|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things." When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) It IS the Code. Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. Telegraph. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm? http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1 That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1 The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote: Or just lazy people out? Sc It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about learning it, either. More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement was removed years ago? Yes. In the USA at least. Since the inception of the no-code Technician class here in 1991, the growth of the Technician class license numbers in the USA has been continuous. Those now comprise about 49 % of ALL licensees. The Technician class license numbers are twice that of General class, the next-largest license class. Since the "reconstruction" in FCC amateur radio regulations of 2001, the number of licensees grew to peak in July, 2003. At that time the maximum code test rate was fixed at 5 WPM, all classes. A problem now is the attrition of the older licensees. More old- timers are leaving/expiring (their licenses) than are being replaced by new (never before licensed in amateur radio) licensees. Source: www.hamdata.com. That trend has persisted for three years. The code test is not THE factor causing it, just one of the major factors in slowing the increase of new licensees. Coupled with the stubborn resistance to change of ANY regulations by olde-tymers, there is little incentive to enter olde-tyme amateur radio. Ally that with the huge growth of the Internet in the 15 years it has been public - an Internet that has spread worldwide with near-instant communications over that world - and the traditional standards and practices of olde-tyme ham radio just don't have the appeal to newcomers they once had. Elimination of the code test for any license will cause a spurt in new licensees. While such elimination is not a guarantee to far-future growth, it will be the significant act to being CHANGING regulations to better fit the modern times. Keeping up with changing times is a NECESSITY in regulations, regardless of the personal desires of the minority of amateurs making up the olde-tyme group. |
Be sure to hold onto your hat when [email protected] decides to expell some gas.
" wrote in
ups.com: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with choosing Morse Code and HF operation? Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY [US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes." What I wrote is a plain and simple fact. You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple fact. Your problem, not mine. Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the *use* of Morse Code is outmoded! Yes, in every other radio service except amateur. You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple fact. Your problem, not mine. FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM - is it outmoded? There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode. FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is very much in use today. DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio (optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text ("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting. Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well, the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the way out due to listener non-acceptance. "Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission. Technically the system works very well. The increased cost of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in "shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the HF transmitters; program content remains the same. The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the future despite wider use of GPS. Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere' long distance telephony possible. It has been largely replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the long, long like between London and Tokyo through the Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave- length is used for amplification to avoid electronic repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification) is not possible with microwave RF radio relay. There are many different other examples of "FM"-like modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro- waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the "TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going in use and for the foreseeable future. The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels. The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability from satellite radio relay services. Was there anything else technical about communications and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state? Whewww. That was a gassy one. SC |
Be sure to hold onto your hat when [email protected] decides to expell some gas.
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:11:28 GMT, Blow Code spake
thusly: Whewww. That was a gassy one. We don't need to hear about your sex life. |
Ping [email protected]
You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at understanding something. What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them. They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now. I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew puked up by some of the pro-coders. Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out. I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[ as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a requirement that I should hate usenet. That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common. The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only convey the words. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with a key that is much more limited? Somehow, this relates to pixels on my screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make a valid point? Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people but I have made a few exceptions lately. Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is obviously not to be taken seriously. And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too funny. |
Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm
You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at understanding something. Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war stuff in here, heh heh heh heh... What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of some of the pro-coders here. Part of that is the Nature of the Beast, the computer- modem mode of communications. The 'Beast' got 'steroids' with the ability to send 'anonymous' messages (they think...traceability is possible but only through systems administrators' access to the 'Net). When that happened the early male adolescent behavior surfaced with all its immaturity. Having participated in computer-modem communications locally and networked since December 1984, I've seen quite a bit of that. It is clinically, also morbidly fascinating to me. Since most of my early experiences were on local BBSs there was the opportunity to meet socially with those participants, get real clues to the person instead of just seeing their words on a screen. In most their words echoed their up-close personnae. In perhaps a quarter of them their fantasies and imaginations ruled their screen words, their public, social interaction being nowhere near that and they were relatively subdued, few having 'remarkable' lives. It could be said that their computer-modem personnae represented their imaginations given a pseudo-life, something to fantasize about to relieve their everyday lives' frustrations. With the ability to be anonymous (through some 'Net servers) those imaginations and frustrations can be let out full force. The 'anonymous' ones become aggressive, 'in-your-face' types, no longer mindful of normal social, in-person behavior rules. This is aided by the relative isolation of time and distance of messaging. The aggressive ones need have no fear of physical confrontation as a result of their words, they can act 'tough' or abusive or insulting in safety. Ergo, many found emotional 'relief' in the filthy venting we've all seen in just this newsgroup. It's a not-nice condition in some humans to have their (usually suppressed) anger, frustration, bigotry so close to the surface but it does exist in them. It can turn to rage and action in rare cases, thus the stories of violence that show up in the news. Humans aren't perfect by a long shot. Civilization requires a greater suppression of that internal rage, anger, frustration for the common good but some think internally that they are 'better' than the common folk. Hence we get the overtones of 'superiority' through sub-groups in which their capabilities are exaggerated in those groups' self- righteous descriptions of themselves. That isn't confined to amateur radio. It exists all along the human experience. For me, the confusion stems from having known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them. Understandable from the viewpoint of younger people. I think we've all had such experiences...mine were scarce in regards to amateur radio in my hometown but there were lots with other life experiences that were fun to listen to and to respect. They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now. Being of a younger age, my growing-up days 'old timers' were rather focussed on the experience of World War II. "Radio" per se was seldom mentioned as a part of that. What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later that some of them were exaggerating what they said and a few were downright liars! :-) If one survives long enough to become the same age as those 'old timers' (in a relative chronological way that is), it is easier to see where they are coming from! Much easier...! :-) I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew puked up by some of the pro-coders. Well, if the afterlife allows such observation of mortals, I'm of the opinion that those old 'old-timers' are having a good time and laughing at the mortals' shenanigans! Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out. The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge, to be in-charge. In here those are confined to the pro-coders or who USE their tested morsemanship (however long ago that happened, if it ever did) to show "how good" they are. I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[ as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a requirement that I should hate usenet. Not surprising to me. Those fixated on their alleged superiority dispense with logic, go emotional, and become one with the rabble, the filth-spewers. They are NOT interested in anything but making themselves look good to themselves on their own screens. They have little recognition that the same 'message' they sent is read by anyone else but the recipient...when it may be read by thousands of others who never reply. That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common. I agree. Such misdirection is common on just about every newsgroup, has precedence in the BBSs, even on the old ARPANET just before it morphed into USENET. Lacking the validity of anything but their own experiences, they toss logic out the window and consentrate on 'conquering' the message thread. The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only convey the words. You know that, I know that, and hundreds of thousands of other humans know that. That's the reason that all other radio services except amateur radio have dispensed with on-off keying radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. At least in the USA; I don't have enough information about Canada's use of communications modes to verify that. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with a key that is much more limited? Logic in such an argument is NOT desired by pro-coders. They are fixated on the medium, not the message. They got their rank-status-privileges mainly through their morsemanship and their egos demand that Their desires should be those of all. Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio- telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills. Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio publications here, has had that for at least seven decades, they can and have managed to condition the thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor of radiotelegraphy. Those who've been conditioned will not understand that they've been imprinted but insist it like some 'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out- rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed! Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times. Somehow, this relates to pixels on my screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make a valid point? Few can. In here I'd say that NONE can. Your 'opponent' wasn't trying to argue logically. Klein was obviously using emotion as an 'argument,' frustrated at not being able to 'triumph' in a message exchange. Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their point valid? It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can get away with it, unworried about any direct physical confrontation that might ensue. Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar insults instead of engaging in debate? Yes. Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. Of course...and to this reply. One can 'take that to the bank.' :-) They can go ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a great improvement to the ARS. Well, the expressed bigotry against CB by hams is a very old thing going back to 1958 when the FCC created "Class C and D" CB service on an 11 meter frequency band de- allocated from amateur radio use down here. Having to work both with and for some old-time hams, I heard mostly howls of outrage and indignation that the FCC 'dared' to take away 'their' band and 'give' it to 'civilians.' Worse yet, NO TEST, not the slightest requirement to demonstrate morsemanship in order to use an HF band! :-) I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I have to agree with you. The vast majority of CB use down here is on highways, mostly by truckers but a large number of RV-driving vacationers are there, too. At worst, some trucker might go into a long tale of some- thing (that only a few consider funny) but I have yet to hear outright personal insults on CB. I quit using CB mobile in late 1999 after selling my '82 Camaro but a twice-a-year fire-up of CB at home doesn't indicate anything different; this residence in southern California is only a half mile from our Interstate 5, a major highway north-south near the Pacific coast. Our cell phone now works so well on major highways that we don't have any consideration of installing any other radio in our present car. And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too funny. Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under 'moderation' as well. When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent' angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is just their stupid way of attempting retaliation. |
Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
wrote: From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at understanding something. Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war stuff in here, heh heh heh heh... maybe not maybe they will avoid the flame bait this once since you saidf they would flame on And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too funny. Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under 'moderation' as well. When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent' angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is just their stupid way of attempting retaliation. that line storkies suddenly of a memory of a movie omen 3 the final conflict where thron is talking about his his role as president of some youth concil something like "....we tell them to grow meaning wiat till you have grown old then you will think like we do" |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code wrote: No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving. Interesting, because AR offers more than just communication. SC Barry I know the comment about people leaving Amateur radio isn't Barrys comment, but thought I'd address it anyway. I was 69 when I got my Tech license and 72 by the time I made myself pass the code test and got my General. A lot of the avid pro-morse Hams are even older than I am. I know of no one locally who has just quit the hobby and those senior to me are not leaving on their own at all, when they do stop Hammin' it's 'cause their keys went silent. I never used code after passing the test. I've got the thought in the back of my mind that I may sometime pursue a little CW, but it all depends on when I get my own SK notice. Harold KD3SAK |
LenAnderson believes CB type behavior will good for ham radio. Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
" wrote in
ups.com: From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at understanding something. Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war stuff in here, heh heh heh heh... What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of some of the pro-coders here. Part of that is the Nature of the Beast, the computer- modem mode of communications. The 'Beast' got 'steroids' with the ability to send 'anonymous' messages (they think...traceability is possible but only through systems administrators' access to the 'Net). When that happened the early male adolescent behavior surfaced with all its immaturity. Having participated in computer-modem communications locally and networked since December 1984, I've seen quite a bit of that. It is clinically, also morbidly fascinating to me. Since most of my early experiences were on local BBSs there was the opportunity to meet socially with those participants, get real clues to the person instead of just seeing their words on a screen. In most their words echoed their up-close personnae. In perhaps a quarter of them their fantasies and imaginations ruled their screen words, their public, social interaction being nowhere near that and they were relatively subdued, few having 'remarkable' lives. It could be said that their computer-modem personnae represented their imaginations given a pseudo-life, something to fantasize about to relieve their everyday lives' frustrations. With the ability to be anonymous (through some 'Net servers) those imaginations and frustrations can be let out full force. The 'anonymous' ones become aggressive, 'in-your-face' types, no longer mindful of normal social, in-person behavior rules. This is aided by the relative isolation of time and distance of messaging. The aggressive ones need have no fear of physical confrontation as a result of their words, they can act 'tough' or abusive or insulting in safety. Ergo, many found emotional 'relief' in the filthy venting we've all seen in just this newsgroup. It's a not-nice condition in some humans to have their (usually suppressed) anger, frustration, bigotry so close to the surface but it does exist in them. It can turn to rage and action in rare cases, thus the stories of violence that show up in the news. Humans aren't perfect by a long shot. Civilization requires a greater suppression of that internal rage, anger, frustration for the common good but some think internally that they are 'better' than the common folk. Hence we get the overtones of 'superiority' through sub-groups in which their capabilities are exaggerated in those groups' self- righteous descriptions of themselves. That isn't confined to amateur radio. It exists all along the human experience. For me, the confusion stems from having known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them. Understandable from the viewpoint of younger people. I think we've all had such experiences...mine were scarce in regards to amateur radio in my hometown but there were lots with other life experiences that were fun to listen to and to respect. They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now. Being of a younger age, my growing-up days 'old timers' were rather focussed on the experience of World War II. "Radio" per se was seldom mentioned as a part of that. What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later that some of them were exaggerating what they said and a few were downright liars! :-) If one survives long enough to become the same age as those 'old timers' (in a relative chronological way that is), it is easier to see where they are coming from! Much easier...! :-) I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew puked up by some of the pro-coders. Well, if the afterlife allows such observation of mortals, I'm of the opinion that those old 'old-timers' are having a good time and laughing at the mortals' shenanigans! Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out. The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge, to be in-charge. In here those are confined to the pro-coders or who USE their tested morsemanship (however long ago that happened, if it ever did) to show "how good" they are. I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[ as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a requirement that I should hate usenet. Not surprising to me. Those fixated on their alleged superiority dispense with logic, go emotional, and become one with the rabble, the filth-spewers. They are NOT interested in anything but making themselves look good to themselves on their own screens. They have little recognition that the same 'message' they sent is read by anyone else but the recipient...when it may be read by thousands of others who never reply. That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common. I agree. Such misdirection is common on just about every newsgroup, has precedence in the BBSs, even on the old ARPANET just before it morphed into USENET. Lacking the validity of anything but their own experiences, they toss logic out the window and consentrate on 'conquering' the message thread. The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only convey the words. You know that, I know that, and hundreds of thousands of other humans know that. That's the reason that all other radio services except amateur radio have dispensed with on-off keying radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. At least in the USA; I don't have enough information about Canada's use of communications modes to verify that. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with a key that is much more limited? Logic in such an argument is NOT desired by pro-coders. They are fixated on the medium, not the message. They got their rank-status-privileges mainly through their morsemanship and their egos demand that Their desires should be those of all. Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio- telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills. Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio publications here, has had that for at least seven decades, they can and have managed to condition the thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor of radiotelegraphy. Those who've been conditioned will not understand that they've been imprinted but insist it like some 'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out- rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed! Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times. Somehow, this relates to pixels on my screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make a valid point? Few can. In here I'd say that NONE can. Your 'opponent' wasn't trying to argue logically. Klein was obviously using emotion as an 'argument,' frustrated at not being able to 'triumph' in a message exchange. Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their point valid? It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can get away with it, unworried about any direct physical confrontation that might ensue. Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar insults instead of engaging in debate? Yes. Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. Of course...and to this reply. One can 'take that to the bank.' :-) They can go ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a great improvement to the ARS. Well, the expressed bigotry against CB by hams is a very old thing going back to 1958 when the FCC created "Class C and D" CB service on an 11 meter frequency band de- allocated from amateur radio use down here. Having to work both with and for some old-time hams, I heard mostly howls of outrage and indignation that the FCC 'dared' to take away 'their' band and 'give' it to 'civilians.' Worse yet, NO TEST, not the slightest requirement to demonstrate morsemanship in order to use an HF band! :-) I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I have to agree with you. The vast majority of CB use down here is on highways, mostly by truckers but a large number of RV-driving vacationers are there, too. At worst, some trucker might go into a long tale of some- thing (that only a few consider funny) but I have yet to hear outright personal insults on CB. I quit using CB mobile in late 1999 after selling my '82 Camaro but a twice-a-year fire-up of CB at home doesn't indicate anything different; this residence in southern California is only a half mile from our Interstate 5, a major highway north-south near the Pacific coast. Our cell phone now works so well on major highways that we don't have any consideration of installing any other radio in our present car. And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too funny. Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under 'moderation' as well. When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent' angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is just their stupid way of attempting retaliation. Ten-Four? |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in message oups.com... Opus- wrote: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake thusly: Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed, arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain what makes a person an "asset to the service"? Jeez, Chill out, eh? Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily taken as personal insults. "Stuff happens." BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ. Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun. I found it to be cold and impersonal. I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy. Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon). Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon. If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe. Probably not. Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage, anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead fingers! :-) Will CW disappear? Probably not. Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it. Let them cling, they are free to do so. I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts." "Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts. Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not. Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed, with or without code. I totally agree. In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000. My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I hope people will WANT to learn it. I always found it to be boring. "Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they like. They really don't understand what other citizens want. Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day. A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good replacement. True? I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of communication. That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the FCC does for US civil radio services. Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a sad frequency |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a sad frequency Well then Mark, do you think, just for a second, that possibly, just maybe, that it could be YOU that brings out the best in everyone? |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Jimmie D" wrote in
: wrote in message oups.com... Opus- wrote: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake thusly: Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed, arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain what makes a person an "asset to the service"? Jeez, Chill out, eh? Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily taken as personal insults. "Stuff happens." BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ. Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun. I found it to be cold and impersonal. I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy. Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon). Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon. If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe. Probably not. Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage, anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead fingers! :-) Will CW disappear? Probably not. Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it. Let them cling, they are free to do so. I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts." "Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts. Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not. Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed, with or without code. I totally agree. In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000. My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I hope people will WANT to learn it. I always found it to be boring. "Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they like. They really don't understand what other citizens want. Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day. A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good replacement. True? I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of communication. That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the FCC does for US civil radio services. Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. That's what happens when something gets dumbed down. It cheapens it, and people find no value in maintaining or continuing with it. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in
ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Slow Code wrote: wrote in ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that just as well on 6 Meters. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: Slow Code wrote: wrote in ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that just as well on 6 Meters. BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or you could tell me |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:27:33 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, wrote: And you probably answered some theory questions about modes you'll never use and formulas you'll never see again. Maybe we should just eliminate the theory exam, too. and what do we gain by doing that it is certainly an option when eleimate code testing we eleimate something that makes the ARS look stpuid obviously we gain by that Look stupid? Oh, excuse me! yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards There are a lot of people who don't want to be bothered with the theory exam, either. And when it comes right down to it, what do we really need a theory exam for? you tell me I think it benifits the ARS by insuring that new hams reconize the term and the rules involved in the ARS don't you think it does that? Most CB'ers and electronic hobbyists have the technical expertise to put a multi-band rig and antenna on the air and start operating without any trouble at all. and many so Indeed we could despense with the technical question sif it was found to be to our benifit They feel they shouldn't need to take a test in order to do that, and a good case may be made in favor of that approach. Homebrew and experiment? Sure, why not? They can do that too. I did when I was on CB, so why can't others? Why should I take a test that includes superflous questions about operating modes and aspects of electronics and computers that I have absolutely no intention of employing in my day to day station operation? Now allow me to put on the "other hat". pput on such hats as you please CW is a part of amateur radio's heritage and history. agreed One has to embrace the past to realize where one is today. that is merely one method but one is not required to emabrace the past or to real;ize where we are today Having said that, CW is not an obsolete mode by any means; it is obslete it is timeless. It was a viable communications mode 50 years ago, it still is today, and it will still be perfectly viable 10,000 years from now. which does not prevent it from being oselte the Longbow it is still a vaible weapon today will be for some time to come it is none the less obeslete It's spectrum efficient and highly effective under adverse conditions. So what if it happens to be dated? There is absolutlely nothing wrong with the preservation and continued use of old but perfectly good technologies. and I don't object to YOU doing so but I do object to your insistance on public specturm being used to do as a complution on all those that wish to use it It's just too bad if some operators feel that a certain operating mode reflects badly on the amateur community solely because it's been around for a long time. There is nothing "stupid" about this issue. what is stupid is this insistance that I must help to preserve some thing that YOU value and wish preserved and that I think we would be better off leting it go the way of Spark Am I supporting the elimination of the theory exam and promoting the testing of morse skills? Of course not, although I can see how one would reach that conclusion from my statements. I'm being purposely obtuse. and insulting What amateur radio needs is BALANCE. which it will lack as long as the ARS insist on worshiping the ONE mode CW above the rest of the ARS combined as the leicense system does today It needs operators with a rich set of skills and traits that will set it apart from the other radio services. When those skills and traits cease to exist, the service will perish, and eventually the spectrum will be sold to the highest bidder. My $.02 Draw your own conclusions. my conclusion is that you will twist truth and logic anyway you like to achive your end for that matter so will I - - . . . . . . - - NT http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Indeed we could dispense with much of the technical qualifications some day. The technical part is basically an attempt to make sure the amatuer is competent enough to operate their equipment in a maner that does not interfere with other services outside of his designated allocation of spectrum, in other words, within FCC regulations. At such a time when all equipment is made idiot proof and all hams use store bought idiot proofed gear we may see this.So far the one experiment at this has failed. You think you have something idiot proof and then guess what, someone makes a better idiot. So I am not worried about requirement of theory going away. As far a CW is concerned to gain the privledges hams have today they had to show they were a national asset. Part of being that asset was our ability to process emergency traffic should the need arrive. At the time CW was needed to accomplish this. It is no longer needed to meet our obligation of service. OF course this begs the question, can we fullfil our obligation. To this I believe we can, but are we really needed. CW has been replaced by other technologies, it would make more sense to require typing skills than CW, an idea I dont think is so bad even though I may have trouble with twenty wpm on a keyboard. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in message ups.com... From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. Total agreement here, our obligation of service to to earn our privlegdes doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Jimmie D wrote:
Total agreement here, our obligation of service to earn our privlegdes doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately. The "service" provided by the Amateur Radio Service is a service provided *by* the federal government *to* the citizens who meet the amateur radio licensing requirements. There is no governmental requirement or obligation that amateur radio operators render any public service at all. Amateur radio licensees are not even required to own a radio. "Service", in this context, is just an administrative division of government. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Slow Code wrote: wrote in ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that just as well on 6 Meters. BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or you could tell me I passed the Novice exam in Nov 1986. 5WPM. I'm presently a General, so I'm fully qualified to work out of band Frenchmen on 6M or on HF. Maybe they'll even put me in for the ARRL's A-1 Operator Club. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... Jimmie D wrote: Total agreement here, our obligation of service to earn our privlegdes doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately. The "service" provided by the Amateur Radio Service is a service provided *by* the federal government *to* the citizens who meet the amateur radio licensing requirements. There is no governmental requirement or obligation that amateur radio operators render any public service at all. Amateur radio licensees are not even required to own a radio. "Service", in this context, is just an administrative division of government. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com No, I am talking about the service we should be providing. In the spirit of JFK's "ask not what your contry can do for you speech". You are correct that there is no requirement as defined by law but there certainly is a moral one that should be defined by your character. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Jimmie D wrote:
No, I am talking about the service we should be providing. In the spirit of JFK's "ask not what your contry can do for you speech". JFK's speech contradicting this country's founding principles was just democratic rhetoric. This country was founded "for the people" NOT for the government. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"an_odd_freak" wrote in
ups.com: wrote: Slow Code wrote: wrote in ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that just as well on 6 Meters. BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or you could tell me The FCC still has the old CB calls in a database? SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Jimmie D" wrote in
: wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:27:33 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, wrote: And you probably answered some theory questions about modes you'll never use and formulas you'll never see again. Maybe we should just eliminate the theory exam, too. and what do we gain by doing that it is certainly an option when eleimate code testing we eleimate something that makes the ARS look stpuid obviously we gain by that Look stupid? Oh, excuse me! yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards There are a lot of people who don't want to be bothered with the theory exam, either. And when it comes right down to it, what do we really need a theory exam for? you tell me I think it benifits the ARS by insuring that new hams reconize the term and the rules involved in the ARS don't you think it does that? Most CB'ers and electronic hobbyists have the technical expertise to put a multi-band rig and antenna on the air and start operating without any trouble at all. and many so Indeed we could despense with the technical question sif it was found to be to our benifit They feel they shouldn't need to take a test in order to do that, and a good case may be made in favor of that approach. Homebrew and experiment? Sure, why not? They can do that too. I did when I was on CB, so why can't others? Why should I take a test that includes superflous questions about operating modes and aspects of electronics and computers that I have absolutely no intention of employing in my day to day station operation? Now allow me to put on the "other hat". pput on such hats as you please CW is a part of amateur radio's heritage and history. agreed One has to embrace the past to realize where one is today. that is merely one method but one is not required to emabrace the past or to real;ize where we are today Having said that, CW is not an obsolete mode by any means; it is obslete it is timeless. It was a viable communications mode 50 years ago, it still is today, and it will still be perfectly viable 10,000 years from now. which does not prevent it from being oselte the Longbow it is still a vaible weapon today will be for some time to come it is none the less obeslete It's spectrum efficient and highly effective under adverse conditions. So what if it happens to be dated? There is absolutlely nothing wrong with the preservation and continued use of old but perfectly good technologies. and I don't object to YOU doing so but I do object to your insistance on public specturm being used to do as a complution on all those that wish to use it It's just too bad if some operators feel that a certain operating mode reflects badly on the amateur community solely because it's been around for a long time. There is nothing "stupid" about this issue. what is stupid is this insistance that I must help to preserve some thing that YOU value and wish preserved and that I think we would be better off leting it go the way of Spark Am I supporting the elimination of the theory exam and promoting the testing of morse skills? Of course not, although I can see how one would reach that conclusion from my statements. I'm being purposely obtuse. and insulting What amateur radio needs is BALANCE. which it will lack as long as the ARS insist on worshiping the ONE mode CW above the rest of the ARS combined as the leicense system does today It needs operators with a rich set of skills and traits that will set it apart from the other radio services. When those skills and traits cease to exist, the service will perish, and eventually the spectrum will be sold to the highest bidder. My $.02 Draw your own conclusions. my conclusion is that you will twist truth and logic anyway you like to achive your end for that matter so will I - - . . . . . . - - NT http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Indeed we could dispense with much of the technical qualifications some day. The technical part is basically an attempt to make sure the amatuer is competent enough to operate their equipment in a maner that does not interfere with other services outside of his designated allocation of spectrum, in other words, within FCC regulations. At such a time when all equipment is made idiot proof and all hams use store bought idiot proofed gear we may see this.So far the one experiment at this has failed. You think you have something idiot proof and then guess what, someone makes a better idiot. So I am not worried about requirement of theory going away. As far a CW is concerned to gain the privledges hams have today they had to show they were a national asset. Part of being that asset was our ability to process emergency traffic should the need arrive. At the time CW was needed to accomplish this. It is no longer needed to meet our obligation of service. OF course this begs the question, can we fullfil our obligation. To this I believe we can, but are we really needed. CW has been replaced by other technologies, it would make more sense to require typing skills than CW, an idea I dont think is so bad even though I may have trouble with twenty wpm on a keyboard. If CW has been replaced by other technologies, why aren't more amateurs doing the modernized modes? It's because they don't want too. Ham radio has been dumbed down and we can't even force hams to use them to be proficient communicators. CW isn't preventing the modernization of ham radio, Laziness is. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in
ups.com: Slow Code wrote: wrote in ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that just as well on 6 Meters. And on CB. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message om... Jimmie D wrote: No, I am talking about the service we should be providing. In the spirit of JFK's "ask not what your contry can do for you speech". JFK's speech contradicting this country's founding principles was just democratic rhetoric. This country was founded "for the people" NOT for the government. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com His statement was "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" I dont remember the word government being mentioned in it. The words are true even if he was less than sincere. If we are not this country then what is. This country is "we the people" so ultimately it including amatuer radio is our responsibility not that which you call the government.. . It was a call to service, a call to serve this country, a call to serve its people.. You are correct on one point. It was democratic rhetoric but damned good rhetoric. But as my grandmother used to say, "Even Satan will tell the truth if it serves him". Jimmie |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
From: Jimmie D on Tues, Oct 17 2006 7:46 pm
wrote in message From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. Total agreement here, our obligation of service to to earn our privlegdes doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately. Sorry, but I see absolutely NO "obligation to perform some service [to the nation or community]." That is one of the myths promulgated by the ARRL and its followers. The word "service" used by the FCC all throughout Title 47 C.F.R., all Parts, is a regulatory term referring to a type and kind of radio activity being regulated. [see Citizens Band Radio SERVICE or Radio Control Radio SERVICE as two examples in Part 95] Also, as Cecil Moore mentioned, the government is doing its citizens a service, NOT the other way around. If an individual WANTS to VOLUNTARILY perform some service, then excellent. There is NO "obligation" to do so unless there is some law requiring it. Personally, I think all citizens of the USA should do at least one term of Jury Service. In California there is a state law that eligible citizens shall serve, for a time and times as stated by law. [I've done five terms of Jury Service here] Anyone who WANTS to voluntarily sit in on a court is allowed to (with some special conditions not permitting certain trials). Those spectators are NOT obligated to do so. USA amateur radio service is a VOLUNTARY activity. It is an avocation, not an occupation. In other words it is a HOBBY. It's a fine hobby, tens of thousands of citizens engaged in it. But, it is still a HOBBY. It is NOT "essential" for the good of the nation. It is high time that everyone quit dreaming about imaginary glory of "serving the community" through amateur radio...time to look at what it IS in the real world. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Jimmie D wrote:
His statement was "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" I dont remember the word government being mentioned in it. For professional politicians, the government and the country are indistinguishable. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Not dropped here.
Even 9 year olds can learn the code. Barry OGrady wrote: Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago. Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Mark in the Dark" wrote in
: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote: Not dropped here. Even 9 year olds can learn the code. some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest Eliminating CW will let in more people like 'Mark in the Dark'. That won't be good for the rest of us if we enjoy having good intelligent QSO's. SC |
Is the no code license letting really stupid people in to ham radio?
wrote in :
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote: Not dropped here. Even 9 year olds can learn the code. some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest Barry OGrady wrote: Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago. Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ It let Mark in the Dark in. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Slow Code wrote:
It didnt keep you out |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:28:34 -0400, Dave spake
thusly: wrote: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote: Not dropped here. Even 9 year olds can learn the code. some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest Barry OGrady wrote: Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago. "Worthless and Unneeded"? That was NOT the question!! Learn to answer the question! READ THE SUBJECT LINE. No one asked whether it is useful, it absolutely is, the question is: is it "keeping good people out of ham radio?" NOPE!!! Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs. Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses", which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her first steps. Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com