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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Code/No Code CW-Do we need it?  (Read 54543 times)
AB2T
Member

Posts: 246




Ignore
« Reply #210 on: September 13, 2011, 12:23:58 AM »

if we ham want to keep the ham band, we need to have more hams using ham bands.  which means, we need to increase number of hams.  we probably should have entry level license class, where person can take exam on online with open book, allow up to 100 wts or so , 50 MHz and up.

While I don't agree with your proposal, I do think that the Technician test needs to be expanded by 10 -- 15 questions or so.  The exam would still be closed book and administered as usual.  The following additional topics should be examined in greater detail:

1) the structure and role of ARES/RACES
2) the ethical and legal relationship between amateur radio emergency communications and professional emergency communications
3) an amateur radio operator's ethical and legal boundaries during emergency radio communications
4) the ethics and law of operating amateur radio (part 97) equipment on behalf of an employer

Perhaps this could be included after the Part 97 and FCC band/mode plan regulatory section.

Let's face it. A fair minority of persons sit for the Tech exam not because they are interested in ham radio, but because their employer "asked" them to do so.  While I have ethical qualms about the practice, it is legal so long as ham radio is not a substitute for licensed business communications in non-emergency situations.  The Tech test needs to address ethical questions about emergency and business communications since this is the sole reason some persons sit for the exam.

It means we must increase the number of *active* hams.

I agree Jim.  However, so long as some employers coerce their employees to get ham licenses as a backup emcomm system, the ham community must grapple with the fact that the Tech has to examine the ethics of collaboration with business (including non-profit or non-for-profit institutions).  I wish this weren't the case.  Still, commercial interests have influenced ham radio to the detriment of the service.  This, I am afraid, cannot be stopped or mitigated.  However, it must be examined.

The recruitment of new, active, hobbyist hams is another issue altogether.  Neither phenomenon should be ignored.

73, Jordan
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 12:33:42 AM by AB2T » Logged
NO6L
Member

Posts: 179




Ignore
« Reply #211 on: September 13, 2011, 04:36:53 AM »

On the subject of the caste/incentive licensing debacle, I'm of the opinion it contributed, but was not the largest contributor to the decline of the radio/electronics hobbies and Amateur Radio. In my view, all are correct to some extent. As for the ridiculous, dare I say stupid current system of deviding up the classes  by band segments, listen, just go and listen to the complete "ghost town" that is the 75/80M Extra & Advanced sub-bands any evening. Everyone is on the General sub-band. Talk about a waste of spectrum. On the other hand, it seems every Tom, Dick & Harry has a repeater on VHF and up, and no one uses them. Yet more waste! How are they related? Simple, we allow every Tech class licensee to have the privilege to set up a repeater no one will use as some kind of status symble. My cure is simple. Instead of dividing up spectrum into some kind of "Officers Country" sub-bands, divide up the classes into what kind of equipment they can deploy and maybe power they can use. For example, if you are not an Advanced or Extra, you don't get to deploy a repeater or be a trustee for one. You fix two problems in this example; You get more "life" on otherwise dead bands and you release a whole gob of repeater pares to people that may actually use them. I know this will send repeater owners that have their machines as a status symble into an apaplectic rage, but that's too bad. Now really, what's wrong with a ruling that states that a Tech can operate any band, but at ony 200W, for example? And I mean any band, not this STUPID current scheme of 1500W on VHF and up but only 200 on HF. Oh, and tell the Novices to upgrade or lose their licenses entirely.

There's my take and I'm not changing it.
73
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 932




Ignore
« Reply #212 on: October 11, 2011, 03:39:15 PM »

While we are on this line of thinking, why do people who passed a 13wpm CW test (Advanced class licenses) get FEWER CW frequencies than those who passed no CW test at all (the current extra requirements)?
73s John AA5JG


QSL!!! (great question)
i'll bite: Because the code requirement was dropped as a way to cut costs, not as a way to make amateur licensing more resonant.

What the FCC should have done was put morse code questions in multiple choice format -- that way the FCC could still dispense with the separate morse code testing part of amateur examinations and not worry about ADA considerations either.  "The following morse code message:  __ __ . __         . . .        . __ . .     conveys what?

A. QRP
B. QSY
C. QRX
D. QSL
E. OMG


unfortunately the FCC changed the code requirement when I was inactive and unaware LOL
btw, I want code to be required because I think it enhances the quality of amateur operators and their communicating skills.
(by learning code protocols, one learns efficient, effective practices that were vetted over decades of communication where brevity and skill were quite important.)
Logged
KG4NEL
Member

Posts: 373




Ignore
« Reply #213 on: October 11, 2011, 04:59:24 PM »

What the FCC should have done was put morse code questions in multiple choice format -- that way the FCC could still dispense with the separate morse code testing part of amateur examinations and not worry about ADA considerations either.  "The following morse code message:  __ __ . __         . . .        . __ . .     conveys what?

A. QRP
B. QSY
C. QRX
D. QSL
E. OMG

You'd probably have more people howling over that, because it forces people to memorize CW by sight and not sound.

As for the Advanced Class disparity - it's simple. Because the IARU said so  Tongue
Logged
KG4NEL
Member

Posts: 373




Ignore
« Reply #214 on: October 11, 2011, 05:14:27 PM »

On the subject of the caste/incentive licensing debacle, I'm of the opinion it contributed, but was not the largest contributor to the decline of the radio/electronics hobbies and Amateur Radio. In my view, all are correct to some extent. As for the ridiculous, dare I say stupid current system of deviding up the classes  by band segments, listen, just go and listen to the complete "ghost town" that is the 75/80M Extra & Advanced sub-bands any evening.

I'm workin' on it! Once I get a real outdoor antenna up, I'll have a chance at the lower bands. I need a lot of states on 75 phone anyway for 5BWAS Smiley

Quote
On the other hand, it seems every Tom, Dick & Harry has a repeater on VHF and up, and no one uses them. Yet more waste! How are they related? Simple, we allow every Tech class licensee to have the privilege to set up a repeater no one will use as some kind of status symble. My cure is simple. Instead of dividing up spectrum into some kind of "Officers Country" sub-bands, divide up the classes into what kind of equipment they can deploy and maybe power they can use. For example, if you are not an Advanced or Extra, you don't get to deploy a repeater or be a trustee for one. You fix two problems in this example; You get more "life" on otherwise dead bands and you release a whole gob of repeater pares to people that may actually use them.

Do that many Techs really own/are trustees for repeaters? I think the ebb and flow of site availability and funding plays a much larger factor than what the class of the owner is. I use maybe 4-5 machines on 6, 2, and 70cm, and only know the license class of the trustee for one :p
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 932




Ignore
« Reply #215 on: October 11, 2011, 08:32:43 PM »


What the FCC should have done was put morse code questions in multiple choice format -- that way the FCC could still dispense with the separate morse code testing part of amateur examinations and not worry about ADA considerations either.  "The following morse code message:  __ __ . __         . . .        . __ . .     conveys what?

A. QRP
B. QSY
C. QRX
D. QSL
E. OMG

You'd probably have more people howling over that, because it forces people to memorize CW by sight and not sound.

It forces no such thing!  Learning by sound is still easier unless one is deaf -- I am pretty sure my brain translates the sight into sound and then knows the answer  Wink

As for the Advanced Class disparity - it's simple. Because the IARU said so  Tongue

 Roll Eyes
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3835




Ignore
« Reply #216 on: October 12, 2011, 07:31:07 PM »

As for the Advanced Class disparity - it's simple. Because the IARU said so  Tongue

No, IARU had nothing to do with it. That was all FCC.

What happened is that the FCC decided to phase out the Advanced back in 1998-1999. Small government, deregulation and all that. They stopped issuing new Advanceds, Novices and Tech Pluses in April 2000.

The FCC's view is that if an Advanced wants more privileges, all s/he has to do is pass the Extra written.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
KO3D
Member

Posts: 49




Ignore
« Reply #217 on: October 16, 2011, 12:10:38 PM »

I hear so many "code" extras on 75m who can probably build a amplifier out of an old television but are the rudest operators I have ever heard. Code does not make a competent operator. When I'm trying to work DX and a guy is using 1500w and a speech processor to talk one state away about his colostomy, I don't care if he can copy PSK31 by hand, he's a bad operator.


N2LWE:

Congratulations on achieving your extra class license.  Unfortunately, there are some folks who feel insecure and have a need to try to raise themselves up by belittling others.  Ignore them.

"Real hams" get on the air and enjoy their radios.  I hope you will find enjoyment with yours.  Most of the folks spouting ignorant crap on the repeaters couldn't make an HF QSO if their life depended on it. 

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
N4MJG
Member

Posts: 499


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #218 on: October 16, 2011, 08:23:29 PM »

I took code test just before they drop the code ! how sad is that ? i enjoy the code, now since i work long hour, i need to relearn again Sad


73
Jackie
N4MJG
Logged
N3OX
Member

Posts: 8852


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #219 on: October 17, 2011, 10:16:55 AM »

While we are on this line of thinking, why do people who passed a 13wpm CW test (Advanced class licenses) get FEWER CW frequencies than those who passed no CW test at all (the current extra requirements)?

Because they never got their Extra, that's why.
Logged

73,
Dan
http://www.n3ox.net

Monkey/silicon cyborg, beeping at rocks since 1995.
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 932




Ignore
« Reply #220 on: October 25, 2011, 05:30:01 PM »

While we are on this line of thinking, why do people who passed a 13wpm CW test (Advanced class licenses) get FEWER CW frequencies than those who passed no CW test at all (the current extra requirements)?

Because they never got their Extra, that's why.

 Angry  if u put it like that, I am forced to work on getting it. I also realized that even if I upgrade to Extra it is not like I never passed the Advanced at an FCC office in 1977... (I also am tired of DXpeditions staying well below 21.025, 14.025, 7.025 and 3.525...)   Now that it gets dark early and is colder, I should be able to find some time to study  Tongue   wish me luck  Grin
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15]   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!