"Guy" wrote in message
news:C_ire.15872$mC.13811@okepread07...
Landshark wrote:

If you can read 20 to 30 WPM, would you want to here somebody
pounding out only 5 WPM? Otherwise would you want to see the bands
allocated to certain speeds? Point being, it would be called a
qualifying
test, to make sure you are able to operate in the mode you test for.

Landshark



I've always been able to read *much* faster than I can copy code. I don't
understand what you're getting at there.

Cool! What I was saying is that even though the code is a basic rate,
wouldn't
you rather have a test with more proficient people, than with people that
aren't
very good, but just enough to get their license?


No need to divide up the freqs for different speeds. Generally, faster is
lower in freq by gentlemen's agreement. Not always, but generally from
what I've seen. FYI, there's currently a proposal to divide up the freqs
based on bandwidth requirements.

Yup I know that, but so is the gentlemen's agreement on 36 to 40 for
sideband
use on cb, but that not always the case.


What's the difference between someone who passed the 5 WPM code test and
has
now forgotten it and someone who never learned 5 WPM? Neither operate the
mode. So why not just have some freqs dedicated to those who want to use
it and quit testing for it? If you can operate voice on 2M, you can
operate voice on HF. Why make people qualify for a mode they have no
interest in? If certain freqs are dedicated to CW, why make someone
qualify for it if they're never going to use those freqs?

Because they at least spent the time to learn it, not take a multiple choice
test and sign their name at the bottom of the paper.


There once was a time when the only way you could qualify for the highest
class ham license was to show you could copy 20 WPM code. Someone stood
up
and said, "Hey, the international requirement is now at 5 WPM." So we did
away with element 1b and 1c. WRC-03 did away with code entirely. So why
are we still testing element 1a?


Don't know, but it's still a requirement to get the upper class license. I
don't agree
with that, but if they were to have a "code" only requirement license, that
would
be fine with me.

Guy

Landshark