|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
|
1-10 of 91 messages
|
Page 1 of 10
Next
|
|
FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by KJ4ADN on February 29, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm *very* happy with this announcement:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/02/28/100/?nc=1
The CW requirement kept many of us out of Amateur Radio, limiting our effectiveness as first responders.
----------- from the article
"The FCC also noted that another fundamental purpose underlying Part 97 rules is "to enhance the value of the amateur service to the public, particularly with respect to emergency communications, and that the Commission had previously concluded that most emergency communication today is performed using voice, data, or video modes, because information can be exchanged much faster using modes of communication other than telegraphy."
------------
BRAVO!!!
Dropping the CW *requirement* has enabled 8 out of 10 in my family to become licensed Technicians or Generals, and practice on the local nets for emergencies. This literally opened the door for my kids to enjoy learning useful communications while gaining some valuable experience constructing, troubleshooting - all in an exciting & well managed environment.
---------- from the article
"Anthony R. Gordon, KG6EQM
Gordon asserts that "'the failure to keep the Morse code telegraphy requirement intact, at least as a required examination element for the Amateur Extra Class operator license, fails to take into consideration the significant national security implications that require retaining adequate examination safeguards to insure the viability that Morse code telegraphy provides, not only to the Amateur service, but the nation as well.'" Gordon argues that the requirement should be retained so that amateur operators can act as "a 'strategic reserve,'" because there is "no assurance that...voice or digital modes will even be operationally viable in future emergency communication environments.""
----------
"strategic reserve"???
In our county, about 20 new first responders - Amateur operators have been licensed since dropping the CW requirement.
----------- from the article
"The FCC was not persuaded, however, that eliminating the Morse code examination element will affect national security or emergency communications. "We agree with the commenters who point out that requiring applicants to pass a one-time telegraphy examination did not and would not guarantee a supply of skilled telegraphy operators. Moreover, nothing in the Commission's decision prevents an interested amateur radio operator from pursuing Morse code proficiency.""
------------
Doesn't that last sentence really say it all?
KJ4ADN - Bill
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by KA2ZNI on February 29, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That's right... Bring on the Channel 19'rs... With todays inrush of new hams, ease of licensing and lack of ethics and decency is the paved road for an onslaught of poor operators, lack of operating skills, and the lack of decency us old timers remembered from way back.
And with the lack of funds and interest, I have already seen evidence of the lack of policing on our bands, much less enforcement, and so has alot of others... Run up and done some of the bands some night and listen to the nonsense so flooding the bands with more operators that are less than diligent on upholding the morals, respect and ethics we held dear is not the answer.
On the other hand, if more testing and training were provided to put a wall between the flood of QRM'rs with lack of ethics, more policing and enforcement were used by both amateurs and the FCC... Than yes bring on the people that truly want a home in the hobby...
Far too many people agree with me though, and far too many are experiencing the effects of lack of training, ethics, and all around good amateur practice that has been lost due to a drop in the requirements to achieve a license.
Let's drop the driving requirements, How about 13 year olds learning to drive?? No you say.... ?? There are reasons for stricter requirements, and for the amateurs that will go on and use good ethics and practice that's great...
For the channel 19'ers, well....
'73's....
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by N5LRZ on March 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IF the purpose of dropping the code was to in reality "Increase" the number of Amateur Ops in any massive/significant sense of the world--it flat out failed.
Per a little news blurb of the last meeting of the VECs, the number of Amateurs getting licenses was very very low in number after the initial rush. AND on top of that the number of licenses subject to expire include a an extremely large proportion of no coders who for whatever reason just flat out decided to vanish never to be heard again.
ON TOP OF THAT, ALL the Novice and Advanced holders who for reasons known only to them refuse to advance 1 license higher will also vanish when either they become deceast or let their licenses expire and let lapse beyond the Grace Period.
And if you do not think that things can get even worse for the numbers, IF the decides to mandate that ALL Amateur Radio Comminications be Digital in nature and ban all analog transmissions as they did with Spark Gap then welllll you can expect to see a huge drop in numbers. The older group are going to say screw you FCC and quit. The YOUTH are probably NOT going to be able to afford the High Tech radios and be put off by the high price of the hobby (much in the same way a lot of people do not play Golf because they cannot afford either the clubs, the high green fees or the Country Club dues//they are too poor).
You can expect a massive decline of Amateur Radio Licenses as time passes. The old generation passes away and the NEW generation (who are truly NOT dedicated) just simple leave.
IN THE END, dropping the code in its entirety will mean absolutely nothing other than a 'False Hope'.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE is simply that the FCC has made up its mind/period and no one should expect the FCC to reinstate the code UNLESS the IARU on the OFFICIAL LEVEL recommends the reinstatement of Code as a requirement of the Amateur Radio Licenses of its members. Not very much likely in my or your lifetime.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by KI4WGI on March 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Is there any evidence that new HAMs (such as myself) contribute to the already existing problems found on the air? Of course, an influx of new people is an influx of inexperienced operators.
I may or may not be typical, but I waited 30 years to get my license. I did have my commercial class license since 1979 (Jr in High School). Joined the USAF in 1980, left it in 1990 with a 4-year degree. Worked in 2-way radio for 7 years (Virginia State Police), taught college electronics part time and now work as a Manufacturing Engineer designing medical devices (as lead engineer in our R&D dept). I would bet many new Hams such as myself approach the hobby with a large degree of dignity & respect. In fact, I have yet to "speak", as I spent my time listening to others to get a feel for proper procedure (though a new FT-1802 is now on it's way!).
Based on this I would consider it ill advised to lump us new HAMs as escapee's from the "children's band". Code never kept the jerks off the bands.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by KC2SHP on March 8, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If this means anything, I took the exam this morning to upgrade my license class. To my surprise, there were more VE's than actual test takers. 2 examinees vs. 7 VE's. Maybe some of VE's were just hanging out but at least 4 of them helped grade the 2 exams. Just FYI..
KC2SHP
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by AA5JG on March 10, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The CW requirement kept many of us out of Amateur Radio, limiting our effectiveness as first responders"
The CW requirement didn't keep anyone out of ham radio. A CW receiving test hasn't been required for the Technician license since 1991.
73s John AA5JG
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by KB3LSR on March 11, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Even after the fact, the great debate still continutes....
I griped about CW requirements and did what everyone else at the time had to do to get on HF, pass the 5WPM test. It took me 3 tries, but I finally passed. And for those interested, I got my start in CB. Anyhow, this debate should be long over. Too many arguments and heated debates. There's nothing anyone can do about the FCC bringing back the Element 1 requirement, so why rub salt in the wound?
Just my 2 cents
73 de KB3LSR
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by KD8DNR on March 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG6EQM upgraded from Technician (No Tech Plus) to General AFTER the FCC dropped the code requirement.
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applTransLog.jsp?applID=4060653
Sounds like someone might have a little hypocrisy running through their veins?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by KE5SWV on March 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote "That's right... Bring on the Channel 19'rs... With todays inrush of new hams, ease of licensing and lack of ethics and decency is the paved road for an onslaught of poor operators, lack of operating skills, and the lack of decency us old timers remembered from way back." End Quote.
So you're saying that the only difference between past amateurs with ethics and good operating practices was the code requirement. Without that, all that get their licenses without the code testing, are nothing more than glorified CB'ers...amazing!!! What an elitist attitude you have.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC refuses to reinstate CW requirement.
|
Reply
|
|
by KB1SF on March 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John (AA5JG) wrote: "The CW requirement didn't keep anyone out of ham radio. A CW receiving test hasn't been required for the Technician license since 1991."
------------------------------------
True.
But that requirement ALSO kept generations of people out of the mainstream of our hobby as well. And I believe that keeping such an arcane and systemically discriminatory licensing requirement firmly in place for over half a century after it had outlived any semblance of usefulness will be a major contributor to the eventual demise of our Service from lack of growth.
As an Accredited Examiner (in both the USA and Canada) as well as an Amateur Radio instructor who has helped introduce Ham Radio to hundreds of future Hams for more than 20 years, I learned long ago that, for some people, learning Morse is a "snap". But, for others, it can be days, weeks, or even years of absolute frustration, resulting in failure after failure. And the amount of “extra effort” expended by such folk seldom, if ever, makes any real difference in the outcome. In fact, there are any number of widely recognized, certifiable medical conditions that can make learning Morse nigh on impossible for some otherwise “ordinary” people.
That's because proficiency in Morse is an inherent, complex, human psychomotor skill.
That means it involves a whole host of both psychological (mental) as well as physiological (motor) skills and abilities, some of which can be "learned", but most of which are NOT AT ALL "learnable". That is, we are either born with these abilities to learn those skills or we aren't. And that ability to learn those skills can also be impaired by accident or disease.
Now, certainly, listening for the dots and dashes (or the entire "sound") of a Morse character is a part of that activity. But, then there's the mental interpretation part of what those sounds mean, as well as the brain's ability to send the proper neural messages to one's hands and fingers to write down the letters and words on a piece of paper or a typewriter. The latter activity also involves one's ability to see as well as to hear…not to mention one's ability to properly form recognizable characters on a page and/or finding the correct key to depress on a typewriter. At least ONE of those additional skills are required in order to pass such skill tests.
And, much like those things that can interfere with an RF signal traveling down a piece of coax (like broken shielding, water in the cable, bad connectors, or a mismatched antenna), there are any number of psychomotor issues that can distort or even prevent the sound of the Morse character from being properly heard, interpreted and then correctly written down at the other end of that process.
So, as I said, because it IS such a complex, human activity, the ease of learning Morse varies widely throughout the population based on that long list of inherently human factors, many of which are completely beyond our control. My guess is that these two facts (along with the fact that there is no longer an international requirement that they do so) were probably among the most compelling reasons why the FCC finally dropped Morse testing entirely, and with their latest decision, steadfastly refusing to bring it back.
Call it genetics, the “way we are born" or what have you, but the simple truth is that we are NOT all put together exactly alike. But, unfortunately, since learning Morse is a singular activity, it is very easy to view another person's ability to learn it using a sample size of one…that is, our own experiences.
Now, clearly, there ARE many people in our hobby who are just too lazy to get up off their finals to learn Morse. And that is certainly their choice.
But, for the “Morse testing forever” crowd to now lay that same judgment on folks who absolutely CAN’T learn Morse no matter how much extra effort they put into doing so is disingenuous at best and downright discriminatory at worst.
The bottom line here is that, as much as the left-brained, engineer-types in our hobby obsessively seem to believe otherwise, we humans AREN’T all put together like our Amateur Radio transceivers that come off the assembly line with the same parts list, the same knobs on our “front panels” or the exact same genetic programming (psychomotor skills and abilities) uploaded into our “boot ROMs”.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forum, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forum Manager.
|
|
|
