![]() |
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?
"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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com