Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

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

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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Code/No Code CW-Do we need it?  (Read 54660 times)
N3DF
Member

Posts: 251




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2010, 07:10:00 AM »

Passing the Amateur Extra exam was a great day in my life.  I had spent the entire summer--from May to September--diligently studying code and theory.  I considered it my first "major" exam; the CPA and bar examinations were still years away in my future.  I don't consider myself a "better" ham or more of a "real" ham than one who obtains the AE today.  However, I don't think that if I passed the exam now I would feel that it was much of an achievement as I did back then.  The diploma-form FCC Amateur Extra certificate on my shack wall is still a source of pride to me.  
« Last Edit: October 28, 2010, 07:12:10 AM by Neil D. Friedman » Logged

Neil N3DF
W5ESE
Member

Posts: 550


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2010, 10:55:10 AM »

However, I don't think that if I passed the exam now I would feel that it was much of an achievement as I did back then. The diploma-form FCC Amateur Extra certificate on my shack wall is still a source of pride to me.  

I agree with this.
Logged
W5ESE
Member

Posts: 550


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2010, 11:14:12 AM »

In fact approximately two weeks ago I heard someone on a repeater state "when real hams took the test back when I did and there was code"...... I couldn't believe it myself , but I heard it. I was tempted to get in there and say something but figured why bother. So 43 years you haven't heard it? Or is it that it was said and you didn't hear it because you had the same thoughts?

Jim hasn't heard it because he doesn't spend much time on repeaters!  Wink

Scott W5ESE
Logged
KM9R
Member

Posts: 10




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2010, 01:15:34 PM »

In over 31 years as a ham, I have never and emphasize never been given an attitude of elitism in the cw portion of the bands.  

Also N2LWE's complaint is not because of the system that was used to to license amateurs. His complaint is about corrupt human nature and that is found in all humans not just extra class hams. The elimination of the cw requirement or "any requirement" for an amateur license will not eliminate corrupt human nature.

For the record, I support a tiered class of amateur license with an optional cw endorsement for each tier. Operation within the cw portion of the band would be FORBIDDEN without the cw endorsement. For the no coders, this requirement does not affect your opportunity to become a ham or even an extra class ham.  For the lovers of cw, this would help preserve our slice of paradise.  Cool  This is not a I did so you too must do it. This is about maintaining standards in an effort to maintain quality and not quantity.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2010, 03:06:14 PM by Michael Clark » Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3856




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2010, 02:40:28 PM »

N2EY, you said "I think I'm being blamed for what others have said." No one is blaming you.

You are blaming me.

But after my original post it was you that stated "Ok I'll bite" as if you were going to set the record straight.

All that quote meant was that I would answer your post. Because nobody else was, at the time.

And I disagree with the marathon issue. They do compete. Many want to have the best timing crossing the finish line.

How many is "many"?

When you run for time, the competition is against the clock and yourself.

How many marathons have you run? How many have you attended?

I'm not looking for a fight with you. I guess there is one thing I'm sure we both can agree on.... We can agree it's ok to disagree.

That's fine.

But I notice that you didn't answer my question about how you would view a one-license-class system.

I suspect that the reason you didn't answer it is because you would not support such a system, for various reasons, but don't want to admit it.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
N2LWE
Member

Posts: 104




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2010, 03:51:49 PM »

N2EY, I didn't answer your question regarding a one license class system, not because I didn't want to admit it as you suspect. I simply overlooked that question among all the other issues we discussed. As far as my opinion, I'm not really sure how I feel about that. I kinda like the tier system we currently have, but I'm not really sure it's better than a one license system. I would think they would both have pros and cons. See, I wasn't dodging the question. I simply overlooked it. You "assumed" I didn't want to admit it.
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 947




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2010, 04:49:56 PM »

In over 31 years as a ham, I have never and emphasize never been given an attitude of elitism in the cw portion of the bands.  

Also N2LWE's complaint is not because of the system that was used to to license amateurs. His complaint is about corrupt human nature and that is found in all humans not just extra class hams. The elimination of the cw requirement or "any requirement" for an amateur license will not eliminate corrupt human nature.

For the record, I support a tiered class of amateur license with an optional cw endorsement for each tier. Operation within the cw portion of the band would be FORBIDDEN without the cw endorsement. For the no coders, this requirement does not affect your opportunity to become a ham or even an extra class ham.  For the lovers of cw, this would help preserve our slice of paradise.  Cool  This is not a I did so you too must do it. This is about maintaining standards in an effort to maintain quality and not quantity.

excellent proposal.  however, cost reduction and ease of oversight seems to have moved us away from code testing.  
what would your proposed cw 'endorsement' entail?  

 Wink   cw operators hold the keys  Wink
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3856




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2010, 05:17:48 PM »

In over 31 years as a ham, I have never and emphasize never been given an attitude of elitism in the cw portion of the bands.  

Nor I.

For the record, I support a tiered class of amateur license with an optional cw endorsement for each tier. Operation within the cw portion of the band would be FORBIDDEN without the cw endorsement. For the no coders, this requirement does not affect your opportunity to become a ham or even an extra class ham.  For the lovers of cw, this would help preserve our slice of paradise.  Cool  This is not a I did so you too must do it. This is about maintaining standards in an effort to maintain quality and not quantity.

The problem is that there are only two CW-only parts of the US ham bands: 50.0 to 50.1 MHz and 144.0 to 144.1 MHz. All the rest of the bands are shared with other modes. On the HF bands, all of the non-phone parts are open to data modes.

The end result would be that in order to operate data modes, a ham would need the CW endorsement. You can bet there will be quite a few hams who will oppose that.

How do we solve that problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2010, 04:48:45 PM »

N2EY, you said "I think I'm being blamed for what others have said." No one is blaming you. But after my original post it was you that stated "Ok I'll bite" as if you were going to set the record straight. And I disagree with the marathon issue. They do compete. Many want to have the best timing crossing the finish line. I'm not looking for a fight with you. I guess there is one thing I'm sure we both can agree on.... We can agree it's ok to disagree. That being said, have a good day.
Joe, if you don't agree wholeheartedly with Jim then you walk the borderline between "uncivil behavior" and "personal insults."   Grin

The FCC makes all allocated modes OPTIONAL to use.  I think that is a mighty fine thing.  Some others insist on the draconian dictates of "one must take a code test!' (just like they had to long ago).

The FCC settled the whole thing with memorandum report and order 06-178 released in December 2006 and effective on 23 Feb 2007.  So far, nobody had made a valid case for any Petition for Reconsideration on 06-178 but the amateur "discussion" venues have the old-timers trying to ressurect the American Civil War period aftermath.  Those are LOSERS and makes for way too much noise, smoke, and mirrors and petty, petty differences of opinion.

The FCC never forbade USE of on-off-keying radiotelegraphy yet all the old-timers (who had to take a code test long, long ago) keep on selfishly insisting that all who come after them MUST do so.  They claim some sort of ENTITLEMENT forever...which they do not have.

HF bandplans haven't changed much in over a decade but some of the spoiled brats just can't stop mouthing off in various venues about CODE.  The "south" (southeastern) USA did rise again but it rose with the times and (pretty much) stayed loyal to the Union.  It's just so bad that some of these old-timers can't stay loyal to amateur radio of NOW but want their entitlement of long ago to be theirs forever.

The LOSERS keep manufacturing "problems" which don't exist in order to attempt hiding of their selfishness...

73, Len K6LHA
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3856




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2010, 05:25:39 PM »

N2EY, I didn't answer your question regarding a one license class system, not because I didn't want to admit it as you suspect. I simply overlooked that question among all the other issues we discussed.

OK, no problem.


 As far as my opinion, I'm not really sure how I feel about that. I kinda like the tier system we currently have, but I'm not really sure it's better than a one license system. I would think they would both have pros and cons. See, I wasn't dodging the question. I simply overlooked it. You "assumed" I didn't want to admit it.

Yes, I did assume that. My bad!

I started a new thread to discuss the idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
AB2T
Member

Posts: 246




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2010, 06:37:53 PM »

Oy gevalt!  Not this thread again.  Hand me my antacids.  While you're at it, throw in an tranquilizer!  Grin

Here and elsewhere I've advocated for the one license and one high power endorsement.  100 to 150 questions, 80% absolute pass mark, all frequencies, all modes, 250 W.  Pass a theory test on HV and get to use an amp.  That's it!

I'm guilty of inconsistency.  I'd never ask Industry Canada to dumb down their tests for me (well, they dropped the 12 wpm even though I'd gladly take it -- it's hard to pay attention at 5 wpm!)  I haven't written my Canadian Advanced because I'm quite lazy.  Nevertheless, I take it on myself to dumb down the American system!  Perhaps I consider myself entitled to do this since I got the Extra meal ticket years ago.  It's important to have respect for those who earned the 20 wpm and would rather not see any further rationalization of the American testing system.  At this point in my life I'm much more concerned with professional qualifications that carry much greater importance than an AR ticket.  The logical end of restructuring is the "one license".  Let's just get it over with.

For the record, I support a tiered class of amateur license with an optional cw endorsement for each tier. Operation within the cw portion of the band would be FORBIDDEN without the cw endorsement. For the no coders, this requirement does not affect your opportunity to become a ham or even an extra class ham.  For the lovers of cw, this would help preserve our slice of paradise.  Cool  This is not a I did so you too must do it. This is about maintaining standards in an effort to maintain quality and not quantity.

Sure -- if there's a phone endorsement as well.  Reminds me of Thanksgiving or Christmas or some socio-religious food-centric gathering: here, eat this for me -- I never liked it anyway!  Cheesy   I could care less if someone banned me from phone, since I haven't been in the phone subband for almost a decade.

73, Jordan      
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:47:39 PM by Jordan » Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 409


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2010, 06:51:49 PM »

HF bandplans haven't changed much in over a decade but some of the spoiled brats just can't stop mouthing off in various venues about CODE.

Indeed, those hams who frequently operate north of the US/Canadian border are often harassed by such US-based "CW fanatics" for operating "out of the band" when some Canadian hams attempt to operate SSB in those portions of the band that have been set aside in the USA (under the FCC's so-called "incentive licensing" farce) exclusively for CW.  

Specifically, there is a daily Canadian voice net that routinely meets on 7055 KHz hereabouts that has been forced to endure all kinds of catcalls, thrown carriers and other assorted boorish vitriol emanating from those (as you call them) "spoiled brats" in the USA who firmly believe that the rest of the world must also kowtow to our FCC's regulated sub-band (and sub-sub band) nonsense. This is despite the fact that the IARU band plan specifically allows for "all mode" operation in that portion of our amateur radio spectrum in Region 2.

Quote
 It's just so bad that some of these old-timers can't stay loyal to amateur radio of NOW but want their entitlement of long ago to be theirs forever.

Indeed, some of these horrifically intolerant US operators ALSO want every other nation on the planet to firmly adhere to "their" US rules.  And if hams in other countries steadfastly refuse to do so, many of these rabid, US-based ham radio fundamentalists are apparently not at all ashamed to make themselves (and, by extension, their country) look like intolerant, spoiled brats...and all at the speed of light.

Quote
The LOSERS keep manufacturing "problems" which don't exist in order to attempt hiding of their selfishness...

Len, most of these people well KNOW they have now "lost" their battle to have such things as Morse testing and FCC-field-office-administered, objective examinations retained forever in our Service in the United States.  But their over-inflated egos can't (or won't) allow them to publicly admit it.  They also well realize that nobody in any authority at the FCC is now listening to their ever-more frantic rants to have all those official policy changes reversed.  

So, it should come as no surprise that online forums like these constitute the last remaining outlet for that (thankfully!) ever-shrinking cadre of rabid, (primarily US-based) fundamentalists to continually express their extreme displeasure that amateur radio (and indeed, the rest of the world around them) has LONG since moved on.  Fortunately, such persons aren't getting any traction in these forums, either...except, perhaps, among their (similarly royally peeved) fundamentalist buddies.  

Indeed, the seemingly endless fixation on the way things were done in our Service in "days gone by" now emanating from the likes of this crowd would all be comic if it wasn't also so pitifully sad.

73,

Keith
KB1SF /  VA3KSF
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 06:28:44 AM by Keith Baker » Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3856




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2010, 07:23:20 PM »

Here and elsewhere I've advocated for the one license and one high power endorsement.  100 to 150 questions, 80% absolute pass mark, all frequencies, all modes, 250 W.  Pass a theory test on HV and get to use an amp.  That's it!

Whatever you call it, that's two license classes. Call them high power and low power, or whatever.

As for "theory test on HV", consider that there's no need to run high voltage for high power. Solid-state RF power amps have been around a long time. (Check the cover of QST for April, 1976 - there was a legal-limit solidstate amp in that issue!)

OTOH, it's quite possible to get fatally zapped by a rig running less than 250 watts. Or by house current, which requires no license at all.

So why a high power endorsement/license class?

I'm guilty of inconsistency.  I'd never ask Industry Canada to dumb down their tests for me (well, they dropped the 12 wpm even though I'd gladly take it -- it's hard to pay attention at 5 wpm!)  I haven't written my Canadian Advanced because I'm quite lazy.  Nevertheless, I take it on myself to dumb down the American system!  Perhaps I consider myself entitled to do this since I got the Extra meal ticket years ago.  It's important to have respect for those who earned the 20 wpm and would rather not see any further rationalization of the American testing system.  At this point in my life I'm much more concerned with professional qualifications that carry much greater importance than an AR ticket.  The logical end of restructuring is the "one license".  Let's just get it over with.

See the thread "Imagine this...."


For the record, I support a tiered class of amateur license with an optional cw endorsement for each tier. Operation within the cw portion of the band would be FORBIDDEN without the cw endorsement. For the no coders, this requirement does not affect your opportunity to become a ham or even an extra class ham.  For the lovers of cw, this would help preserve our slice of paradise.  Cool  This is not a I did so you too must do it. This is about maintaining standards in an effort to maintain quality and not quantity.

Sure -- if there's a phone endorsement as well.  Reminds me of Thanksgiving or Christmas or some socio-religious food-centric gathering: here, eat this for me -- I never liked it anyway!  Cheesy   I could care less if someone banned me from phone, since I haven't been in the phone subband for almost a decade.
     

Interesting - what sort of test would you suggest for the 'phone endorsement?

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
AB2T
Member

Posts: 246




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2010, 07:37:02 PM »

re: phone endorsement:  Perhaps a test on signal adjustment, modulation, correct use of speech processing &c.  I would not seek a phone endorsement unless CW were permitted somewhere within the phone bands.

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

Brooke Astor was fond of saying, "Money is like manure; it's not worth a thing unless it's spread around."  

A ham radio license itself is s**t.  Not even good manure.  The "money", the value of the license, resides not in the slip of paper but in the knowledge gained as a result of those privileges.  The imperative resides in the dissemination of knowledge capital whether we're 20 wpm Extras or no-code Extras.  Endless roundabout arguments about licensing and seniority does not benefit the ham community at all.

I enjoyed the challenge of getting the Extra (in 1995 -- one of the last off the assembly line!)  Now I enjoy other intellectual challenges both in ham radio and elsewhere.  At every juncture, the reward of the chase has turned to the ethical (and daresay moral) imperative of instruction and learning.  I teach as part of my occupation, but I never consider myself a teacher.  This is especially true when I help a person with a language translation.  I would rather let the person master the text through the subtle guidance of a fellow reader (i.e. "Why have you made this inference?" rather than "this is incorrect").  I can't tell you how many times I have read a passage only to be corrected by someone with much less experience than I have with that language.  One of the greatest experiences in life is to learn and share from those that have just begun to encounter any intellectual endeavor.

Even if the FCC decided to grant ham licenses with five box tops, $3.50, and a SASE addressed to Gettysburg, I would still approach a new ham through this perspective.  Meet you all at the honey wagon.

73, Jordan  
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2010, 01:52:11 PM »

Indeed, some of these horrifically intolerant US operators ALSO want every other nation on the planet to firmly adhere to "their" US rules.  And if hams in other countries steadfastly refuse to do so, many of these rabid, US-based ham radio fundamentalists are apparently not at all ashamed to make themselves (and, by extension, their country) look like intolerant, spoiled brats...and all at the speed of light.
It is all part of the one-station/one-operator/one-shack syndrome psychologically. Similar to doing computer-modem communications. So few can extend their senses beyond their immediate surroundings to realize that anyone (they can't see/touch/feel/sense) are listening to them. Instead they reach inwards to their own psyche and presume to be "the world." They try to make all others believe as they do so that they can extend their personal belief that they are in control. Of everything. Its a grande-scale pretending to be something they are not.

Quote
Len, most of these people well KNOW they have now "lost" their battle to have such things as Morse testing and FCC-field-office-administered, objective examinations retained forever in our Service in the United States.  But their over-inflated egos can't (or won't) allow them to publicly admit it.  They also well realize that nobody in any authority at the FCC is now listening to their ever-more frantic rants to have all those official policy changes reversed.
One slight disagreement but only slight. These losers may understand the situation realistically but they (or their egos) over-ride that with emotion of wanting desperately to be in charge and RULE over others. Put simply, it is their way or the highway.

Most, if not all of the dissenters of elimination of the code test have NOT made any valid case to the FCC in any Petition for Reconsideration of FCC 06-178. Maybe some have written to the FCC and attempted to chastise them but we in the public have not seen much of that. The FCC HAS made some strange input to them public on both NPRMs 98-143 and 05-235 which are still in the ECFS. There is NO "conspiracy" by the FCC to keep such things "secret." Such few "strange" communications are simply digitally copied and put into a docket's database; anyone can view them and see their "strangeness" (almost illegible notations on another document or writing while at least half drunk as two notable ones).

Since FCC 99-412 ("restructuring") and 06-178 (code test elimination) spanning a whole decade, the FCC has not FORBIDDEN the use of on-off-keying CW radiotelegraphy except in the five very narrow channels on the "new" 60m "band." On every other allocated USA amateur radio band, on-off-keying CW radiotelegraphy enjoys carte blanche allocation for USE. That even includes the 200 KHz total bandspace on 6m and 2m set aside solely for code using moonbounce DX. I really don't fathom  WHY all thses rabid code advocates are jabbering incessantly over all that code testing nonsense. NOW.

The only conclusion I can come to is that these jabbering code advocates are just being control freaks bound and determined to make all USA radio amateurs who come later suffer somehow...as they had to "suffer." Boo hoo. Poor babies.

Technologically, those jabbering code advocates who got their beloved Extra "diplomas" (license grant certificates) in the 1970s or earlier are simply lying when they say the TEST was so "HARD" back then. The last four decades of even amateur radio technology has advanced by several plateus and some of that is included in the NCVEC tests of today and five years ago. Some seem to have difficulty with the slightest simple algebra of power, voltage, and amperage calculations(!) in another Forum. It is fairly clear those are just the front-panel knob twiddlers, the "operators" who would be lost in the area behind those front panels. They would be Lost if they had to - as license regulations demand - prove the technical operation of their radios. 

Quote
So, it should come as no surprise that online forums like these constitute the last remaining outlet for that (thankfully!) ever-shrinking cadre of rabid, (primarily US-based) fundamentalists to continually express their extreme displeasure that amateur radio (and indeed, the rest of the world around them) has LONG since moved on.  Fortunately, such persons aren't getting any traction in these forums, either...except, perhaps, among their (similarly royally peeved) fundamentalist buddies.
Another slight disagreement, Keith. There are enough of those old gas-passers to crowd out those of us who can think for ourselves, aren't devoted to the continual perpetuation of ancient radio skills, and are living for a FUTURE, not the past. Licensing regulations should look FORWARD and not to what has been. The FCC has very good records on "what has been," even greater than Moderator Jimmie has in his basement.  Cheesy 

Quote
Indeed, the seemingly endless fixation on the way things were done in our Service in "days gone by" now emanating from the likes of this crowd would all be comic if it wasn't also so pitifully sad.
I look at such behavior as their personal "survivor" syndrome. The want to keep the past because they've been there and it is familiar to them. The FUTURE can be a scary place for many, especially technical areas. These lovers of the past are no longer young and they can observe life passing them by. Personal survival demands they obliterate such scary things, the "unknown" and concentrate only on the past. Naturally those folks were always the "best" at what they did and aren't hesitant to tell everyone that.  Cheesy

Ad astra ad aspera.

73, Len K6LHA
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!