art major? Same answer.
Want to go to Law school, criminal law is REQUIRED. But what if I had whined that "I'm not interested"? They would have said its part of a well rounded education. Get the idea?
So now, you ask why code?
"Because its part of a well rounded HF amateur". Its not part of a VHF/UHF/CB operator. It also weeds out those with no real intellectual abillities.
W9WHE
RECALL ARRL B.O.D.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Man, ham radio is stinking, little hobby for a very, very, small percentage of the population. It isn't a four year degree program. This is a hobby, hobby, hobby, hobby, hobby to have a little fun on a radio,,, that's it.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>"Its hard to believe that so many hams think it makes sense to require a new ham to learn code when they have no interest or intent to ever use it".
So...Because I have no interest in: building or adjusting antennas, RF or electrical safety, FM, AM, satelites, digital modes, the rules & regulations, or good operating practice...Why test me?<<<
You are tested on these things--but not all of them. So, by your own logic, why should We be tested on the entire morse code. On the test, ask what is the morse code equivalent of SOS, and so on. Don't test us on the ENTIRE code.
You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you think you aren't, you've got a hole in your melon.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC5NMW posted:
"Well,AG4RQ
Mark If you really want to know. I currently hold 3 degrees in electronics and telecommunications. So please don't insult my intelligence by saying I am too lazy and don't want to learn code. I have taken my theory exams several times over the past 9+ yrs and passed all of them 100% including the harder earlier ones only to fail when the code exam was taken. I wonder if you could learn Latin, Spanish, German, Italian and Russian?"
You are too lazy and don't want to learn code? Lazy, probably not. Unwilling? Yes. You know that Morse code has much to do with ham radio, but what relevance to ham radio does the Latin, Spanish, German, Italian and Russian languages have? Although those languages are spoken by foreign hams (except Latin, of course), English is still the universal language. Come to think of it, Morse code is the universal language of ham radio. Using Morse code, you can have a QSO with a foreign ham that has little or no command of the English language.
Also, as W9WHE stated:
"So now, you ask why code?
'Because its part of a well rounded HF amateur'. Its not part of a VHF/UHF/CB operator. It also weeds out those with no real intellectual abilities."
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You guys on this site are really bad at the attempt to construct textbook logical arguments. There are no requirements that anyone has to USE cw, but there are technical requirements associated with the use of the privleges granted by a license and therefore you have to know something in the technical area.
If one were to use the pro coders logic, one could argue if a person had no interest in driving a car they should be required to learn to drive anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE:
I think you missed my point - I'm in agreement that it's not a question of "interest" in the subject matter. Were I tasked with setting a curiculum for an area of study, I wouldn't give a rodent's bottom whether or not you're interested in a given subject area - just whether or not it's currently relevant to the overall qualification. Even if it was something that had been relevant in the past, it would be a candidate for tossing out today - that's the dynamic part and this strategy applies across the entire Ham Radio exam content, not just the code issue. By all means test but keep the test relevant.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The real issue with cw testing is in the question "is there a COMPELLING reason to force hams to learn code even if a person has no desire to use it".
So what is the compelling reason?...well rounded ham education?...pay back pain required by those who already had to learn code?...make hams learn code so they can have VOICE priveleges on HF (now that makes alot of sense)?...someone might save the world if they know cw?...
I can see one legit reason to require code testing. Separate cw priveleges from all other licenses and if someone wants a license (or endorsement) that allows the use of cw, have a person pass a cw test for a cw privelege granting license.
The FCC has used endorsements in the past to test for extra priveleges. Use them for cw if you have to have a cw test.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W8MW on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>seems to me that what is 'feared' is the imminent >loss of status of those who hold their own code >skills in such high regard.
Agreed Pete. Many of these elaborate arguments are conceived for the sole purpose of protecting fragile egos. Not preserving, growing or improving amateur radio. The real fear is that a change in someone else's operating privileges will undermine Mr. Ego's prized status in the pecking order.
Other countries have concluded that a pecking order is not in the best interests of amateur radio. I agree with that and am glad to see their movement to a two tiered no code license structure consisting of Beginner and Full Privilege ticket. Those are the only distinctions between amateurs that have any practical value.
The ARRL Plan is more moderate in dealing with code and license classes. I presume some care was taken to keep extreme egos from going into cardiac arrest. Still it manages to correct many of the past mistakes that divided and weakened amateur radio. I support it.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pete:
I think Math, Psychology and Physicis are relevant to Art history in the same way that CW is relevant to Ham radio. But this is NOT just about CW, its about giving ALL techs a General class license FOR NOTHING!
Its about "dumbing down" ham radio....FOR NOTHING!
Its about moving Ham radio closer to CB....FOR NOTHING.
Many of us see that its a terrible idea with terrible consequences. Sure, the EQ manufacturers will make a ton of $$, nothing wrong with that, in isolation. Sure, the ARRL will make a ton of $$ from "Gimmie" techs joining, nothing wrong with that, in isolation. BUT WHEN IT IS AT THE EXPENSE OF HAM RADIO...ITS JUST WRONG.
W9WHE
Boycott ARRL & its products!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8ME writes:
The ARRL's plan "....manages to correct many of the past mistakes that divided and weakened amateur radio"
I would call the ARRL's risky scheme to increase cash flow HIGHLY DIVISIVE. What they did was combine the divisive fight over CW with the divisive fight over priveleges into the same "risky scheme".
The ARRL has made a calculation that they will enjoy more $$ by "buying" Techs then by serving the existing membership. That's their choice. Just as its mine to lead the call for an ARRL boycott.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems that a little history lesson is called for here.
When the FCC was administering amateur tests, no-one questioned the relevance of the 13 WPM (20WPM for full privileges) code requirement for HF privileges. People just knuckled down and did it, period. Even if they only wanted to chat on SSB, and never touched a key. Oh, yeah, there was some grousing about it, but the level of complaining was down about 80 decibels below what it is now.
Then, in the mid 1980's, amateur licensing exams were privatized. That's when the trouble began. Some Volunteer Examiners were embarassed that their own code skills had atrophied, or perhaps they never learned the code in the first place because they acquired their license using a medical waiver. These individuals couldn't construct a code receiving test, and couldn't administer a sending test, and yet here they were supposed to be passing judgement on others. Thus began the No Code International club. Over a period of years. they spread their discontent, editorialized in CQ and elsewhere, and created a movement of disgruntled folks who have the attitude that they are entitled to HF spectrum and that testing requirements are somehow unfair.
The No Code International has been enormously successful, to the point that the only code barrier for maximum amateur privileges currently stands at a lousy 5 WPM. Those of us who have been around long enough to qualify for QCWA membership remember that 5 wpm used to get you a one year non-renewable code only ticket for small portions of the 80m, 40m. and 15m bands, with power input (not output) restricted to 75 watts. Oh, and did I mention that this was crystal-controlled (the FCC didn't trust Novices with VFO's). My point in all this is that the code testing has already been compromised one hell of lot. The No Code folks won!
Are they happy with their success? NO! They've tasted blood. They want it all! Instead of packing up and celebrating their success, they step up their campaign to completely eliminate Morse testing. And, they won't stop there. They are already after our CW frequencies, including 30 meters. Take a look at the "Band Plan" put forth by KQ6XA on both this site and on QRZ. KQ6XA, who claims her proposal is her exercise of free speech, thinks that because people have expressed opposition to her plan, that makes it a good plan! It's a slick proposal, but it's snake oil to be sure.
So, if some of us who've been around for a few sunspot cycles get a little cranky now and then, there's good reason. I'm sorry, SSBDX, that I called you a "no-coder" in an earlier post.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by SSBDX on February 4, 2004:
"The FCC has used endorsements in the past to test for extra priveleges. Use them for cw if you have to have a cw test."
Excellent idea! Lets have an Amateur "Operator" license, which would grant VHF/UHF privileges, a "First Class HF Endorsement" which would give "Operators" what we know today as "Extra" privileges on HF, and a "Second Class HF Endorsement" which would grant "Operators" what we know today as "General" privileges on HF. Both endorsements would require the Element 1 exam along with its respective written elements. See that? It's all solved. I'm glad you suggested this.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guys would you all just shut up about code or nocode. This is not the issue. The issue is about giving people with none or little real radio knowledge a free upgrade to general class frequencys. Simple as that. Yeah Yeah i passed 20wpm years ago...but that does'nt make me any better than anyone else here. This proposal is such a mess we have far greater things to worry about other than are you a 5wpm or 20wpm ham. They want to give people right off the street free hf access to our best hambands with a test that a 5 year old can pass. There already is a "freeband". Its chickenband...there already is an introductory ham license and its the technician class. Lets not dumb down the tests just so hundreds of thousands of cbers can come to the hambands and become arrl members. This is exactly what is going on though and most of you guys are blindly supporting "your sell out arrl". How can any of you that enjoy amateur radio and take part in using all the bands support such a proposal as this and go along with giving untrained individuals a free upgrade to hf?
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This arrl conspiracy theory is funny. The arrl is not smart enough to use dropped cw testing requirements as a way to get more money. Those who don't want to learn cw but want to use ham freqs just buy ham equipment and use it. When cw is dropped, there aren't going to be all that many that are still willing to learn the theory on the written tests. Beyond all of this conjecture, why would these people join the arrl that didn't before cw was dropped?
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C...well said Chuck.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know guys and gals there's several of us on a few of these threads that really love amateur radio. You "want a free for nothing upgrade" folks call us old farts. Most of us really are not very old we just had to work and "learn" our way through each license class. Working dx ragchewing digital stuff its all a ball. There's really not to many of us that will waste the time to get on these threads and express our opinions. It comes down to this though. Get your free upgrade and come to hf and be a ham. Leave your cb attitudes and operating practices on 11 meters and you'll still be welcomed to amateur radio. Forget all this highcode lowcode nocode crap. The bands are totally differant from these threads. You can get on the internet and run your mouth and get away with it. Try some of this stuff on hf and see where it gets you.
73
catch me on the bands
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is really strange is that nobody, even pro coders ever call cw priveleges a "privelege". This goes back to when the FCC recognized that nobody really considered code a privelege (wonder why? duh!), cw has always been considered a big pain in the ass. In order to get hams to learn cw, the FCC didn't give cw priveleges as an incentive to learn cw, the FCC gave voice on HF as a reward for learning cw. Does this tell anybody something about cw. CW has always been considered difficult and not very popular to most hams or prospective licensees. And I never ever heard anyone in the 40 years of being a ham give a compelling reason to train large numbers of people with that skill except pre-WWII era when cw was considered to be useful because voice technology was still expensive and considered complicated.
The FCC started the "we must inflict cw pain" mentality to ham licensing and it has stuck to this day. Well, cw testing is going away in the near future and everybody will just have to accept it because you are not going to have a choice.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, SSBDX, your version of ham radio history is certainly different from mine. I've always considered it a privilege, never a pain, to learn and use CW, and I'm not alone by any means. I hope you have had as much fun in the hobby as I have.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NN6EE on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To tell you the truth Guys I'm all for the new ARRL proposal in that it will merge we Advanced Class Holders into something that the ARRL and FCC stole from us after the inception of their earlier incentive licensing switch in 1967-68!!!
Besides with today's NEWBIES they don't really care about learning Theory only the thrill of "Plug'n'Play!"
I say let them have it as we're ALL TIRED of complaining and the ARRL not listening!!!
EE
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another issue about cw I find strange is that hams try to pass off cw as a language. CW is in no way a language. CW is code ie. sounds representing letters and numbers of the a to z alphabet used for existing languages.
I guess calling cw a language somehow elevated cw to something more than what it is so it could be used as an excuse to keep as a test requirement.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can talk on my radio with my fingers, using a straight key, a bug, or electronic key. Those that know the language can understand what I'm saying. Those that don't only hear the sounds.
You talk into your microphone using a language of your choice. Those that know the language you are speaking can understand what you are saying. Those that don't only hear the sounds.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All you pro coders that like to call others "lazy" for not wanting to learn code, remember the next time you work some DX that YOU were the ham that was too lazy to learn a foreign language and the DX had to learn English or there would be very little DX worked by US hams!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just because we know code doesn't mean that our brains are all filled up and can't, won't, or haven't learned other languages as well.
There are many CW abbreviations (e.g., RST, Q signals, etc.) that facilitate international communications in CW among people whose native languages are different. It really works pretty well, and has for many decades.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would be willing to bet a few bucks that all those eHamer's that get angry and can't control it when they read a review or a post in one of the threads and resort to name calling (troll, lazy, clown, etc.), you are the one's when on a freq and don't like what you are hearing, you QRM with the carriers, music, whistling, etc..
You have been revealed!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For all you pro coders that want to continue to force cw testing because you had to, I hope you were also the one's that were forced into the military for 2,3,4 or more years with someone shooting at you.
After all, its only fair we don't dumb down service to your country!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the mischief makers on the air (who never identify themselves) are far more likely to be the ones who won't identify themselves in their postings on eHam.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It has been decided that all those who did not serve in the military should turn in your ham licenses and forfeit your Social Security since you have not earned all your priveleges accorded to US citizens who have not been dumb downed.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by N3LJS on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The written test is simple, you have all the questions and the answers. The CW portion is the problem, have the ARRL drop the testing fee on this exam. Maybe they would take the exam over until they pass. The problem is video games and the internet. Maybe a game that helps kids learn the code and teaches them about amateur radio. We need to get amateur radio's into schools and offer more scholarships to student operators. Look at EchoLink, its on the internet. The internet is killing the radiomen. People just won't spend the time to learn the code, they want everything given to them. My neice learn the code in three days and passed her test. A 7 year old girl learned the code and now she is a Extra. Is the ARRL going to give the CW portion of the bands away in ten years. When no one is using them anymore? CW is part of our history. They still teach American history in our schools. Do you what to throw that out next, when students starts to fail. No,you find a way to teach them.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK. So you're comparing the things that have to be learned to code? How's this one for you. Way back when, doctors were trained to drill holes in people to let the fever 'leak' out. Is that done today? The way you want to do things, maybe doctors should drill holes in the head to let the code 'leak' in. Makes about as much sense.
As times progress, so does the learning curve. We should be learning about newer modes and methods, not about an antiquated mode of communicating with hardly any practical modern purpose except pride and pleasure.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It seems that a little history lesson is called for here.
Oooh. Cool. I luv history.
> When the FCC was administering amateur tests, no-one questioned the
> relevance of the 13 WPM (20WPM for full privileges) code requirement
> for HF privileges.
Alas, this is not so. The VE system came into play in December 1983.
The code debate had already been ongoing for some time. I know that
in the mid-70s when I first investigated amateur radio the debate had
already started.
> [...] Some Volunteer Examiners were embarassed that their own code
> skills had atrophied [...] These individuals couldn't construct a
> code receiving test, and couldn't administer a sending test, and yet
> here they were supposed to be passing judgement on others.
Well, the VE system doesn't require every VE to be able to administer
every test.
> Thus began the No Code International club.
You've placed NCI originating around 1983. Problem is, it wasn't
founded until 1997.
> Those of us who have been around long enough to qualify for QCWA
> membership remember that 5 wpm used to get you a one year
> non-renewable code only ticket [...]
Those of us who've read the history of Morse code testing are also
aware that there was a time before the first code requirement.
> They are already after our CW frequencies, including
> 30 meters.
NCI is not opposed to Morse Code, nor has it ever proposed any changes
to the official band plan. Not once, in all of its filings before the
FCC has it suggested a change to the plan.
> Take a look at the "Band Plan" put forth by KQ6XA on both this site
> and on QRZ. KQ6XA, who claims her proposal is her exercise of free
> speech, thinks that because people have expressed opposition to her
> plan, that makes it a good plan! It's a slick proposal, but it's
> snake oil to be sure.
KQ6XA does not speak for NCI. Bonnie Crystal speaks (eloquently) for
herself.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> English is still the universal language. [of ham
> radio]
only among those who only speak English. It's pretty easy to find Spanish, French, Tagalog, and Russian QSOs from here. I expect that most languages get plenty of air time.
> Come to think of it, Morse code is the universal
> language of ham radio.
To be a *universal* language, it would first have to be a language. It's not a language, it's a means of encoding a subset of the Latinate character set, along with some typographic symbols.
> Using Morse code, you can have a QSO with a foreign
> ham that has little or no command of the English
> language.
In which you can exchange a tiny amount of information.
Every time someone says that Morse code is a language, I ask the following question. Perhaps you can:
I have a friend in Beijing. He speaks no English. I speak no Mandarin. We both can copy code at 20wmp. How do I, in this "universal language" ask him what he had for dinner last Tuesday?
How does he answer me?
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It [Morse code] also weeds out those with no real
> intellectual abilities.
A skill you learn by rote practice? Learning Morse code is probably the least intellectual activity involved in obtaining an amateur license.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Some topics are fundimental. Want a B.S. degree,
> most quality Universities require Psychology,
> economics, & math.
In 30 years of direct contact with academia, I have never encountered a BS program that requires psychology, economics and math.
> Now, if you are interested in Art history, you
> might argue "why take math?". The answer: it is an
> important fundiment to a well rounded education.
> Also to weed out those with no real intellectual
> abillities beyong "art".
Art history is not a BSci degree, it's a BArts degree, and it doesn't usually require math.
> Want a Masters degree? you will likely be required
> to pass statistics. But why if you are a art major?
> Same answer.
In none of the three graduate programs I participated in was there a statistics requirement. Masters degrees tend to be terminal, and specialized.
> Want to go to Law school, criminal law is REQUIRED.
> But what if I had whined that "I'm not interested"?
> They would have said its part of a well rounded
> education. Get the idea?
Problem: you're talking about higher education. Amateur radio isn't a career path, it's a hobby.
> So now, you ask why code?
> "Because its part of a well rounded HF amateur". Its
> not part of a VHF/UHF/CB operator. It also weeds out
> those with no real intellectual abillities.
Right. The one aspect of amateur radio that can *only* be learned by rote practice is Morse Code.
Anyway, the FCC dismissed the 'weed-out' argument years ago.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> "Can't read, but should be given a high school
>>>diploma?
>> Happens all the time; especially to prominent
>> athlete
> And you think this is the way it should be?
Nope.
> So, under your logic, just because wives are beaten
> all the time, that makes it ok?
What logic? I was just pointing out that your examples were flawed. I made no argument.
I will point out that you routinely make a domain of discourse error by trying to compare hobbies to things like criminal violence, by the way.
> Liberal thinking - ARGUHHHH
I would like to hope my thinking was up to the standards of Thomas Jefferson, but, alas, I've spent too much time on the internet for that to remain true.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Actually, I disagree.
> You can't scuba dive without a license.
You can. Club Med often offers one day diving as part of their vacation packages.
> You can't fly a private plane without a license.
Except, as we all recall fondly from Sky King, when the pilot has passed out and you have to land the plane.
> Why should ham radio be any different?
You're arguing about the wrong issue. The question isn't "should amateur radio require a license" -- it already does. The question is "what should be demonstrated in order to earn that license."
Frankly, I think amateur radio licenses should require the same basis for demonstration as the other licensed activites: You should demonstrate that you understand the safety regulations of the hobby.
After all, amateur radio isn't about getting a license. It's about what you do once you've got one.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by KC5NMW on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG6RQ
Mark,Mark,Mark
You yourself admitted that CW is a universal language. Therefore morse code is a language of dits and dahs. My comparison was the ability of others to learn another language. Can you? I speak 6 but since morse is a language of dits and dahs and not speech I have the problem. Actually I would love to know code even though I can send and receive code via my computer at over 100 WPM. But why do I have to explain myself to someone that has his own ideas about all that can't pass the code requirement? I give up. Go rant and rave at someone else. Besides the winds of change are in the air whether you accept it or not.
Ciao bofo bella vinia.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quotes from AE6IP:
"The VE system came into play in December 1983."
Not here in the Midwest! I got my present call from an FCC administered testing session in St. Louis during August 1984. My son upgraded to General Class at the same testing session. There is no mistake about the date.
"The code debate had already been ongoing for some time. I know that in the mid-70s when I first investigated amateur radio the debate had
already started. "
A few individuals complained, but as I said earlier, the complaining was about 80 dB below what it is now, with the testing requirements having been compromised.
"Well, the VE system doesn't require every VE to be able to administer
every test."
No, but the VE's who were not CW capable were conspicuous and their embarassment was one of the driving forces behind NCI.
"You've placed NCI originating around 1983. Problem is, it wasn't founded until 1997."
Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't say they were formally founded that far back; my point was that the seeds were planted with the advent of volunteer examiners who replaced the paid FCC professionals.
"KQ6XA does not speak for NCI. Bonnie Crystal speaks (eloquently) for herself."
In fact, in her proposal, she claims to speak for all hams. She begins statements with "Hams want ... ", "Hams desperately need ... " I got her to admit she was speaking only for herself. Another ham asked "Where is the desperation?" My guess is that it is in her own mind. Those who criticize her proposal are labeled "naysayers," and she even takes the level of criticism she has received thus far to mean that she is on target.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dualgatemosfet, (got to be red neck hillbilly!)
Which branch did you serve in? I suspect you would wet your pants if you got near anything military.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was in the Army. I served in Nam.
SSBDX, two questions:
Who's military did you serve in?
and
Are you a member of the Communist Party?
73,
DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX, if you saw the things I saw, and experienced the things I experienced in Nam, it would wet your pants, boy! You still didn't answer my question. Are you a member of the Communist Party?
73,
DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gomer,
If you know what SSIR means you will have an answer to your idiot questions.
Also, Mr Pyle, you have demonstrated as a not too bright TECH classee, you dont' know when you are biting the hand that is feeding you.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K7VO on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The point that nobody is raising is that the FCC itself is on record as saying they do not see value in CW testing. The dropping of the code requirement, including for the Extra, was probably a certainty with comments on previous petitions running 2-1 in favor. Here the ARRL steps in and offers a compromise that preseves some code testing at the Extra level. I would think the code forever crowd would be thrilled that the ARRL is heading NCI et al off at the pass and that they may just have enough influence on ham radio matters with the FCC to save code testing in some form. Some people want everything their way or else.
For those who are advocating dropping ARRL membership and contributions because of their restructuring proposal I say here is why we need the ARRL: Somebody needs to fight BPL in an orgnazied, reasoned, technically competent way. Somebody needs to partner with other spectrum users, particularly government users like FEMA/DHS, DOD, and the folks at NTIA, to get this stopped in the U.S. Nobody but the ARRL can do that as things stand now. Nobdy else has ever successfully defended our bands against commercial threats. No, the ARRL does not succeed every time as 220-222 MHz, 1215-1240 MHz, and the condition of our allocation at 13cm amply demonstrate. They do succeed more often than not. How would we fare without them? I shudder to think about it.
The ARRL refunded your membership fee? Judas got his 30 talents of silver as well.
Yes, I operate CW QRP. Yes, I've even been a CW op at Field Day. Yes, I needed to pass a 13WPM code test to even get access to HF. Yes, my first QSO was a shaky CW QSO on 15m with an old Heathkit HW-16. What does this all say in terms of the merits of this proposal? Absolutely nothing.
I can promote CW QRP without it being a test requirement. Personally, I see CW testing today as little more than a hazing ritual. Stop shoving CW down people's throats and maybe they won't be so hostile to it and will develop an honest interest on their own because of what CW can do and it's intrinsic value to the radio hobbyist.
73,
Caity
K7VO
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marty:
You fail to grasp the concepts, so I will try one last time.
If you think a quality education is a narrowly focused, limited curriculum, you are wrong. There is a big difference between an "education" and just having skills. A quality education should be broadbased and not narrowly focused. A ham operator's "education" should be no different.
Would you have surgery by a surgeon that got his surgical priveleges simply because he whined until the hospital said "OK"? I hope not. Then why do you want HF operators getting their skills for "whining"?
Liberals prefer to "dumb down" the world and standards so as to make us all "equal", rather than elevate standards and improve the vast majority. The Soviet Union followed that philosophy and it crumbled!
Standards serve an important role in quality. That's why we are a world leader in everything from healthcare to technology. "Dumb down" the standards... and POOF! Quality drops and we will be on our way to being a 3rd world country where standards don't have meaning. Ever wonder why world leaders get their healthcare in the USA? Standards of quality that don't exist elsewhere.
The ONLY thing seperating us from CB are the testing requirements and standards. The more of those you take away, the more we will resemble CB.
You might not care.....but I do.
QUALITY MATTERS.
W9WHE
Boycott ARRL for advocating "dumbing down" standards.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP writes:
"In 30 years of direct contact with academia, I have never encountered a BS program that requires psychology, economics and math".
I don't know what type of "contact" you have with academia (you are very vague) but my "contact" is called "degrees awarded". They include B.A., M.I.C.T and J.D. I can tell you that a QUALITY curriculum from QUALITY Universities contains all three.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello Caity. They keep bringing up the code issue but thats really not what all the fuss is about. I've had to bring in the fcc here where i live to clean up my 2 meter machines. We were over ran by what i call hardcore cb hams. These guys came off cb got a tech license and tried to turn the machines around here into their next 11 meter hang out. Many are extra class now and still operate like they are on 11 meters. The arrl proposal looks to most of us as nothing but a big fund raiser. They are well aware of hundreds of thousands of cb types out there and they want to make it as easy as possible to pass a ham test so they can attract these folks into the hobby and get their membership. One of the main points of all the fuss is many of us just can not understand giving folks like i've described above a free upgrade to general class. Many know nothing or little at all about radio..Many of them refuse to be elmered too. I've been honestly cussed out by a few of these people. They come off the cb band already knowing more than amateurs who have been licensed over 20 years. I know i paint a horrible picture here with my comments but in many parts of the country this is really how it is. This is why so many of us have turned against the arrl. Many of us believe they no longer represent the amateur community and are only looking to increase their cash flow by putting such a proposal to the fcc. You may live in a wonderful part of the country and have never been exposed to these types of folks like so many of us have.
Respectfully,
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John,
As terrible as the 2m situation sounds in your part of the country, you seem to be confusing unrelated issues i.e. trying to solve a rules enforcement problem with a licensing solution. I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, just suggesting that it be addressed appropriately.
With this approach in mind, I respectfully suggest that the ARRL proposal which is targeted at licensing issues rather that enforcement issues is a valid proposal.
Finally, where is your supporting data for your claim that the ARRL has degenerated to the mode you describe?
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Caity, K7VO said: "I would think the code forever crowd would be thrilled that the ARRL is heading NCI et al off at the pass and that they may just have enough influence on ham radio matters with the FCC to save code testing in some form. Some people want everything their way or else."
I think you've captured the crux of the matter, Caity. I believe the ARRL is trying to do its best for all amateurs and that they deserve our support even if we don't agree with every detail of every decision made. When I was 16 years old, I spent the Summer reading every issue of QST beginning with Vol. I, No. 1 (circa 1914 as I recall). If it weren't for the League, we wouldn't have this hobby to enjoy (and complain about).
I do disagree with you, however, when you say that "I see CW testing today as little more than a hazing ritual." I see it as a literacy test in a basic radio language that enables QRP specialists such as yourself, as well as antenna restricted folks to have a decent chance for low-cost world-wide communications. And, why "today" as opposed to some years ago when you had to pass your 13 wpm test?
At any rate, when this matter is all settled, I do sincerely hope that everyone will continue to enjoy this hobby in whatever aspects appeal to them.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX, you are not only a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, you are a total jerk. We don't want your kind on HF. I prefer not to waste any more of my time with a bubba-type CB maniac like you. Go shove your stinking comments up your communist butt.
DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
dualgatemosfet aka n8xwh,
You are another one for the book of crazy people on
the eHam site. This site attracks more angry drunks than any other ham site.
I think you need a little help. Drinking that moonshine cut with turpentine can fry your brain. I am going to send you some info that may help you get off the booze and drugs. Is your address still
charlie daniels n8xwh
301 collins rd.
paris, ky 40361
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX asked <<<I am going to send you some info that may help you get off the booze and drugs. Is your address still
charlie daniels n8xwh
301 collins rd.
paris, ky 40361>>>
HI-HI-HI-HI-!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!!
First, my callsign is not N8XWH. Neither is my real name Charlie Daniels. I took it as an alias when I registered on EHam from the singer who did such greats as "Uneasy Rider" and "The Devil Went Down To Georgia". As far as you and everybody on this site is concerned, I am
DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
PS:
Please leave N8XWH alone. He has nothing to do with this and is not deserving of your harassment.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yea right. Now you are refusing to admit to your own name. That is really pathetic.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX, as "The King" says, "Have it your way"!
73, dewd! I'm tired of wasting my time with the likes of you.
DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a good proposal but there should be two changes.
1. No automatic upgrade to General without passing element 3.
2. Retain element 1 for General.
73, Jim
AD6WL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> AE6IP writes:
>> "In 30 years of direct contact with academia, I
>> have never encountered a BS program that requires
>> psychology, economics and math".
> I don't know what type of "contact" you have with
> academia (you are very vague)
I've earned a degree. I have taught, been a student at, funded research, and participated in cooperative research with academics from the leading schools in mathematics, physics, software development and electrical engineering. None of them require psychology or economics as prerequisites for BS degrees in physics, mathematics, electronics, or software development.
>> but my "contact" is called "degrees awarded". They
>> include B.A., M.I.C.T and J.D. I can tell you that
>> a QUALITY curriculum from QUALITY Universities
>> contains all three.
You can tell me that, but you would be wrong. My alma mater, for instance, considered one of the top geophysics and petroleum engineering schools in the world when I was a student, doesn't even have an economics department.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You fail to grasp the concepts, so I will try one
> last time.
I understand what you are trying to claim. It just happens that you're wrong.
> If you think a quality education is a narrowly
> focused, limited curriculum, you are wrong.
I think a quality education is one in which the instruction in the taught material is first rate. Doesn't matter if it's narrowly focused or broadly focused.
> There is a big difference between an "education" and
> just having skills. A quality education should be
> broadbased and not narrowly focused.
That's a matter of taste. The downside of 'broad based' educations, especially when forced into four year degree programs, is that depth of coverage suffers for breadth.
I would prefer that students be well grounded in the material they do cover rather than that they superficially cover a broad range of material.
> A ham operator's "education" should be no different.
Here we differ rather completely. Amateur radio is a hobby. It is broad, and if you want it to be, deep.
However, since, as the FCC definition reminds us, we're in it "solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest".
> Would you have surgery by a surgeon that got his
> surgical priveleges simply because he whined until
> the hospital said "OK"? I hope not. Then why do you
> want HF operators getting their skills
> for "whining"?
I would have hobbies judged as hobbies, careers judged as careers, and people remembing that to compare one to another is the old apples and oranges.
> Liberals prefer to "dumb down" the world and
> standards so as to make us all "equal", rather than > elevate standards and improve the vast majority.
It's ironic, of course, since the broad based education you are calling for is typically called a "liberal education", since, after the model of Greek liberals, and at the behast of such liberals as Thomas Jefferson, a 'university' education is liberal.
On the other hand, it is usually conservatives who argue that technical education, especially when funded by the government, should be directed at training workers for skills of value to industry.
> The Soviet Union followed that philosophy and it
> crumbled!
The Soviet Union wasn't liberal by any reasonable definition of the word, nor did it follow a liberal educational policy. The Soviet Union's educational failure can be summarized by Lysenkoism.
> Standards serve an important role in quality. That's
> why we are a world leader in everything from
> healthcare to technology.
We? You don't live in the US?
> "Dumb down" the standards... and POOF! Quality drops
> and we will be on our way to being a 3rd world
> country where standards don't have meaning.
Well, 'dumbing down' has been an aspect of conservative American culture since before the revolution. It was a difficult exercise for liberals like Jefferson to put through the public school system in the first place. The idea of a public library was roundly condemned by the same conservatives that called out the troops to quell populist movements in the late 19th century.
> The ONLY thing seperating us from CB are the testing
> requirements and standards. The more of those you
> take away, the more we will resemble CB.
Well, we've had another longish exchange, and you've completely avoided talking about the real issue again. The question here isn't whether to have standards or not -- amateur radio *does* require a license after all The question here is how best to apply those standards.
> You might not care.....but I do.
Well, you know what they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've got an idea. Why don't you stop trying to demonize the people who differ with your opinion by labeleing them with 'liberal' as if it were a bad thing? Why don't you quit trying to compare a hobby to a career? Why don't we discuss what the standards for the hobby should be?
(by the way, when you call *me* a liberal, I think of Thomas Jefferson, and am honored that you might think I could live up to his standards.)
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quotes from AE6IP:
"The VE system came into play in December 1983."
> Not here in the Midwest! I got my present call from
> an FCC administered testing session in St. Louis
> during August 1984. My son upgraded to General Class
> at the same testing session. There is no mistake
> about the date.
Yes, even there in the Midwest. You may have taken the test at the FCC, but by that time, it was possible to take a test at a VEC session.
By the way, taking a test at the FCC is no big deal. It's just another test, after all
> A few individuals complained, but as I said earlier,
> the complaining was about 80 dB below what it is
> now, with the testing requirements having been
> compromised.
I don't believe so. I believe that the ease of communication presented by the internet has made it appear as if there is more complaining now than there was then, but the reality is that back than individual complaints were seldom heard by more than a few, while now, any individual can reach a large audience in the online forums.
> No, but the VE's who were not CW capable were
> conspicuous and their embarassment was one of the
> driving forces behind NCI.
I'm sorry, this makes no sense. The embarrasement, if it existed, happened 15 years before NCI was found. While I do realize that hams are capable of holding grudges for long periods of time, I doubt very much that someone that embarrased would wait that long before acting.
>> "You've placed NCI originating around 1983. Problem
>> is, it wasn't founded until 1997."
> Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't say they were
> formally founded that far back; my point was that
> the seeds were planted with the advent of volunteer
> examiners who replaced the paid FCC professionals.
Except that there has been a debate about the validity of the code test since the first time there was a code test, and the problem with the VE system occured 12 years before the NCI was founded. That's a hell of an example of delayed gratification.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a good proposal but there should be two changes.
1. No automatic upgrade to General without passing element 3.
2. Retain element 1 for General.
73, Jim
AD6WL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pete there is no solution by giving untrained individuals free access to hf. Simple as that. Arrl is well aware of several hundreds of thousands of cb operators which when the tests are dumbed down will be able to pass the test that any other 5 year old will be able to pass. One guy in my club bought the tech study guide and read it one time. He went the next day and passed the test and practically aced it. He will be the first to tell anyone that he knows nothing about hf radio and certainly is not ready to be upgraded for "free" to hf phone. This is not a code issue. This proposal is nothing but a fantastic fund raiser for the arrl. They figure every cber in the country will join their ranks after they see to it that any 5 year old can pass the tests. Certainly you can not be as blind as you seem. Now don't get me wrong i'm not saying all techs are bad there really are some fine folks in their ranks. There really are some pitiful ones there too. Get on the bands and listen around. The amateur community is in an uproar over this. Oh yes the techs are tickled and a few of you arrl sheep as well. Sorry.. they started selling me out around ten years ago and i dropped my membership then as well as my arrl vec team. Many of us have seen throught them...how can anyone that loves amateur radio support an organization that only has themselves and endorsements as their number one priority? This is it in a nutshell...do what ever they can to get the fcc to dumb down the tests. Get many of those thousands of cbers to pass a test a 5 year old can pass. Then the cbers will think the sun raises and sets in them and join their ranks. When a person off the street with little or no radio knowledge at all can pass the tests that should tell you the organization you worship is doing something "damn" wrong. Lets put the radio back in amateur radio. Let them make the tests harder...do away with the code if they want everyone else in the world has but damn son lets not give the license away. Working for it is all that separates us from the cb crowd as it is. Commercial dealers=endorsements people calling the shots sell out to put more endorsements in their bank roll. Do what ever they can to get the fcc to dumb down the requirements for each license class=more cbers. Help sell more radios for the commercial guys get more endorsements...never ending story.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Arrl is well aware of several hundreds of thousands
> of cb operators which when the tests are dumbed down
> will be able to pass the test that any other 5 year
> old will be able to pass.
Best estimates place the total number of CB operators in the US at right around 100,000.
> One guy in my club bought the tech study guide and
> read it one time. He went the next day and passed
> the test and practically aced it. He will be the
> first to tell anyone that he knows nothing about hf
> radio and certainly is not ready to be upgraded
> for "free" to hf phone.
It's a hobby. The way you learn about it is you do it.
> This is not a code issue. This proposal is nothing
> but a fantastic fund raiser for the arrl. They
> figure every cber in the country will join their
> ranks after they see to it that any 5 year old can
> pass the tests.
The ARRL doesn't need people on HF to accomplish what you are suggesting; they merely need licensed amateurs willing to join. If that was their goal, rather than pissing off some existing members, they could achieve it much easier by making the Tech license even easier. Say, for instance, as easy as the old Novice license was.
Those "CB operators" who want to operate on HF have all gotten their licenses by now. CB radio is a dying hobby. I doubt very much that the ARRL would go looking there for new recruits.
> Certainly you can not be as blind as you seem. Now
> don't get me wrong i'm not saying all techs are bad
> there really are some fine folks in their ranks.
The vast majority of "service" provided by amateurs is provided on UHF/VHF by techs, for example.
> There really are some pitiful ones there too. Get on
> the bands and listen around.
There are pitiful operators on all frequencies.
> The amateur community is in an uproar over this.
The amateur community has been in an uproar over pitiful operators ever since their was an amateur community.
> Oh yes the techs are tickled and a few of you arrl
> sheep as well. Sorry.. they started selling me out
> around ten years ago and i dropped my membership
> then as well as my arrl vec team.
How much did they get for you?
> Many of us have seen throught them...how can anyone
> that loves amateur radio support an organization
> that only has themselves and endorsements as their
> number one priority?
And by going it alone without any organization, who, other than yourself, are you supporting?
> This is it in a nutshell...do what ever they can to
> get the fcc to dumb down the tests. Get many of
> those thousands of cbers to pass a test a 5 year old
> can pass.
Yeah. that would be the thousands of CBers left over from the thousands of CBers who didn't flock to amateur radio after the last reorg, I guess.
> Then the cbers will think the sun raises and sets in
> them and join their ranks.
Hmm... Thos CBers who care about rules will either not bother with the ARS or have already gotten their tech ticket. Those who don't care, won't. Where, exactly, out of the 100,000 CBers that are left, do you think this 'hoard' is coming from?
> When a person off the street with little or no
> radio knowledge at all can pass the tests that
> should tell you the organization you worship is
> doing something "damn" wrong.
Apparently. The ARRL has, for too long, played up the ARS as if it were more than just a hobby. This leads to people taking the hobby waaay to seriously -- which is the basis of most of the sour grapes coming from those who vehemently oppose the proposed reorg.
> Lets put the radio back in amateur radio. Let them
> make the tests harder...do away with the code if
> they want everyone else in the world has but damn
> son lets not give the license away.
Why? The hobby isn't about the license; it's about what you do once you have it.
> Working for it is all that separates us from the cb
> crowd as it is.
For your own private definition of "working".
> Commercial dealers=endorsements people calling the
> shots sell out to put more endorsements in their
> bank roll.
The directors are volunteers, and don't receive any "endorsement" money. Actually, the ARRL doesn't endorse products, so it doesn't either.
> Do what ever they can to get the fcc to dumb down
> the requirements for each license class=more cbers.
You can repeat this as often as you like, but it must stare into the face of the stark reality that there just ain't that many CBers.
> Help sell more radios for the commercial guys get
> more endorsements...never ending story.
Yup. Whining about Cbers and dumbing down has been around for at least as long as licensing for amateur radio operators. Same old story; and yet the sky never seems to fall.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John,
I don't see the massive disparity in knowledge requirement (tech - general) you make such a huge deal of.
The hoardes of cbers at the threshold are just not there in the quantities you suggest.
You have yet to convince me that the ARRL's motivations are purely numbers and money based. I know you have convinced yourself of this but the facts do not support such a hair-brained scheme to riches.
Licensing is not so much an end unto itself but just a means to an end. It seems too much is made of the learning required going in and not enough of the learning done afterwards.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP...just pure arrl sheep "spew". You guys deny what you see and hear with your own ears on the hambands? Nothing you can say here is going to change the facts that more of us now are seeing through the arrl plan. Get off this thread and on the air and ask around. Its easy to sit here infront of a keyboard and spew. The bottom line though is how can anyone that loves amateur radio sit back and watch an organization destroy it from its roots. Kill the roots anything dies. Give them a free upgrade to general..none or little radio knowledge..turn it into the next "freeband". It will become a free for all a circus. Its already started on 2 meters in many places across the country. There's no one out there that i can send my money to that represents amateur radio any longer. The government should make the rules and enforce them. We don't need a go between organization that has been for every issue in the last ten years that has been part of the dumbing down of Americian amateurs. Lets put electronics and radio back into ham radio instead of trying to make the tests so easy a 5 year old can pass them. Its very clear to many of us what is going on...beats the hell out of me that you sheep can't see it and "blindly" continue your support of the arrl. They do not represent you as an amateur radio operator. Ever ask them to give you some material?? Everything they have has a price tag on it. They are a business in business to make money. We never should of allowed them to get into the position they have now. As you can see...well as most of us can see, we are being sold out.
Respectfully,
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pete...look at qst. Over half its pages are covered in commercial dealers listings. Looks to me like there's a lot of money coming in from all the commercial dealers. Right down to the front cover sometimes. All these guys don't do their thing for free either. So here you have an organization that goes to the fcc and tells them what is best for amateur radio. Do you really think they'd try to get something passed that would not put a buck in their pocket? As we say here in Wv and Ky..."ain't no way".
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What was easy about the old novice ticket by the way? You got on hf on the novice bands and made cw contacts till you could get your speed up to 13 wpm. Then you went to a fcc examiner and took the test. You got tons of hands on hf experiance. Antenna design etc. Watch it now or you might get these freebees all ticked off at you for suggesting something about code. Then they might not want to join the arrl because you've turned against them.
Crap lets bring it back and forget this tech license. That would really clean most of this mess we have on hf up. We be turning out radio operators..oh but that would go against another deal the arrl worked out to dumb us down some more and bring a few bucks to them.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3EVL said:
"The hoardes of cbers at the threshold are just not there in the quantities you suggest."
Have you listened to the freeband lately? Many of the freebanders have state-of-the-art all-band HF ham rigs - general coverage with TX opened up. Not all are using the so-called "export" radios. With no code test and an easy ticket to amateur HF privileges, what do you think these freebanders are going to do? And by the way, they use echo mics and roger beeps with their Kenwoods, Icoms and Yaesus.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> With no code test and an easy ticket to amateur HF
> privileges, what do you think these freebanders are
> going to do?
Continue to operate on the freeband where they believe no rules apply? With all of the spectrum that they can just take over, what would be so specially appealing about amateur spectrum? Are not most of the problems with 28 MHz are not from the hobbyist freebander crowd, but rather business and quasi-business use of "company channels?"
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I said previously, if this is indeed the case then the FCC is not doing it's job in enforcing the rules and that problem needs to be addressed.
I don't see a rules enforcement failure as the driving force in determining what makes up the structure of the ham radio license levels and what the technical content of the exams should be. No ammount of technical filtering is going to keep out the rule-breakers.
73, Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by W1RFI on February 6, 2004:
> With no code test and an easy ticket to amateur HF
> privileges, what do you think these freebanders are
> going to do?
"Continue to operate on the freeband where they believe no rules apply? With all of the spectrum that they can just take over, what would be so specially appealing about amateur spectrum? Are not most of the problems with 28 MHz are not from the hobbyist freebander crowd, but rather business and quasi-business use of "company channels?""
A) Some will stay on the freeband, some will take the easy road to amateur radio. they already have the equipment.
A) Both hobby and business.
Posted by N3EVL on February 6, 2004:
"As I said previously, if this is indeed the case then the FCC is not doing it's job in enforcing the rules and that problem needs to be addressed.
I don't see a rules enforcement failure as the driving force in determining what makes up the structure of the ham radio license levels and what the technical content of the exams should be. No ammount of technical filtering is going to keep out the rule-breakers."
Don't pawn it off on enforcement. Why create more of an enforcement problem by opening the floodgates? Isn't this what happened on CB? Once everyone and his brother was on CB, there was a serious enforcement problem, wasn't there? Do we now repeat the same mistake with amateur radio? Should we make it so easy for the masses to come on board that an enforcement problem is sure to follow?
To both W1RFI and N3EVL:
I don't want to sit back and see a serious irrevocable mistake made. I am for implementing change, but gradually. I also don't want to see the bar lowered any further. This radical change, which would be irrevocable will only bring harm to a great hobby/service.
The issue is not really code vs. no-code. The issue is the dumbing down of ham radio. If Morse testing is eliminated, it should be replaced with something else. The "something else" should be more in-depth comprehensive written exams with no published question pools. Amateur radio licenses need to be earned, not given away with proof of purchase of a box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes. American amateur radio exams should be on par with those of the UK.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is nothing like a bunch of hams arguing about a done deal. The FCC runs ham radio, not hams, not the arrl, the government! Or does everyone just like to argue? Yep, just like to argue.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by SSBDX on February 6, 2004:
"There is nothing like a bunch of hams arguing about a done deal. The FCC runs ham radio, not hams, not the arrl, the government! Or does everyone just like to argue? Yep, just like to argue."
A done deal? When the FCC comes to a decision, then we'll have a done deal. If you're that clairvoyant that you know what the future holds, give me the 6 numbers for tomorrow's Florida Lotto drawing.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Fifty Ways To Get HF"
Just hop on the bus, Gus.
For your free ride, Clyde.
The League's got a new plan, Stan.
For ham-CB.
Just whine and cry, Cy.
Like a little tyke, Mike.
You're gonna get your way, Jay.
Just wait an' see.
Just dumb things down, Roy.
So you can have HF, boy.
Just rant and rave, Dave.
For your ham-CB.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Fifty Ways To Get HF"
Just hop on the bus, Gus.
For your free ride, Clyde.
The League's got a new plan, Stan.
For ham-CB.
Just whine and cry, Cy.
Like a little tyke, Mike.
You're gonna get your way, Jay.
Just wait an' see.
Just dumb things down, Roy.
So you can have HF, boy.
Just rant and rave, Dave.
For your ham-CB.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The FCC gives clues to their positions all the time. All you have to do is pay attention. Nothing the FCC ends up doing is ever a big surprise. They have leaked their position concerning code and code is going away. Just the way it is.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The statement "code is going away" is valid. In the near future the cw test requirement is history. CW will still be used by those who want to continue to use it. But in time with the test requirement gone, cw will probably go off into the sunset. 20 years from now, cw will be in the same catagory as spark. Ancient history.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSBDX predicts:
"20 years from now, cw will be in the same catagory as spark. Ancient history."
I predict the exact opposite. If code testing is eliminated and the floodgates to HF are opened, the severe overcrowding on the phone sub bands will result in a CW Renaissance. Many will see the need to get away from the zoo. For the same reason, many who were into CB in the seventies and eighties decided to bite the bullet and go for their ham licenses. They even did that dreadful, awful thing. They learned code. The same will happen with many no-code hams. They will learn code to get away from the zoo. You will wonder why the CW sub bands are teeming with activity. If code testing is eliminated, I should think seriously about buying stock in Bencher and Vibroplex.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
SSBDX, the only reason why spark is no longer used is because it is a bandwidth hog. On the contrary, CW is very narrow. CW is also very efficient. CW bandwidth is only 500 Hz, whereas bandwidth of an SSB signal is 3 KHz wide. A 100W CW signal is as efficient as a 2KW SSB signal. DSP works much better on CW than it does on SSB. The best DX is not on SSB, but CW. There will be many countries that will never drop Morse testing. Russia is one. China is another. Fact is, none of the communist countries will drop Morse testing. CW will always be alive and well, to your chagrin.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> AE6IP...just pure arrl sheep "spew". You guys deny
> what you see and hear with your own ears on the
> hambands?
I spend a lot of time on 40m, a bit of time on 10m, and some on 80m. I listen to the local repeaters, and I've got a CB receiver that I've taken all over the Western US, and with the exception of one long-time-licensed ham disrupting a 40m net, I haven't heard any garbage on the air.
> Nothing you can say here is going to change the
> facts that more of us now are seeing through the
> arrl plan.
More than two thirds of the comments on the petitions in front of the FCC now are in favor of dropping element 1 altogether. The ARRL plan you "see through" is probably the only hope pro-coders have of preserving *any* element 1 test.
> Get off this thread and on the air and ask around.
My laptop sits next to my rig. I'm often on the air and online at the same time. I've made 5 trips through out the west this year, covering more than 10,000 miles with a 2m rig and a cb, and I haven't heard anything like what's claimed on the internet.
> Its easy to sit here infront of a keyboard and spew.
Yes. Yes it is.
> The bottom line though is how can anyone that loves
> amateur radio sit back and watch an organization
> destroy it from its roots.
Nobody's destroying anything. A hobby is changing, and not very much at that.
> Kill the roots anything dies. Give them a free
> upgrade to general..none or little radio
> knowledge..turn it into the next "freeband".
This kind of claim has being made about the ARS for more than 60 years, and yet, the hobby is still doing fine, thank you.
> It will become a free for all a circus. Its already
> started on 2 meters in many places across the
> country.
There are, I'm told, a few areas with problem repeaters. They are, I know from my travels, the rare exception, and not the rule.
> The government should make the rules and enforce
> them.
They do. In the end, after all the proposals are presented, all the comments heard, the FCC will rule
> Lets put electronics and radio back into ham radio
> instead of trying to make the tests so easy a 5 year
> old can pass them. Its very clear to many of us what
> is going on...beats the hell out of me that you
> sheep can't see it and "blindly" continue your
> support of the arrl.
You're confused if you think I blindly support the ARRL. I have regularly, and publically, criticized the ARRL; as well as making my dissatification known to my section manager, division director, and the ARRL president.
> They do not represent you as an amateur radio
> operator. Ever ask them to give you some material??
Yes. I have. Got it too.
> Everything they have has a price tag on it. They are
> a business in business to make money.
Are you suggesting that they should raise dues to the point where the dues pay all the costs and then give away everything?
> We never should of allowed them to get into the
> position they have now.
What would you have done differently?
> As you can see...well as most of us can see, we are
> being sold out.
Nobody's selling anybody out. Times have changed, and the hobby is changing to meet them.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are some strange conclusions being predicted here. CW will go away because it is takes considerable effort to learn and is not enjoyable to use. The only factor that kept cw around this long was the test requirement. I doubt it will ever completely disappear but its use will decline over time with no test requirement.
The influx of new hams that everybody seems to be predicting will also create a big outflux when the new hams get bored. Beyond popular opinion, ham radio isn't for everybody. Eventually, ham radio could very well get some high caliber new blood that never came with a code requirement in place. Everybody seems to want to think every new ham will be a low life after cw testing stops. Well, I have seen more than a life time of low lifes in this hobby since I have been in it (35 years) and alot of them are now on eHam. If you all think you are the cream of the crop now, THINK AGAIN.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ref:AE6IP.. Since you mentioned 40meters a few days ago i was in qso just working folks as they came around the freq. This one guy checked in with us and when i ask him a question instead of the fool saying yes to it...he came back at me with "thats a big 10-4". He was out of this last batch of dumbed down 5wpm folks that the league was all for. It took us 10 minutes to get this guy to turn his mic gain down. He had it wide open and sounded like he just came off channel 19 on cb. I hope they got enough money out of that deal to pay for all the aggravation its cost many amateurs. I don't even want to think about what the bands will be like when they help turn even more folks loose on us with their freebee license that have little or no knowledge of radio. The sky is not falling but this situation can in no way be compaired to things that have went on in years gone by. I'll agree for 50 years folks have been complaining about this or that. This is the first time in history that a hf phone license is going to be given away. Without a test...without any knowledge...just saying...here is you a free hf license. Dumb us down...give a license away...we become like cb. We're sounding that way in lots of places already.
Nuff said:
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You ask me what would i of done differantly. Looking back i would of simply let the fcc call all the shots without a go between that has developed commercial interests. If the commercial folks could "get to" the fcc with endorsements and other deals then we'd all just have the government cutting our throats for the buck instead of a group of our own hams.
ARRL..who needs them?? Certainly not the ham community.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Ref:AE6IP.. Since you mentioned 40meters a few days
> ago i was in qso just working folks as they came
> around the freq. This one guy checked in with us and
> when i ask him a question instead of the fool saying
> yes to it...he came back at me with "thats a big 10-
> 4".
It cracks me up no end that hams who come onto the internet without learning any of the internet jargon but rather using a lot of ham jargon complain about CB jargon on the amateur bands.
If the worst problem you can recall is some guy saying 10-4, it hardly sounds like you have any problems.
> He was out of this last batch of dumbed down 5wpm
> folks that the league was all for. It took us 10
> minutes to get this guy to turn his mic gain down.
I've encountered so-called 'big gun' contestors with the same problem. Some have been hams for 30 years.
> He had it wide open and sounded like he just came
> off channel 19 on cb. I hope they got enough money
> out of that deal to pay for all the aggravation its
> cost many amateurs.
So that's your big complaint, is it, you don't like the jargon being used by ex-cbers?
> I don't even want to think about what the bands will
> be like when they help turn even more folks loose on
> us with their freebee license that have little or no
> knowledge of radio.
There aren't that many people left who will bother. The people you seem to want to worry about -- the techs who get a "free" upgrade to general -- are already hams, and the CBers who are into rule violation aren't going to bother to pick up a ticket.
> The sky is not falling but this situation can in no
> way be compaired to things that have went on in
> years gone by. I'll agree for 50 years folks have
> been complaining about this or that.
Well, at least we've got agreement on that much.
> This is the first time in history that a hf phone
> license is going to be given away. Without a
> test...without any knowledge...just saying...here is
> you a free hf license.
Except that the license does require a test. After all, the techs who will be upgraded *have* passed a tech test -- which, as the ARRL points out, is about as hard as the general test has been. About the only thing covered on the general test now that's not covered on the tech test is the band edges of the HF general bands.
> Dumb us down...give a license away...we become like
> cb. We're sounding that way in lots of places
> already.
The problem with that argument is that "lots of places" seems to be limited to a handful of repeaters in the south and east, that 80m has always been "like CB", and that the hoard of CBers that won't show up this time is even smaller than the hoard of CBers that didn't show up the last time was.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Are you having some kind of problem understanding what i'm saying in reference to your statements about internet jargon and ham jargon? Man you are really messed up.
Have fun quoting...seems you really enjoy doing that! I've noticed a few other arrl "spewmasters" that do the same thing.
Man that will really look good in quotes.
WR8D:
|
| |
|
A few problems with this proposal
|
|
|
by WW7KE on February 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all, I doubt seriously that this proposal will go through as-is. That being said, there are some things that have been put forth by the ARRL I have a problem with, and some ideas of my own:
1. Techs should not be automatically be promoted to General. Advanced should not be promoted to Extra (disclaimer: I've held an Advanced license since 1972 and have never taken the Extra exam). I think this may be one part that the FCC won't buy.
2. Give the Techs limited phone AND CW/data privleges on the HF bands (such as 50 kHz each on 80, 40 & 15, and 200 kHz on 10 - no privleges on 60, 30, 20, 17, or 12) with 100 watts max output. Keep the General, Advanced, and Extra bands as-is.
3. Forget the Novice license but reinstate the Advanced.
4. For those who feel that this is "dumbing down," toughen up the written exams. Basic theory & rules for Techs and go up from there. The Extra Class exam should require a knowledge level equivalent to an Associates Degree in Electronics Technology. The CW requirement should be kept for Extras (as is proposed).
Amateur radio is a technical hobby/service (emphasis on service - hobbies don't get frequencies, services do) and technical knowledge should be a requirement for licensing.
We need more bodies occupying bands or we are in danger of losing them. especially 902 MHz and up. Commercial interests (read: cellular & Part 15 consumer device manufacturers) are looking for spectrum and the FCC is authorized to auction off pretty much what they need to (to a point, ITU agreements being that point). That has been the case since 1993 when the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was enacted. Bottom line is that our frequencies are potentially worth billions of dollars and there are companies willing to pay that.
But the bodies we need still must be qualified bodies.
73, Keith WW7KE
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by KD5RUS on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm proud to be a ham; thought about it many times throughout the years, but I figured the hobby was either too complex or too expensive to really get into.
Years ago, while training to be an electronics tech, a classmate was a ham with HF privileges. I was a real treat to watch him run his Golden Eagle, DX'ing all over the U.S. and elsewhere.
Years later, my nephew earned his Tech license as a sophomore in High School. Watching him work VHF repeaters locally finally flipped all of the switches in me; I just HAD to become a ham...
So, I bought books and boned-up to take my exam(s).
I aced the Tech, and passed the General, missing 3 questions. My CSCE lapsed after missing the Element 1 exam nearly a year later. My own fault, no doubt about it. I learned the characters; just have trouble copying them serially at 5 wpm...
There's no doubt I nail Element 1 the next time, even if it's no longer required. You see...I want that top ticket...
I've read the ARRL's proposal, and I reading the WRC '03 material pertinent to this discussion. I'll probably have additonal things to say as this all plays out. Nonetheless, I can already confidently make the following points:
1. It is vital to the whole hobby that it have political clout in D.C.
2. To be useful, poltical clout must be concentrated.
3. The ARRL is as good at concentrating and wielding available political clout on our behalf as no other established organization currently is.
4. To fend off the near constant assault on our spectrum allocations, we need all the political clout we can find.
5. Newcomers to the hobby are vital to the health of Amateur Radio if we are to remain strong politically, not to mention, techinically.
6. I expect nothing for free; I'll retake (and pass) the General Exam again if this will keep peace in the family.
7. I am an old CB'er, and I am very sensitive to the professional and qualitative difference that is Amateur Radio. I respect the hams who've been amateur operators for many years. I understand that they have worked hard to gain their privileges and hone their skills. I share there apprehension that easy access to our coveted spectrum may mean the disregard and degredation of decades old traditions and operating practices. The Morse Code "filter" is/was as much about preventing this chaotic decay, as it ever was about communicating in this particular mode.
8. There's no doubt that expanding access to HF will add some measure of crowding, chaos, and some misusage.
In my judgement, however, this will be minimal. The closest experimental evidence we have available for review is that gained since the no-code Tech license made it's debut. I earned my license in March 2001, and I monitor nearly 50 repeaters in the Austin, Texas and surrounding areas. I can recall only a handful of occasions where any band/repeater was willfully misused (i.e. transmitting unlawful content), and there's no evidence I've seen that such was done by any licensed amateur. In fact, many repeaters have come into being to partially accomodate more areas/users, and new call signs are being heard all the time...
These new users are daily proving themselves worthy of the new privileges the've earned, and I seriously doubt there'd be any difference in behavior, should current Tech's be allowed to join current Generals as new Generals.
While there will no doubt be many learning curves traversed by these new Generals, I have seen, nor have I been shown, any evidence these people would willfully misuse or otherwise disrespect the new privileges they'd be given. On the contrary, such a grant would impart a feeling of tremendous responsibility to repay such "gift" by going to great lengths to continue to achieve technically, and refine the use of the now prohibited HF spectrum.
Many current Techs (like myself) already have HF-capable radios. Yet, I'd be willing to bet, very few transmit illegally. They may monitor to learn, but even with the capability to do so, they do not break the rules. If this is not further evidence of no intention to misuse or de-professionalize the high quality of Amateur Radio, then perhaps no evidence will be satisfactory.
As I say, I'm still mulling over the long history of the movement which is reflected in the ARRL proposal. I'll have more to say at a later date. Still, it's pretty clear that substantial changes must be made to keep our wonderful hobby vibrant and strong, while still preserving the tremendous history and professionally-minded service that is Amateur Radio.
It's also pretty clear that attracting and developing new blood is essential to the life of Amateur Rado. Using the Element 1 "filter" is detremental to that objective, and must be eliminated as a hurdle to HF.
It is an unecessary strain on Amateur Radio.
Respectfully submitted,
73
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Are you having some kind of problem understanding
> what i'm saying in reference to your statements
> about internet jargon and ham jargon?
I don't know. Were you planning on saying something on that topic. You haven't yet.
> Man you are really messed up.
Why is it, I wonder, that the people who whine the loudest about bad behavior on the air, are the most willing to indulge in it off the air?
> Have fun quoting...seems you really enjoy doing
> that! I've noticed a few other arrl "spewmasters"
> that do the same thing.
I do believe it was a mistake to allow commercial traffic on the internet. So many newcomers come along and refuse to learn the ettiquette of the net.
Sad, the dumbing down of the net.
Pity there's no going back now.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ said: " CW bandwidth is only 500 Hz, whereas bandwidth of an SSB signal is 3 KHz wide."
Only in very approximate terms. Just because 500 Hz and 2.4 to 2.7 Khz are standard receiver bandwidths for CW and SSB doesn't necessarily mean that transmitted signals will conform. Both CW and SSB signals can occupy more or less bandwidth than the numbers you give, and in fact, the useful information in each usually occupies much less bandwidth than these standard receiver bandwidths. For example, I use a 125 Hz CW filter and a 1.8 KHz SSB filter nearly 100 percent of the time for those respective modes. Many DSP receivers are capable of 30 Hz to 50 Hz bandwidths for pulling a CW signal through. My point in this is that your numbers are actually quite conservative.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C, what you're saying is all relative. The point I was making is that CW is much more efficient than SSB and is much less of a bandwidth hog than SSB.
Another point I wish to make is that no matter what is developed in the future, and no matter what is improved upon in the future, nothing will ever replace narrow, efficient, simple and robust CW for communication. Some say that the digital modes (PSK) have already replaced CW, but you need a computer for PSK. None is needed for CW. PSK cannot be decoded by the human ear as CW is. CW is the only mode that you can use by putting together a simple radio, powered by a 9V square battery on the fly and touching two wires together to communicate with.
73 de Mark
AG4RQ
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> really sad.
> to be talked down to or look upon as inferior.
> simply because one has a differant opinion.
> especially when that opinion was formed from first hand experiance with what i'd call cb hams.
> this proposal is not about ham radio. its simply a fund raiser for the arrl to open the gates.
> if anything the fcc will do completely away with the code and adopt the rest of the leagues proposal
> i hope you understand my concern a little better now.
> seem you can't just talk and need to fragment everything up so i just made it easier for you
> get on the air and ask around talk to active hams about this on the bands. Many are very upset and opinionated.
John WR8D
|
| |
|
Arrl Sells Out Amateur Radio:
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This proposal is nothing but a fund raiser on a massive scale. The bands are full of operators if anything needs to be done.. more need to pass the extra test and get out of the general portions of the band. We have had massive solar flares in recent weeks and it takes lots of time for the bands to recover. Also the sunspot cycle is running down so don't expect to find 40 over 9 signals. Please stop trying to use bad band conditions to support this give away program the arrl has come up with.
73
John WR8D
>
>
>thought i'd put a few in there to help you get started.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a good proposal but there should be two changes.
1. No automatic upgrade to General without passing element 3.
2. Retain element 1 for General.
73, Jim
AD6WL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder why those people who were the leading voice in saying the morse code must remain in the testing scheme are now the ones who say the issue isn't about code or no-code, but the dumbing down of ham radio.
Seems like those people just want something to argue about and now see the code testing IS going away, are more than eager to speak out of their other face and say the issue always was the dumbing down of ham radio.
What has happened to the "Oh, we musn't ever give up morse code?????"
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most who want to retain the morse exam also want to make, or keep, the testing standards high. NCVEC, NCI are doing nothing but proposing easier exams and no-code. In contrast, FISTS is proposing harder, more realistic exams and continued code proficiency. Nothing new going on here.
There are basically two groups: Those who want easier testing and those who want harder exam, or at least exams that aren’t so easy to memorize the answers.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by K1CJS on February 8, 2004:
"I wonder why those people who were the leading voice in saying the morse code must remain in the testing scheme are now the ones who say the issue isn't about code or no-code, but the dumbing down of ham radio.
Seems like those people just want something to argue about and now see the code testing IS going away, are more than eager to speak out of their other face and say the issue always was the dumbing down of ham radio.
What has happened to the 'Oh, we musn't ever give up morse code?????'"
K1CJS, the issue IS about dumbing down ham radio. Licensing in the United States is a sad joke. Question pools are made public. You get to practice with the actual questions and answers on QRZ. How would you feel if such a testing system was implemented in the school system? How about in the colleges? How would you feel if your doctor went through medical school knowing all the questions and answers he or she could possibly be asked on exams? How about choosing the thesis you want to submit, and then just copying and pasting and actually getting credit for it? Frightening! Isn't it? The only real work that one does to earn a ham license anymore is to learn Morse code at the rate of a lousy 5 wpm. Although I prefer that the measly 5 wpm code test be retained for both General and Extra, I could live with the code test being eliminated for General, but something needs to be put in its place. That something should be a more in-depth comprehensive exam, and no published question pools. Everyone wants free, easy, DUH! I say those who want ham licenses and upgrades should be made to learn the material they are to be tested on. The material should be of substance. There should be no published question pools. Someone taking an amateur radio exam should come out of the test feeling that it wasn't easy, of at least medium difficulty and that he/she has learned something. The person should also feel a sense of accomplishment, feel good about what he/she has just done, and that he/she has actually earned the license and the privileges. If this is too much to ask of someone wanting ham radio, then such a person doesn't belong in ham radio.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ:
The purpose of the question I asked is where are all the staunch morse code people gone to? I could believe that they have just stopped arguing because they see (possibly) the writing on the wall, but I don't.
I entirely agree with you that the testing for the higher classes of licenses in ham radio should be made tougher and more comprehensive. I have had that position for a long, long time now. However, I have also taken the position that morse code testing of the entire code should not be part of the actual test for any ham license. How to use it, sure. But not the entire code.
We don't test people on every aspect of phone communication. (As an aside--maybe we should.) We don't test people on actual set-up of a ham antenna and or rig. We don't test people on how to set up or decode packet, or AMTOR, or any other mode of communication for that matter.
As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more I believe a two tier system should be set up in the US. A learners level during which the prospective ham learns about communication and proper procedures including station set up and everything that goes with it, and an experienced level that requires three to five years of training to get to--one that requires a comprehensive exam of everything to do with just about every aspect of ham radio. Put in some endorsements such as morse code, emergency communication, observer stations, etc. for the experienced level that would be options for the ham operator entering that level.
Sadly, a rational system (not particularly the one I describe) is the last thing we'll ever see in the US. Too many big $$$, special interests and government agencies (as the latest from the white house) will stop anything like that dead.
In short (and back to the subject!), I agree with you that ham radio testing shouldn't be made easier. 73!
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello K1CJS..i for one see a worse problem than just dropping the code. Now the arrl wants to have the fcc start giving away licenses. I guess many like myself that have been outspoken about the idiot barrier the code has actually been to some degree really fear now we're going to be dumbed down into the next freeband. Look at the attitudes of some of these technician class folks. Give most these people free hf access and just imagine the mess. I'm shocked to say the least at this proposal and sad to say pleased that many are finally seeing through the arrl sell out. I got pissed around ten years ago and let my membership expire and its took all these years for most of these folks to finally realize the arrl does not represent the amateur community. They support any issue that will put a buck in their pockets. Really sad so i hope you understand we have bigger fish to fry now so to speak than just the code or nocode alone.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why isn't anyone talking about the written test, if that is what you can call it. Go to the elmers thread and look at the questions. Hams using amplifiers, antenna tuners, power supplies, every thing else, and they don't have a clue what they are doing and admit it. How can a ham use ham equipment if they have no technical ability? They don't. They ask elementary questions on an internet site like eHam is a help desk. Make a written test with real technical questions in it and nobody will have to worry about dumbing down. And those who pass it will know how to use and adjust their radios. Who gives a crap about loosing cw ability. Technical ability serves a real purpose, cw ability for those who are not going to use it is a big waste of time.
Put the "ham quality filter" in the written test if you want a "low life" filter.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why isn't anyone talking about the written test, if that is what you can call it. Go to the elmers thread and look at the questions. Hams using amplifiers, antenna tuners, power supplies, every thing else, and they don't have a clue what they are doing and admit it. How can a ham use ham equipment if they have no technical ability? They don't. They ask elementary questions on an internet site like eHam is a help desk.
Make a written test with real technical questions in it and nobody will have to worry about dumbing down. And those who pass it will know how to use and adjust their radios. Who gives a crap about loosing cw ability. Technical ability serves a real purpose, cw ability for those who are not going to use it is a big waste of time.
Put the "ham quality filter" in the written test if you want a "low life" filter.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree that the written test need to be made more difficult, but that is not what the ARRL is proposing...the fact that they want to give Tech's a free ticket to HF without element 3 proves that...
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> NI0C, what you're saying is all relative. The point
> I was making is that CW is much more efficient than
> SSB and is much less of a bandwidth hog than SSB.
This is a common misconception, based on a first order comparison of bandwidth consumption. Problem is that bandwidth isn't the proper measure of efficiency; bandwith consumption over time is. Neither Morse/CW nor voice/SSB is the most efficient.
> Another point I wish to make is that no matter what
> is developed in the future, and no matter what is
> improved upon in the future, nothing will ever
> replace narrow, efficient, simple and robust CW for
> communication.
The only communication service that routinely uses Morse/CW is the ARS. The use has disappeared from all but the most esoteric applications in other services.
> Some say that the digital modes (PSK) have already
> replaced CW, but you need a computer for PSK.
You can now purchase a computer capable of PSK for less money than a good paddle will cost.
> None is needed for CW. PSK cannot be decoded by the
> human ear as CW is.
It doesn't need to be. That's what that cheap computer does.
> CW is the only mode that you can use by putting
> together a simple radio, powered by a 9V square
> battery on the fly and touching two wires together
> to communicate with.
CW may be that (it's not, spark is simpler,) but CW doesn't require Morse code to be used. While there are currently no other amateur uses of CW, there are more efficient uses of CW than Morse code.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> There are basically two groups: Those who want
> easier testing and those who want harder exam, or at
> least exams that aren’t so easy to memorize the
> answers.
This argument always cracks me up.
After all, Morse code is the *only* exam that you can *only* study for by rote memorization.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> K1CJS, the issue IS about dumbing down ham radio.
The hobby has never been a hot bed of 'smart'.
> Licensing in the United States is a sad joke.
> Question pools are made public.
As opposed to years ago, when the tests were so simple that the study guides were only a few pages..
> You get to practice with the actual questions and
> answers on QRZ. How would you feel if such a testing
> system was implemented in the school system?
Education researchers, including my thesis advisor in college, have routinely found that availability of question pools and multiple choice tests does not change student performance on tests.
> How about in the colleges? How would you feel if
> your doctor went through medical school knowing all
> the questions and answers he or she could possibly
> be asked on exams?
Remind me again, why is it that we should hold entry into a hobby to the same standards as entry into a profession where life/death decisions are made on a daily basis?
> The only real work that one does to earn a ham
> license anymore is to learn Morse code at the rate
> of a lousy 5 wpm.
If this were true, there would be no general licenses, and no tech+, as everyone who passed their morse code test would immediately become extras.
The reality is just the opposite. The 5 wpm test is the easiest part of getting a general license, as witness the number of people who have the element 1 endorsement but haven't passed either element 3 or 4.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marty, I'm going to take all your rambling at face value. After all, you are the Propaganda Minister for the ARRL. Arrow quote away, man. That's what the ARRL pays both you and Ed Hare to do. The both of you are always on these threads arrow quoting every little thing that everyone posts. You can't mean to tell me that you have the time for a "real" job. Its a free country, man. I guess you're allowed to do all this arrow quoting and spew all this nonsense -- at least until you're Baker Acted.
Oh, and by the way, CW is more efficient than SSB. You can have many CW QSOs going on in the same space that will hold only 1 SSB QSO. CW also gets out further on less power. And why use a computer for PSK when CW doesn't require it? Especially when you're backpacking.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>After all, Morse code is the *only* exam that you can *only* study for by rote memorization.
No, it's the only one thar requires some real effort.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
According to the ARRL's Propaganda Minister, Mr. Martin J. Fouts, "The 5 wpm test is the easiest part of getting a general license". If that is the case, then why are all the free riders clamoring for abolition of code testing?
|
| |
|
ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FCC to
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Please support the BOYCOTT of the ARRL and its products.
W9WHE
Proud to have cancelled my ARRL membership!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FC
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"According to the ARRL's Propaganda Minister, "The 5 wpm test is the easiest part of getting a general license". If that is the case, then why are all the free riders clamoring for abolition of code testing?"
It reminds of a Northern CA ham that passed his elements 2,3,4 in one sitting, but failed element 1. He had to apply himself for two whole weeks before he could pass his element 1 exam. He still cries about it to this day. I guess two weeks worth of effort was too much stress for him.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FC
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I guess two weeks worth of effort was too much stress for him."
It's all part of the propaganda campaign against code testing. After all, its a "burden" on everybody. But, how could the "easiest part of getting a general license" be a burden? Only the ARRL's Propaganda Minister knows.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FC
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Does everyone notice the choice of words and phrases we see these days regarding code testing? Code testing is a "burden". Technicians are stuck in a "VHF Ghetto". Hey, there's a term I haven't heard until the ARRL recently coined it. When I was a NCT, I didn't know I was in a ghetto. The way I looked at it, I was able to operate in places that I couldn't before I got the NCT license. Before NCT, all I had was CB. I looked at my NCT privileges as the first step in ham radio, not a ghetto. To go beyond NCT was up to me, not up to an organization to get me a freebie.
|
| |
|
ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FCC
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL's "risky scheme" is costing them memberships. Unfortunately, that is the ONLY language they understand! Please...take a moment, call danny at the membership desk...and COMMUNICATE with the ARRL
W9WHE
Supports the ARRL boycott
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by NY7Q on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
PROUD TO BE ONE WHO RESIGNED FOR LIFE FROM THE ARRL. THEY ARE NOT HAM RADIO, WE ARE, THE ONES WHO STUDIED, AND WORKED, AND PAID FOR THE LICENSE. CW TODAY, CW TOMORROW, CW FOREVER.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From AE6IP, Feb. 9:
"> NI0C, what you're saying is all relative. The point
> I was making is that CW is much more efficient than
> SSB and is much less of a bandwidth hog than SSB.
This is a common misconception, based on a first order comparison of bandwidth consumption. Problem is that bandwidth isn't the proper measure of efficiency; bandwith consumption over time is. Neither Morse/CW nor voice/SSB is the most efficient."
Bandwidth consumption over time is not a measure of any kind of efficiency. If efficiency is of concern (and I submit that in routine ham radio operations it is not), then one must consider how much actual information is transmitted. Expenditures of bandwidth and time only form the denominator, or input, of an efficiency calculation.
I checked the CQ WW Contest Records web page and compared the record holders for SSB and CW in the mulit-single category. D44TC achieved 9638 SSB QSO's in 2001; while P3A achieved 8432 CW QSO's in 2002. Thus using a mode occupying an order of magnitude more bandwidth, only 14% more QSO's were made. I think this is what AG4RQ was getting at. In terms of real world performance on the ham bands, CW is more effective than SSB per unit bandwidth occupancy.
From another AE6IP posting on Feb. 9:
"Education researchers, including my thesis advisor in college, have routinely found that availability of question pools and multiple choice tests does not change student performance on tests."
This says nothing about what students learn or how learning is measured. Multiple choice exams are used for reasons of cost and convenience, not because they are good at measuring what people know. I measure what my students have learned with problem-solving exams, student projects, and essays. I never use multiple-choice exams.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL bandplan:
Does ARRL bandplan also include HF priveleges for all 11 meter scoff-laws that agree purchase ARRL life memberships?
W9WHE
Supporting the ARRL boycott
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you arrl spewmasters think you're catching it on these threads...pull your heads out of the sand and take a listen on hf. Ask around see what the ham community really thinks about you..and your give away license!
Oh sorry...
I forgot to put all those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in there. Now maybe thats enough!
Castro in Cuba is for Americian Amateurs probably as much as the arrl is.
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To WR8D and W9WHE:
I like you fellows, but I think you are shooting yourselves in the foot with your ARRL boycotts and angry words. I'll stay with the organization that saved our hobby after two world wars. If I don't agree with something they've done, I'll make my views known to the leadership. I think I'll be more effective as a member than as an outsider.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To NI0C, I have to agree with you. I am keeping my ARRL membership. I was never asked by the ARRL my opinion on the subject nor did I ever see or participate in a survey. However, I did make my opinion known by emailing my section and division directors as well as some ARRL officers to include Jim Haynie. They all answered me back and let me know that my opinion would count. Jim Haynie even responded to my email and told me to get in touch with my division director. Now this man is probably very busy yet he took the time to respond to me and that means a lot to me.
We can either stand together and voice our opinion or just quit and let groups like NCI and NCVEC have their way with our hobby/service.
73, Jim
AD6WL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Marty, I'm going to take all your rambling at face
> value. After all, you are the Propaganda Minister
> for the ARRL.
Sorry, d00d, but i don't work for the ARRL
> Arrow quote away, man. That's what the ARRL pays
> both you and Ed Hare to do.
I'd love to have the ARRL pay me. Especially for the debates Ed and I have over ARRL policy.
> You can't mean to tell me that you have the time for
> a "real" job.
I'm a consultant. I set my own hours. I'm also semi-retired.
> Oh, and by the way, CW is more efficient than SSB.
> You can have many CW QSOs going on in the same space
> that will hold only 1 SSB QSO.
But is more information being transfered by those many conversations than by that one?
> CW also gets out further on less power. And why use
> a computer for PSK when CW doesn't require it?
> Especially when you're backpacking.
My PDA weighs less than my Iambic key does.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> According to the ARRL's Propaganda Minister, Mr.
> Martin J. Fouts,
If anyone from ARRL HQ is reading this thread, they are rolling over in the aisles laughing, thinking about all the times I've publically called the ARRL to taks.
> "The 5 wpm test is the easiest part of getting a
> general license". If that is the case, then why are
> all the free riders clamoring for abolition of code
> testing?
If it's not the case, why didn't you answer my question? If the 5wpm test is harder than element 3, why are there so many tech with element 1 endorsements?
If the 5wpm test is harder than element 4, why are there any generals?
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FC
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It reminds of a Northern CA ham that passed his
> elements 2,3,4 in one sitting, but failed element 1.
No one I know.
> He had to apply himself for two whole weeks before
> he could pass his element 1 exam.
Um, actually, it was *wait* for two whole weeks. The VEC only offers sessions twice a month.
> He still cries about it to this day. I guess two
> weeks worth of effort was too much stress for him.
Well, we know you're definitely not talking about me. The only people who have brought up my two-week gap between first and second try at element 1 are the people who are resorting to ad hominem because they're coming to realize that they've got no case for retaining element 1.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FC
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It's all part of the propaganda campaign against
> code testing. After all, its a "burden" on
> everybody. But, how could the "easiest part of
> getting a general license" be a burden? Only the
> ARRL's Propaganda Minister knows.
Have I met this Propaganda Minister? The only ones I know raising the "burden" argument are the NCI, and I've already filed my comments with the FCC in which I disagreed with them.
The reason for getting rid of element 1 is that it serves no useful purpose. The FCC recognized this during the last reorg, when, in their finding, they stated that there was no persuasive argument for retaining element 1.
The irony for the pro-code camp is that the pro-coders hahve introduced no new argument in the intervening years.
You guys should be on the ARRL's side, since they, at least, are trying to keep some vestige of element 1, even though they know that the FCC would gladly abandon it.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Bandwidth consumption over time is not a measure of
>> any kind of efficiency. If efficiency is of concern
>> (and I submit that in routine ham radio operations
>> it is not), then one must consider how much actual
>> information is transmitted.
This is correct. I misspoke.
>> Expenditures of bandwidth and time only form the
>> denominator, or input, of an efficiency
>> calculation.
This is incorrect. Efficiency in communication channels, is the ratio of (actual-information/unit-time) to (theoretic-information/unit-time)
>> I checked the CQ WW Contest Records web page and
>> compared the record holders for SSB and CW in the
>> mulit-single category. D44TC achieved 9638 SSB
>> QSO's in 2001; while P3A achieved 8432 CW QSO's in
>> 2002. Thus using a mode occupying an order of
>> magnitude more bandwidth, only 14% more QSO's were
>> made. I think this is what AG4RQ was getting at. In
>> terms of real world performance on the ham bands,
>> CW is more effective than SSB per unit bandwidth
>> occupancy.
This is annecedotal evidence, and a single data point. It shows nothing one way or the other.
It also continues to confuse the modes (SSB and CW) with the encoding methods (here confused with Morse and voice.) Morse is not the only encoding that can be placed on CW, nor is voice the only encoding that can be placed on SSB.
> From another AE6IP posting on Feb. 9:
>> "Education researchers, including my thesis advisor
>> in college, have routinely found that availability
>> of question pools and multiple choice tests does
>> not change student performance on tests."
> This says nothing about what students learn or how
> learning is measured.
It goes directly to the question of how it is measured. It says, in lay terms, that multiple choice tests are no easier than essay tests, and that both measure learning equally well.
> Multiple choice exams are used for reasons of cost
> and convenience, not because they are good at
> measuring what people know.
You are mixing why they are chosen with how well they do what they are chosen to do.
But given that they are equally effective, than it is reasonable that they be chosen, especially for administrative testing, since they are, indeed, lower cost and more convenient to administer.
> I measure what my students have learned with problem-
> solving exams, student projects, and essays. I never
> use multiple-choice exams.
Which is an interesting piece of annecedotal evidence, whereas I have always used multiple-choice exams as well as assigned work.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FC
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Marty, we all know you failed the code test the first time and went back 2 weeks later. Why don't you fess up to it? I'll tell you why. Because you are supposed to be the perfect know-it-all. You wouldn't want anyone to see that you have any shortcomings.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FC
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oops. I forgot the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Sorry about that. ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> If you arrl spewmasters think you're catching it on
> these threads...
I don't. There's been very little negative feedback, and most of it is misguided conspiracy theory.
> pull your heads out of the sand and take a listen on
> hf.
As I've mentioned before, I spend a lot of time on HF. I'm monitoring 40m as I write this, for example. And I've not heard a single conversation on air addressing the topic. Neither pro, nor con.
> Ask around see what the ham community really thinks
> about you..and your give away license!
The ham community, in the one forum where it matters, responses to the proposas in front of the FCC, has voted 2-1 in favor of dropping element 1.
Given how little material differs between the element 2 and element 3 question pools, I doubt that there will be a much different response to the ARRL proposal.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL files a "risky scheme" with FC
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Marty, we all know you failed the code test the
> first time and went back 2 weeks later. Why don't
> you fess up to it?
Um, the *way* you know I failed the code test the first time and went back two weeks later, is that I spoke of it in the first Forum article I posted on eHam, in August of '03.
See http://www.eham.net/articles/5888 where I wrote
>> Much to my surprise, the General and Extra exams
>> were both easier than my electronics midterm was 30
>> years ago. So easy that after two weeks of study,
>> my wife managed to pass her general and code, and I
>> managed to pass all four exams -- although I had to
>> repeat the code twice.
> I'll tell you why. Because you are supposed to be
> the perfect know-it-all. You wouldn't want anyone to
> see that you have any shortcomings.
I've never claimed to be a know-it-all. The only time the claim that I'm a know-it-all ever seems to come up is when someone mounts an adhominem attack on me -- usually in order to disguise that they have no viable counterargument to the points i'm making. This is such a case.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP said (with regard to my example from CQ WW records):
"This is annecedotal evidence, and a single data point. It shows nothing one way or the other."
I think such world's best contest efforts demonstrate what can be achieved and provide useful comparisons.
AE6IP also said:
"It also continues to confuse the modes (SSB and CW) with the encoding methods (here confused with Morse and voice.) Morse is not the only encoding that can be placed on CW, nor is voice the only encoding that can be placed on SSB."
We are talking about ham radio here, the way people normally communicate. I'm not confused at all. For ordinary ham radio operations, efficiency in terms of data rate is not of paramount concern. You simply cannot quantify pleasure per hour of radio operation, and that's what most of us are concerned about.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP asks:
1)If it's not the case, why didn't you answer my question? If the 5wpm test is harder than element 3, why are there so many tech with element 1 endorsements?
2)If the 5wpm test is harder than element 4, why are there any generals?
AG4RQ answers:
1) Fear and procrastination keep these Techs with Morse Code from going for their General. To bear this out, I knew a Tech back in 1995 when I first got licensed. When I told him I wanted to upgrade to General, he told me that he didn't think he could learn code and he didn't think he could pass the General exam. He didn't think. He never tried. He is still a Tech today.
2)There are Generals because they didn't say they can't do it. They did it. If they truly want the Extra, they'll do that also. Anyone can learn and pass any element exam if they really want it and are willing to study and work for it. Its all a matter of how bad someone wants something, and how much work are they willing to put into getting it. You don't need to be an Einstein or a rocket scientist to be an Extra, but you need to work for it to get it.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I think such world's best contest efforts
> demonstrate what can be achieved and provide useful
> comparisons.
And I think a single data point isn't enough to make much comparison at all.
> We are talking about ham radio here, the way people
> normally communicate.
Thus making top contestors even less relevant.
> I'm not confused at all. For ordinary ham radio
> operations, efficiency in terms of data rate is not
> of paramount concern.
On this we agree. In other words, arguments based on the 'efficiency' of CW/Morse are irrelevant.
> You simply cannot quantify pleasure per hour of
> radio operation, and that's what most of us are
> concerned about.
Indeed. I'm glad you join with me in dismissing efficiency arguments as a reason for keeping element 1 testing.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> 1) Fear and procrastination keep these Techs with
> Morse Code from going for their General. To bear
> this out, I knew a Tech back in 1995 when I first
> got licensed. When I told him I wanted to upgrade to
> General, he told me that he didn't think he could
> learn code and he didn't think he could pass the
> General exam. He didn't think. He never tried. He is
> still a Tech today.
Do you really mean to draw general conclusions about all Tech ticket holders from a single example?
Anyway, your example doesn't explain away techs with code endorsements. If they were fearful or procastinating, then they would either not bother at all, or would go for the easier test first -- in this case, from their evidence and your argument, the morse code test.
> 2)There are Generals because they didn't say they
> can't do it. They did it. If they truly want the
> Extra, they'll do that also.
Consistency is not a strong part of your argument. If the generals are generals because they don't want to be extras, than why are the techs techs because they are fearful and procrastinating? And if the techs are techs because they are fearful and procrastinating, then why are the generals not also fearful and procrastinating?
> Anyone can learn and pass any element exam if they
> really want it and are willing to study and work for > it.
Of all the myths of western culture, the saddest is "any one can if they try hard enough."
> Its all a matter of how bad someone wants something,
> and how much work are they willing to put into
> getting it. You don't need to be an Einstein or a
> rocket scientist to be an Extra, but you need to
> work for it to get it.
You don't need to be an Einstein or a rocket scientist to be president of Cornell, either, but hard work isn't going to get you that job.
There are many reasons why people stop at tech, tech plus, or general, the *least* common of which are fear and procrastination. This is especially true of those who stop at tech plus.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
AE6IP, If the code test is easier than Element 3, then why did you pass element 3, yet fail Element 1?
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL has a plan for the "next decade" which includes "dumbing down" ham radio. I have a plan for the ARRL.....its called BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT!
W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP repeated: "And I think a single data point isn't enough to make much comparison at all."
It's not a single data point. The comparison I made involved a total of 18,070 QSO's by the some of the world's best operators in competition. And it showed that, on a per bandwidth basis, CW operations achieve more than SSB. Such comparisons could be made repeatedly, with the same conclusion reached.
This was for the enlightenment of those who, despite their lack of knowledge and experience, claim that CW is obsolete and irrelevant for amateur radio.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> AE6IP, If the code test is easier than Element 3,
> then why did you pass element 3, yet fail Element 1?
You are confused. I have passed all 4 elements.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It's not a single data point. The comparison I made
> involved a total of 18,070 QSO's by the some of the
> world's best operators in competition.
It was one comparision of two contests.
> And it showed that, on a per bandwidth basis, CW
> operations achieve more than SSB.
It did not show that. It showed that in one contest, CW ops made more QSOs than SSW ops did in a different one.
> Such comparisons could be made repeatedly, with the
> same conclusion reached.
Well, yes, when you start from your conclusion and select your data to fit it, you usually can make the same comparison repeatedly with the same result.
> This was for the enlightenment of those who, despite
> their lack of knowledge and experience, claim that
> CW is obsolete and irrelevant for amateur radio.
CW is obsolete, as a professional communication medium, as is Morse code. It is not irrelevant to amateur radio, which is, after all, an anachronistic hobby. It is, however, not sufficiently relevant to amateur radio to justify element 1.
You're repeatedly making the same mistake that most pro-coders make in the element 1 discussion. You are defending Morse code, but that's not the subject. The subject is the relevance of the Morse code receiving test.
The FCC has, in the past, rejected all of the pro-code arguments with respect to element 1. It doesn't appear likely that they'll suddenly change their position.
Which is why it is ironic that pro-coders are opposing the ARRL proposal; which is the one with the greatest chance of retaining any vestige of element 1.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by AE6IP on February 11, 2004:
"> AE6IP, If the code test is easier than Element 3,
> then why did you pass element 3, yet fail Element 1?
You are confused. I have passed all 4 elements."
You passed Elements 2, 3 and 4 but failed Element 1 the first time. You were granted a Technician license. You went to another testing session a couple of weeks later, passed Element 1 and was granted an Extra. My point is, if Element 1 is so easy, and much easier than Element 3, why did you fail Element 1 on the first try? It was only 5 wpm. Geez, I could understand if the test was 13 wpm, but 5? Obviously you were not ready for the Morse exam. Why did you go to a test session if you weren't ready to pass the test? It doesn't make any sense to me.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Errr..is this so difficult to understand? I had three goes at 20wpm - the first time, if I remember right was when I did the written and probably wasn't ready but had a go anyway. The second time, I wasn't ready, and found out by not passing! The third time I was ready and found out by passing! There's no shame in taking a test and failing. Jeez, the guy went back 2 wks later and passed - what's the problem? Does it only count if you pass without ever failing?
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...And it showed that, on a per bandwidth basis, CW operations achieve more than SSB..."
So you think your metric shows that CW has an efficiency edge over SSB? So what? I think I'll continue to use phone, comfortable in the kowledge that I'm 'underachieving' ;)
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I said ask around. Oh i'm sorry...>i said ask around.
> I've ask several times and most feel the same way i do about this proposal. Its a sell out, a money maker for arrl.
>
>
>
>woops i got stuck!
Just more Arrl "Spew".
John WR8D>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there it went again!>!>!> this internet spew sure is hard to get the knack of.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Pete, N3EVL:
If SSB is your mode of choice, go for it. The point I was illustrating with the CQ WW contest records was that SSB which uses 10-20 times the bandwidth of CW, and which uses an an encoding method of several hundred words per minute appears to be only marginally more effective (in terms of QSO rate) than CW with Morse encoding at perhaps 40 words per minute. I certainly was not criticizing anyone who uses SSB-- indeed I've done my share of SSB operation with 280 countries in all zones confirmed using this mode.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
N3EVL, its understandable failing a 20 wpm exam on the first try, but 5? Come on! Oh, do me a favor and let Marty answer for himself. I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing him.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by N3EVL on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ooops! Silly me - I thought this was a public forum!
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marty, AE6IP
Since you seem to have the answer to every question here, you really need to think about going to work for someone that can appreciate your talent....Radio Shack !!! ..."if you've got questions" etc etc :)
I really take issue with one of your statements though:
AE6IP said: "Of all the myths of western culture, the saddest is "any one can if they try hard enough."
By this statement, are you saying that people shouldn't try anything difficult, because they just might not be able to do it ??? A person will NEVER succeed with the attitude like that.... oh, but that won't matter with the ARRL plan to give away licenses for free... right Marty ???
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To AG4RQ,
He was mad because his wife got her General but
since he failed element 1 that day he could only
get his Tech license. Hihi
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
CW could be gone for a decade and hams will still be beating this subject to a pulp on a tread like this. Doesn't anyone get tired of this subject? Evidently not.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by NI0C on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Doesn't anyone get tired of this subject? Evidently not.
Evidently you're still interested. Gotta callsign to share with us?
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
AD6WL, Marty was also mad because I caught him with his pants down when he said that Element 1 is easier than Element 3, yet he failed Element 1 the first time. Its so easy that he got it the 2nd time. At least he proved my point that anyone (and I mean ANYONE) can learn code if they really want it and put their mind to it.
|
| |
|
League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With FCC
|
|
|
by KD4MXE on February 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
well I Have learned a lot about Some of the coded Hams, they are good at something Besides code , they aare also good at crying , Hey you coders that like to cry alot , cry to the ones that make our Taxes so high and get them to lower them a little , that would Be good for every Body, But I know you will not do that it Has got to be something as worthless as the code ,do something good For a change and Help get these taxes down , who knows it could Help , you people are good at this stuff , ps the Arrl is doing a good job keep it up i just may join them soon , Bill kd4mxe
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You passed Elements 2, 3 and 4 but failed Element 1
> the first time.
Very good. I knew if I repeated it enough you'd figure it out.
> You were granted a Technician license.
That's correct.
> You went to another testing session a couple of
> weeks later, passed Element 1 and was granted an
> Extra.
Well, you're finally on the same page as the rest of us.
> My point is, if Element 1 is so easy, and much
> easier than Element 3, why did you fail Element 1 on > the first try?
Because for my $10 I was allowed to take all four elements. I wasn't prepared for Element 1, but taking the test was practice for taking test when I was.
> It was only 5 wpm. Geez, I could understand if the
> test was 13 wpm, but 5? Obviously you were not ready
> for the Morse exam.
That's right. I took the test to see what it was like, and then, the next day, I started studying, half hour a day. Two weeks to the day later, I passed element 1.
> Why did you go to a test session if you weren't
> ready to pass the test? It doesn't make any sense to
> me.
It made sense to me. I've got no test anxiety; it doesn't bother me to fail tests; the VEs were willing to give me element 1, even though they knew I hadn't studied; it didn't cost me anything and I had the time.
Why not take the test?
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> N3EVL, its understandable failing a 20 wpm exam on
> the first try, but 5? Come on! Oh, do me a favor and
> let Marty answer for himself. I wasn't addressing
> you. I was addressing him.
No reason why N3EVL can't share his view on the matter, and, I did answer you.
There's nothing hard about this hobby; execpt, maybe, installing towers, and that's just manual labor.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> AE6IP said: "Of all the myths of western culture,
> the saddest is "any one can if they try hard
> enough."
> By this statement, are you saying that people
> shouldn't try anything difficult, because they just
> might not be able to do it ???
Nope. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which error in logic would cause someone to draw that conclusion from my statement.
> A person will NEVER succeed with the attitude like
> that.... oh, but that won't matter with the ARRL
> plan to give away licenses for free... right
> Marty ???
You seem confused. The ARRL isn't giving away licenses; it's proposing a one-time give away of one upgrade to one group of hams. Licenses still cost you a testing fee, just as they have for some time now.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Marty was also mad because I caught him with his
> pants down when he said that Element 1 is easier
> than Element 3, yet he failed Element 1 the first
> time.
Element 1, which I have passed, is easier than element 3. You're only harping on your mistaken claim to avoid the fact that you have no explanation for why there are so many amateurs with tech plus who have either never taken or have failed the general exam, and that there are so many generals that have never taken, or have failed the extra exam.
> Its so easy that he got it the 2nd time.
Yup. 30 minutes a day of mindless rote practice for 2 weeks, and lo and behold, element 1 was a duck in a barrel.
> At least he proved my point that anyone (and I mean
> ANYONE) can learn code if they really want it and
> put their mind to it.
Alas, I prove no such point. You might want to add the phrase sui generes to your vocabulary, if it's not already there, since so many of your examples are sui generes.
Of course, all this nonsense about efficiency, ease of passing, and so forth is merely a pro-code attempt to distract one's attention from the salient point in the matter:
We're discussing whether or not element 1 serves any useful purpose; not anything about Morse code. And the pro-coders very much don't want anyone to remember that the FCC has previously already dismissed all of their arguments in favor of keeping element 1.
In fact, the pro-coders should be siding *with* the ARRL, since the ARRL proposal is about the only chance that the FCC will retain element 1 at all, given what they've written in the past.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marty, enough with all your lies trying to save face while failing the code test. You didn't take the test to get the "feel" of it. You took it hoping to squeak by, even though you weren't prepared. You also prove another of my points. There are all kinds of weird eccentric people in the world. When it comes to weird and eccentric, you're the "King"!
If the code test was so easy, thousands of no-coders would have no need to whine and cry for its removal from the licensing requirements.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Marty, it's obvious why you are so anti-code and why you want Element 1 dropped. Element 1 is what kept you from walking out of your first test session an Extra. I think your attitude toward Element 1 testing would be different had you passed the code test the first time. Its time for you to started fessing up instead of lying yourself around the issues.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Marty, enough with all your lies trying to save face
> while failing the code test.
It's really sad how low the standard for insults and trolling has fallen in this latter day.
That's the best you can do, isn't it? Sad.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Like I said, when it comes to weird and eccentric, you're the "King"! Oops. I forgot the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Marty loves his arrows. He hates code but loves arrows. I shot an arrow into the air, because Marty's full of a lot of hot air. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AD6WL on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is apparent that he only wants to insult others, start arguments and troll this site.
I guess QRZ had the right idea about him.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP said "It's really sad how low the standard for insults and trolling has fallen in this latter day."
Yes it is...and a really wish you would stop....
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP said "It's really sad how low the standard for insults and trolling has fallen in this latter day."
Yes it is...and I really wish YOU would stop....
(Sorry about the spelling error folks....)
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This long scrolling page wouldn't be half as long without all of Marty's drivel.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yawn.
Why don't you boys get together and see if, between the bunch of you, you can come up with an insult worthy of the name?
I'd ask you to come up with a pro-code argument that could stand on its own merits, but you've already demonstarted that to be beyond reach.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is a post from QRZ:
=====================================================================
kc5vdj
Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: --
Posted: Jan. 24 2004,00:12
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
I have thought long about if I should enter my comments into this proceeding, and my comments were dependant on the common availablity of source material I had previously read and no longer had access to when I started thinking about if I should reply.
I have recently found, at Princeton University, a scanned copy of "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons", 3rd ed., 1977, Compiled and edited by Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, Prepared and published by the US Department of Defense, and Energy Research and
Development Administration, from which, and it's derived references, I derive my argument in favor of retaining the current minimal Morse Code requirement for US Amateur Radio Service licensing for HF access.
The events of the past few years, and the irresponsible actions of those in leadership positions in the United States, in particular those of the President of the United States and his advisors, such as attacking the wrong country in response to the 9/11 attacks [The highjackers and financiers were Saudi, not Afghani], as well as the invasion and occupation of Iraq on false pretense in order to secure it's oil, have created many enemies of the United States, and in particular have the rest of the world pursuing nuclear weapons programs to protect their populations from us.
The current, and probable future geopolitical context cannot be ignored in the debate on if we should retain or trash the Morse Code as a licensing requirement. Hitler's Banker's Grandson is our President, and has been acting like he's living up to his family heritage. The rise of Fascism worldwide cannot be ignored in this either, as struggles between corporations become struggles between the governments they have bought. Although there may be some efforts to reverse this trend, such as the recent Italian Constitutional Court ruling that the leaders of the Italian Fascist Party [yes, it still exists by name, and is in current political control of Italy] are subject to prosecution for wrongdoing. Although some small steps as these have occurred, it would be unreasonable to say that the trend is reversing, but efforts are being made.
Ignoring geopolitical contexts, we also face the possibility of accidental nuclear war. In 1996, the United States came within ten seconds of having the nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation launched upon it because of a launch that the Russians had no prior knowledge of and was on a potential ballistic trajectory towards the Russian Federation from a country in the United States sphere of influence. This well-documented case was the reason that President Clinton agreed to help create a universal launch notification system and update the Russian command and control systems. President Clinton's program to prevent this from ever happening again was trashed by the Bush Administration soon after taking office though, and the threat of another such misinterpretation of an unannounced launch and the possible response by a country armed with ICBMs is inevitible.
The civil defense aspects of Amateur Radio in a post-nuclear war situation is of utmost importance, and rises to the level of being a National Security requirement, in my opinion. During the period of time in which Amateurs will be called upon to serve their local communities, in the absence of any other form of long-haul telecommunications, the radio environment that Amateurs will have to deal with will be harsh to say the least, but Amateurs with knowledge of Morse Code, as well as technical skills verified through proper testing of technical knowledge can assure that a signifigant percentage of HF-capable Amateurs will not only be able to communicate, but should have the rudimentary knowledge necessary in order to build and operate the simplest CW transmitters and receivers from whatever parts are still good in consumer electronic equipment which will largely be otherwise unusable after the detonations.
The first hours and days after any such event are by far the most critical to preserve life and property, as well as order. Unfortunately, it is also during this time that CW [using Morse Code] may be the only means of communications that can even be termed reliable.
Most of these effects are documented in the above cited publication, available on the Internet [which will not be there if this happens] at http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/effects/effects.shtml in which I refer the Commission to Chapter Ten.
Any nuclear attack on the United States will require a large number of detonations above 40 miles in altitude. As a reference I refer you to Hardtack, Phase II, 1958, Project TEAK, as well as Project Argus, as well as Project Starfish Prime, as well as most of the 1962 and later atmospheric tests which further explored the effects that can disrupt power, command and control, and general communications.
In such detonations, the ionosphere is greatly degraded, phase issues make most modern modes unusable [no PSK-31 would be possible due to the phasing issues], wideband modes will have serious phase and doppler distortion, SSB would be unlikely, as would most machine-decoded modes. In a nutshell, what will be left is the simplest of transmitters, probably being built on the spot, the simplest receivers, probably being built on the spot, and Morse Code decoded by ear and sent by hand. All but the most paranoid Amateurs will be blown off the air permenantly by EMP, so home-built equipment will be the most likely scenario, as those with spare equipment in storage will probably NOT be selling.
Although the TEAK exercise resulted in vastly egraded communications via the F and E layers, relatively normal ionization returned by morning. I think it would be unrealistic, given the debris ionization [late-gamma, and late-beta], to assume that the picture would be so optimistic after hundreds to thousands of detonations within minutes to hours of each other. Any reasonable estimate would have to conclude that the problems demonstrated by TEAK would continue well beyond a single day and night. The problems exhibited by TEAK spread over most of a hemisphere within hours, as well as took out the power grid of Honolulu, and this was just a single 3.8 MT yield burst at 48 miles altitude. If I was Russian, under those circumstances, I would already have a system set up to do this daily for many days under automatic control.
Many Amateurs across the United States have proven that they can operate under conditions resembling what is described by Glasstone, Dolan, and others. Auroral CW contacts are made daily, EME CW contacts are made daily, and both of these operating styles demonstrate that Amateurs can deal with weak-signal, doppler, and phase issues using the only reliable mode under such conditions:
Continuous Wave encoded with Morse Code. What TEAK, and atmospheric tests in it's class did was prove that the conditions commonly found in Auroral-scatter and EME will be what Amateurs will have to deal with after a nuclear war.
With these points in mind, I give what I feel is the most compelling argument for the retention of Morse Code as a licensing requirement. Be the cause an accident or the result of a leader with a Napolean complex, the facts are the facts.
A Morse Code requirement for United States Amateur Radio Licensees with HF access should indeed be deemed a National Security requirement for the continuance of the Service, so long as the United States remains even a potential target for thermonuclear weapons.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Bryant, KC5VDJ
=====================================================================
Also, here is an excerpt from "The Art And Skill Of Radiotelegraphy"
by William G. Pierpont, N0HFF
=====================================================================
Is the Radiotelegraph Code Obsolete?
Outsiders and some of those looking into Amateur Radio often ask this question: "Isn't the Morse code obsolete? Hasn't modern technology displaced it?"
Back in 1912 nobody balked at learning the code: it was simple then -- if you didn't know the code you couldn't even listen and understand, much less communicate, by wireless.
But today it refuses to lie down and die. Why? Not only old timers, but many newcomers have found that it is a skill worth learning, a pleasure just as any other skill. There is a real sense of pleasure and achievement in communicating this way. Some find it an excellent means of escape, a way to forget immediate work-a-day problems and completely absorb one's attention.
There is practical value also. It can get a message though where other methods fail. Operators have long known that Morse code signals penetrate distance, and go through interference and static where voice signals can't hack it. This is why low power (QRP)
enthusiasts find that it is far superior to voice. Besides this, the equipment required, both transmitting and receiving, is much simpler and smaller, uses less power, and in an emergency can often be built up from simple, available parts.
These factors did not escape the Russian communists. They were also deeply impressed with the reliability, simplicity and lower cost of equipment for code communication and ease in maintaining it. (In the same line of thinking, their military radio gear has all been vacuum tube type to avoid potential damage due to radiation.) Therefore, through the years they have popularized and promoted learning the Morse code and developing skill in its use. It was included among their civilian "sports" activities. Contests and prizes were offered to the best and fastest operators. This would assure them of a pool of skilled, high-speed operators in event of war. Several years ago a couple of American soldiers who were amateurs were taken captive from a ship which was too close to North Korean shores. They were surprised to find that very many civilians in that country readily understood code.
In recent years our own military seem to have awakened to all this, and have re-begun to train some personnel for Morse code operation. In addition, they have realized that Morse is an effective means of communicating during periods when the enemy is jamming. There are other advantages also. It uses the next to narrowest signal bandwidth (PSK31 uses less but requires a computer) , which for amateur use means more channels are available within a band. It has much superior signal-to-noise ratio, and in addition, an operator can soon learn to separate (mentally "filter") signals, which are very close together by differences in pitch, speed and style of sending.
=====================================================================
I find it interesting that none of the communist countries intend to eliminate Morse testing for amateur radio licensing. Fact is, Russia even stated just before the WRC vote that they will not eliminate Morse testing.
Marty, I'm sure I just wasted my time. You have the same mindset that the captain of the Titanic had - "It can never happen". Nuff said.
|
| |
|
RE: League Files 'A Plan for the Next Decade' With
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, two, um, interesting, arguments. The first, alas, is not new. It is just another formulation of the doomsday communication argument that the FCC has routinely dismissed.
The first comments, the ones with the apocalyptic tone, is typical of a certain kind of amateur who has difficulty putting amateur radio into context.
An attack on the US that included a large number of high altitude emp bursts would also include a large number of near ground bursts. The consequence of which would be what the research community refers to as "nuclear winter".
In a nuclear winter scenario, long distance communications would be the last thing anyone was interested in. Surviving would be first.
I will also note that the military has had 40 years in which to set up communications systems intended to survive the EMP blasts, either at altitude or near ground level. The author neglects to mention that most amateur equipment won't survive such a blast. (Ironically, most amateurs using tube equipment that is likely to survive still rely on generators using semiconductor equipment that wouldn't.)
As far as the "the communists are keeping the code, so we should", I will merely point out that most pro-coders routinely jump on the argument "just because country X is not keeping the code test doesn't mean we should drop it,".
Consequently, I doubt very much that the FCC would give any attention to either argument.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Indonesia To Launch Orari Satellite Next Year:
Radio Enthusiasts Help Red Cross During Games:
Smugglers Had Illegal Ham Radio:
ARNewsline # 1682 -- November 6 2009:
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #45 de K7RA:
|
