"J. D. B." wrote:

Not quite. Testing on rules, regulations and technical knowledge is a
bit different than testing on one specific mode of communication. I use
CW, but considered the continued archaic CW testing requirement to be
silly and outdated. It should have been dropped 30 years ago.

Anybody who can't pass the minimal 5 WPM doesn't deserve a license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:
"J. D. B." wrote:

Not quite. Testing on rules, regulations and technical knowledge is a
bit different than testing on one specific mode of communication. I use
CW, but considered the continued archaic CW testing requirement to be
silly and outdated. It should have been dropped 30 years ago.

Anybody who can't pass the minimal 5 WPM doesn't deserve a license.
why?

and it isn't a matter f "deserving" alicense at all is about meeting
the legal mandaable requirement and now absent the treaty the code
fails to make the standards of law and the FCC knows even if you don't

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"an old freind" wrote in message
oups.com...

dxAce wrote:
"J. D. B." wrote:

Not quite. Testing on rules, regulations and technical knowledge is a
bit different than testing on one specific mode of communication. I
use
CW, but considered the continued archaic CW testing requirement to be
silly and outdated. It should have been dropped 30 years ago.

Anybody who can't pass the minimal 5 WPM doesn't deserve a license.
why?

and it isn't a matter f "deserving" alicense at all is about meeting
the legal mandaable requirement and now absent the treaty the code
fails to make the standards of law and the FCC knows even if you don't

dxAce
Michigan
USA


5 WPM is easy. esp if you use Farnsworth.

i'm at 18 WPM, and i can copy contest exchanges at 30 WPM. i haven't made a
CW QSO in 10 years!

i think the code requirement should be 13 WPM plus for the upper classes.
keeps the riff raff out.

Gravity

gravity wrote:
"an old freind" wrote in message
oups.com...

and it isn't a matter f "deserving" alicense at all is about meeting
the legal mandaable requirement and now absent the treaty the code
fails to make the standards of law and the FCC knows even if you don't

dxAce
Michigan
USA


5 WPM is easy. esp if you use Farnsworth.

easy for you

not for me

I spent 5 years in my teens taking a test every couple of weeks towrds
the end. I did get so I might pass either the sending or receiving on a
given day but never both

guess from that data I suspect isf I had the time and schedule I could
mange to pass a receiving or better still a sending test in roughly a
year bt I don't my schedule leaves very busy eroids and very slow
eriods

but all this is beside the point
nothing in the treaty give the USA the requirement to make such a test
and nothing in the consitiotn reglates the matter so the power to use
hf specturm is resvresed byt eh 10th amend to the states or the people
themselves (para the constititon

unless the power to impose a code test can be shown to exist in other
section such preahps shwoing that it is "nessacary and proper" an
arguement that could have been made say when the miltary needed to warn
us of freqs they were suing in cw or some other argument, the FCC and
th congress lack the legeal power to maintain the test if challanged,
an expensive and unpleasent task

i think the code requirement should be 13 WPM plus for the upper classes.
keeps the riff raff out.
but it did not keep the riffraf out as the folks listeningt o 80 m have
known since long before the last change

Gravity

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Anybody who can't pass the minimal 5 WPM doesn't deserve a license.

That's needlessly insulting.

"gravity" wrote in message news:4496bf14$0$14238

5 WPM is easy.

Nonsense.

Tell us you can do it --- tell us your mangy hound dog can do it, but steer
clear of the blanket statements. It isn't easy to one who can't do it.

Sal M. Onella wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Anybody who can't pass the minimal 5 WPM doesn't deserve a license.

That's needlessly insulting.
well the is DX ace for you never be just rude whenyou can be insulting

jesus, let's just do away with the written test *and* the CW test. let's
just open the doors to anyone. we'll set up a webpage at the ARRL site, and
you'll just point and click. it will be as easy as becoming a Reverend.

you could license your dog, a terrorist, anyone.

honestly, i am very glad there are minimum requirements. this keeps out
people who are not serious about the hobby. people who don't know what they
are doing should not be transmitting (esp on HF).

this whole CW debate is what we call the dumbing down of America.

i mean we have minimum standards for driving in America or becoming a
citizen, why is ham radio so different?

Gravity

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
I'll top post again for brevity and getting to the point.

I like CW! It is most likely going away as a requirement. I'm sad at this.

Amateur radio will change as a result. Everything changes. Hopefully the
changes
will be positive.


i have an idea. get rid of the CW and triple the difficulty of the written
test. there is certain element of society, which needs to be kept out of
the HF spectrum.

Gravity

Dave wrote:

5 WPM is do-able! My 4 1/2 year granddaughter copies 5 wpm! Her 10 year
old brother, who learned it in Cub Scouts, taught her. And, she can't
even spell yet! But, she knows the alphabet from watching TV.

Some people have DIFFICULTY learning Morse Code, real difficulty!

MAJOR SNIPPING from here down.

gravity wrote:
i mean we have minimum standards for driving in America or becoming a
citizen, why is ham radio so different?

When I got my driver's license in 1952, the driving test
was required to be taken on a stick shift vehicle. Do
you think that should still be a requirement?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp