cl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mel A. Nomah wrote:
"Hamguy" wrote in message
...

: http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689

That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement.

Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for
General
license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra
class,
downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected
Advanced
license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes).
ARRL
giveaway program will be denied.

All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may
be
out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will
obviously
contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18
restructuring petitions.

Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then
a
reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer.
Probably
the end of 2005 before comments close.

Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order.
Last
time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall
2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective -
maybe end of 2006.

Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I
wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be
surprised if it were summer 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Those who defy wanting to learn the code jump at any chance to
perpetuate
rumors of code being eliminated.

Similarly, those who promote Morse Code will latch on to any idea, no
matter how wrong, to claim the Code Exam remains valid.

You're right, it will take a while, even if
they were to decide to write a NPRM to do such. If these people
jumped into
Alligator infested waters as fast as they do rumors, the population
would
take a sudden drop. I'm not a "lover" of code, but I have hold a
license
which required code.

Ditto.

5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few
minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a
test. 2
weeks is not long,

It may be impossible for some. I learned it over a considerably longer
period of time with frequent practice.

you probably drove longer on a permit before being
allowed to drive on your own. Probably studied the book longer too!
It takes
little effort.

I disagree. It took a great effort.

The biggest problem with most is "laziness".

Was that your problem? If you hadn't been so lazy you could have
learned the code in under a week?

Maybe you never
will use it again.

Perhaps. I've found little use for it so far. Maybe once I'm an old
fart, have loads of time, and wax nostalgic for things that never were,
I'll take it up and enjoy it, and demand that all learn it.

There are many things you learn in life and may never use
again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the
skeletal
system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't
mean
they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But,
it was
"required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I
have to"
and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can
be.

Indeed. I never had the "do I have to?" attitude as there was no
code-free license when I became a ham. Yet it took me about 9 weeks of
daily practice.

I
DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone
has
their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not...
To each
his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to
pass an
exam.

cl

Use it all you want. I'm against the Code Exam as an unnecessary
government requirement.

cl wrote:



For some - it may! One argument I've heard, is that those musically inclined
pick it up quicker than others, yet I knew some who "were" musically
inclined and claimed to have a hell of a time with it. Reason? I don't know.
I can't get inside their head.

I used to teach Novice classes, and I always assumed that anyone could
learn the code if they really wanted to. I found that some people had
difficulty telling the difference between a dit from a dah unless it was
sent very slowy and the dah made a lot longer than the dit, but when
sending a character that contained several dits or dahs or combinations,
they simply could not tell one from the other. It wasn't that they
lacked the skill to learn the code, I could right out characters in dits
and dahs on the board and they could recoginize them, it was an
interpertation problem with the brain of telling the sound of a dit from
the sound of a dah. People with hearing aids often had a difficult time.

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
Morse gone by the beginning of last year.

Barry

Sad that many folks will likely never give themselves the opportunity to bag
some of that rare DX that seems to only show up on the bottom of the bands.

Just bagged HZ1EX on 7013 kHz. 99.999% CW op and luvin' it.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

cl wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...

The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it
again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again,
unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal
system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean
they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated.

Guess that explains Creationism. They either forgot or just
never did get biology class. And get upset when science
contradicts a trivial off topic section of the Bible.
But there is hope that some people will "get it" and
be able to do something with it. Of course the school
or FCC has to pick and choose what the kids should try
to learn. Spending less time on European medieval kings and
more on Vietnam would make sense, as modern governments are
no longer kings sitting around in castles getting bored
and deciding to have wars for the fun of it. Well, today kings
are called "dictators" anyway. Now to bring this back to
ham radio, is requiring code worth the time prospective
hams would have to spend on it, or maybe more theory should
be asked for today?

I seriously doubt that the FCC would increase code speed for
extras. The medical wavier issue would crop up again, and
the FCC found that to be a PITA. Besides it would be hard
for the FCC to tell old extras from newer extras as IIRC they
didn't keep track of who was who as old extras came up for
renewal.


I'm not so sure "more" theory is the answer either. Used to be, you HAD to
know electronics when you went for the exams. NO ONE told you what was on
the exams. Then some lazy ******* got some political pull and they started
to dumb down the theory and put "ALL" possible questions and answers in a
book - for someone to read and recall.

Almost all standardized testing is done that way these days. Actually I
don't know of any that isn't


That isn't teaching anyone -
anything. Any idiot can learn that way, to the extent needed. It doesn't do
anything to reinforce it in their heads as to what to do with it after. IF
they make it more theory, then they'll just make the "idiot" books cover it,
and again, you'll have a bunch of people who learned A, B, C or D, not the
real meat and potatoes of Electronics.

I have never been able to see the difference between reading a book
that contains the answers to questions, and reading a question pool.
Both are entered into my memory the same way. Did you know the answers
are often scrambled, that is that the letter answer on the test is not
the letter answer in the pool?



I've seen them come away and not know
what a fuse does or some of simplest of schematic symbols they "should"
know.

I've been in the field for a long time, and there are some things that
slip me once in a while. Do you help these folks when they make a newbie
mistake?

Give me a break. Those books today teach them NOTHING. They're nothing
more than the sugar coating of it all. Just enough to get by and HOPE they
plan to pursue it further on their own, which MOST - DO NOT. Again, due to
LAZINESS.

Wow! I've got a copy of the "Now You're Talking" book. A person would
have to work pretty hard do learn nothing from that.

You're right about the History though, not to lay so much on the past, but
work on current affairs. Past is good, but often TOO much time is spent on
it. That stuff is building blocks to some extent, history does have a
propensity to repeat itself, so you can't "ignore" it as a whole, but
spending say a week learning about King Arthur just doesn't get it. I recall
our teacher trying to drill **** in our heads about Genghis Khan (sp?). I
could give a **** less what he did. What I DID come to ignore and have a
need for later in life, was that stuff covered in Health class. I ended up
using it a few years out of school.
I wished then I had paid more attention to it. So, I had to "relearn" most
of it. Some things DO have their uses.

As to code, actually, it isn't so bad to know - really.

Morse code is VERY good to know. Good enough that it should continue to
be a part of the test.


Think about it. You
have sign language for deaf. IF you plan to talk to a person who is deaf,
you better learn it real fast. If you plan to travel - you may need to learn
some foreign language, even though most can speak English now. Code "can"
have benefits. We had 9 miners trapped about a year ago. They communicated
that there were nine, by 9 raps on the pole stuck in the ground. Had someone
in the ground and above ground knew code, a more detailed description could
have been issued. It could have helped. Before they got the elevator in to
get them, they had no idea what "physical" shape the guys were in or any
pending dangers under the ground. Maybe you won't use code again once
learned, but at some point, it may save a life with the user's intervention.
If you're in an auto accident, down in a gully, you have a radio. The mic is
broken, so you can't talk. You could key the radio with a key or something
and send a message. Hopefully someone knowing code would hear it and be able
to let others know. There are many reasons people can give to "not" learn
code, but there are just as many as to it's benefits. If it saves only one
life, it is worth it.

Yup, one of so many reasons that Morse code is a good thing. Hams are
all about communication, and communications in all manner of situations.
I love the latest technology, but that technology is sometimes fragile.
Sometimes life and death, health and welfare might just come down to two
skilled operators who can make an old communications method on primitive
equipment sing its simple yet powerful song.

- Mike KB3EIA -

cl wrote:


which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few
minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test.

Took me 45 minutes a day for over 6 months, plus one failed test to get
to 5 wpm.

I'm all in favor of Morse code testing, but you guys have to show some
understanding that it isn't that easy for a lot of people.

I aced the writtens, without a whole lot of study by comparison to a
lot of people. I don't go around calling them retards or stupid.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...

cl wrote:

A whole bunch snipped.

Those who defy wanting to learn the code jump at any chance to
perpetuate
rumors of code being eliminated.

Similarly, those who promote Morse Code will latch on to any idea, no
matter how wrong, to claim the Code Exam remains valid.


Leave it in, take it out, the riff raff is already invading the bands.

You're right, it will take a while, even if
they were to decide to write a NPRM to do such. If these people
jumped into
Alligator infested waters as fast as they do rumors, the population
would
take a sudden drop. I'm not a "lover" of code, but I have hold a
license
which required code.

Ditto.

5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few
minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a
test. 2
weeks is not long,

It may be impossible for some. I learned it over a considerably longer
period of time with frequent practice.

you probably drove longer on a permit before being
allowed to drive on your own. Probably studied the book longer too!
It takes
little effort.

I disagree. It took a great effort.


For some - it may! One argument I've heard, is that those musically inclined
pick it up quicker than others, yet I knew some who "were" musically
inclined and claimed to have a hell of a time with it. Reason? I don't know.
I can't get inside their head.

The biggest problem with most is "laziness".

Was that your problem? If you hadn't been so lazy you could have
learned the code in under a week?


Eh - I had the code down in 2 weeks for the Novice exam. AND I'm now an
Extra. Been licensed since the early 80s.
Yeah, I probably could have learned it in under a week, if I pushed myself.
Most anyone will tell you - it isn't good to do such. Besides, at that time,
I was chasing rug rats - so study time was premium. Most recommendations are
15 minutes to a half hour a day. That hardly makes it possible in a week. I
used the words " "AT LEAST" 2 WEEKS". Some are faster learners than others,
that is a given. BUT my point was, you have to get started to learn
ANYTHING. You can't absorb it through osmosis. Back to the timing thing, I
hope someone from the military can step in to tell us how much time they
were given to get the code down. I think they had to "Cram".

Maybe you never
will use it again.

Perhaps. I've found little use for it so far. Maybe once I'm an old
fart, have loads of time, and wax nostalgic for things that never were,
I'll take it up and enjoy it, and demand that all learn it.


Probably the same age bracket as me. I do listen to call signs now and then
on the scanner to pick out the services they represent - if I don't
immediately know who the service is. I do listen some times to code on the
H.F. Bands.

There are many things you learn in life and may never use
again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the
skeletal
system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't
mean
they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But,
it was
"required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I
have to"
and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can
be.

Indeed. I never had the "do I have to?" attitude as there was no
code-free license when I became a ham. Yet it took me about 9 weeks of
daily practice.


And you stuck with it!!!!!!!! You didn't quit, and it got you where you
wanted to be. OR had to be - for your class of license. 2 weeks, 9 weeks, so
what... you did it. A milestone to be proud of. No one can fault you for
that effort.

I
DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone
has
their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not...
To each
his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to
pass an
exam.

cl

Use it all you want. I'm against the Code Exam as an unnecessary
government requirement.


Funny thing is, we're all arguing pros and cons and in the end, it won't
matter. WE do not have control. So, if we're going to debate the issues we
have no control over, may as well keep it clean. Hardly any of us know the
other and it isn't worth making enemies over. Certainly not worth name
calling.... Whether I'm right or wrong, I do value opposing view points.
Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. It sure will be interesting to
see how it all unfolds. I think in the end, we both know the answer to that.
Pro or con, it is a matter of time. May be a year, may be 5, but it will
come to pass.

cl

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
cl wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...

The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use
it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use
again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the
skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It
doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they
graduated.

Guess that explains Creationism. They either forgot or just
never did get biology class. And get upset when science
contradicts a trivial off topic section of the Bible.
But there is hope that some people will "get it" and
be able to do something with it. Of course the school
or FCC has to pick and choose what the kids should try
to learn. Spending less time on European medieval kings and
more on Vietnam would make sense, as modern governments are
no longer kings sitting around in castles getting bored
and deciding to have wars for the fun of it. Well, today kings
are called "dictators" anyway. Now to bring this back to
ham radio, is requiring code worth the time prospective
hams would have to spend on it, or maybe more theory should
be asked for today?

I seriously doubt that the FCC would increase code speed for
extras. The medical wavier issue would crop up again, and
the FCC found that to be a PITA. Besides it would be hard
for the FCC to tell old extras from newer extras as IIRC they
didn't keep track of who was who as old extras came up for
renewal.


I'm not so sure "more" theory is the answer either. Used to be, you HAD
to know electronics when you went for the exams. NO ONE told you what
was on the exams. Then some lazy ******* got some political pull and they
started to dumb down the theory and put "ALL" possible questions and
answers in a book - for someone to read and recall.

Almost all standardized testing is done that way these days. Actually I
don't know of any that isn't


Testing is one thing, "studying"' is another. Most "tests" don't give you
the answers in a book. Rather it is a conglomeration of books which a person
has had to read to ascertain the knowledge. IF it is coming to that, then it
is no wonder this country is dumbing down.

That isn't teaching anyone - anything. Any idiot can learn that way, to
the extent needed. It doesn't do anything to reinforce it in their heads
as to what to do with it after. IF they make it more theory, then they'll
just make the "idiot" books cover it, and again, you'll have a bunch of
people who learned A, B, C or D, not the real meat and potatoes of
Electronics.

I have never been able to see the difference between reading a book that
contains the answers to questions, and reading a question pool. Both are
entered into my memory the same way. Did you know the answers are often
scrambled, that is that the letter answer on the test is not the letter
answer in the pool?



Those books do not cover electronics in great detail. They gloss over
subjects. There was a time you had to "build" a working circuit - to pass.
Yes, I'm well aware that the answers are mixed up in the test pools as
opposed to the books. Back when Heathkit was in business, they had books for
each class of license. Those books had a similar pattern, but they drilled
stuff into your head. They seemed to explain things a lot better and in more
detail. Maybe I'm just too used to the "learning" methods of yesteryear.

I've seen them come away and not know what a fuse does or some of
simplest of schematic symbols they "should" know.

I've been in the field for a long time, and there are some things that
slip me once in a while. Do you help these folks when they make a newbie
mistake?


I try to help! And yes, as we age, we do forget things. I used to have
several dozen frequencies memorized and as to service. I'm lucky if I can
recall 10 of them - now. I'm sure there are symbols people can forget. But
my example of the fuse, it is sad when you don't know what a fuse is for!
That is like the most basic principle.

Give me a break. Those books today teach them NOTHING. They're nothing
more than the sugar coating of it all. Just enough to get by and HOPE
they plan to pursue it further on their own, which MOST - DO NOT. Again,
due to LAZINESS.

Wow! I've got a copy of the "Now You're Talking" book. A person would have
to work pretty hard do learn nothing from that.


The Now Your Talking - Book, is probably one of if not "thee" only in depth
books out there at this time. I was referring - and should have been a bit
more specific, to the question and answer guides with something like a 2
sentence explanation of a procedure, theory, etc. In my opinion, they don't
teach a thing. They just provide the questions and answers. Study it long
enough, you'll get enough memorized to pass, yes... but then you're stuck
because you know little "background". I believe it used to be, if a person
had the minimum of an Advanced license, he/she could use that as somewhat of
a credential for a job in electronics. Now, "I" wouldn't dare think of
hiring anyone with just having used the Q/A books. That is my opinion - for
what it is worth.

You're right about the History though, not to lay so much on the past,
but work on current affairs. Past is good, but often TOO much time is
spent on it. That stuff is building blocks to some extent, history does
have a propensity to repeat itself, so you can't "ignore" it as a whole,
but spending say a week learning about King Arthur just doesn't get it. I
recall our teacher trying to drill **** in our heads about Genghis Khan
(sp?). I could give a **** less what he did. What I DID come to ignore
and have a need for later in life, was that stuff covered in Health
class. I ended up using it a few years out of school.
I wished then I had paid more attention to it. So, I had to "relearn"
most of it. Some things DO have their uses.

As to code, actually, it isn't so bad to know - really.

Morse code is VERY good to know. Good enough that it should continue to be
a part of the test.


Think about it. You have sign language for deaf. IF you plan to talk to a
person who is deaf, you better learn it real fast. If you plan to
travel - you may need to learn some foreign language, even though most
can speak English now. Code "can" have benefits. We had 9 miners trapped
about a year ago. They communicated that there were nine, by 9 raps on
the pole stuck in the ground. Had someone in the ground and above ground
knew code, a more detailed description could have been issued. It could
have helped. Before they got the elevator in to get them, they had no
idea what "physical" shape the guys were in or any pending dangers under
the ground. Maybe you won't use code again once learned, but at some
point, it may save a life with the user's intervention. If you're in an
auto accident, down in a gully, you have a radio. The mic is broken, so
you can't talk. You could key the radio with a key or something and send
a message. Hopefully someone knowing code would hear it and be able to
let others know. There are many reasons people can give to "not" learn
code, but there are just as many as to it's benefits. If it saves only
one life, it is worth it.

Yup, one of so many reasons that Morse code is a good thing. Hams are all
about communication, and communications in all manner of situations. I
love the latest technology, but that technology is sometimes fragile.
Sometimes life and death, health and welfare might just come down to two
skilled operators who can make an old communications method on primitive
equipment sing its simple yet powerful song.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
: cl wrote:

:
: I have never been able to see the difference between reading a book
: that contains the answers to questions, and reading a question pool.
: Both are entered into my memory the same way.
:

You can't be serious! (And here I was under the impression you made you
living in an educational environment.) No wonder "Johnny can't read"!

The purpose of the examination is to determine if the prospective licensee
understands some things about amateur rules, about elementary transmitter
and receiver functions, basic electricity, amateur communications procedure,
and safety.

Knowing ahead of time the VERBATIM questions and VERBATIM correct answer
reduces the test to a simple test of memory. The applicant need not
UNDERSTAND a damned thing, but only have normally developed memorization
skills.

I have no problem with Q&A study aids containing sample questions which
guide the student through the appropriate study material, but the actual
VERBATIM examination material should NOT be available to the student
(applicant), or there is no reason to UNDERSTAND the material --- just
memorize the test.

73,
M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

cl wrote:

Speaking of keyboards, that is a perfect example. MANY who are online now -
otherwise would never know how to type. BUT to own a computer and/or get
online, they "had" to learn - OR - at least they're in the process of
learning. It becomes "automatic" after so many hours of use. Same with
code.... All it takes is the application of it. Sure, just in computers,
many may not become proficient in computer programming, etc (just like not
"wanting" to use the code), but they're still learning at some point along
the way.

cl

I have used computers for over 20 years and I still can't touch
type. I wanted to take a typing class in high school bout "Boys"
weren't allowed to take the class back in the '60s at my high school. I
have to look at the keyboard while i type with two fingers. Carpal
tunnel and nerve damage in my wrists doesn't help the situation either.

I was interested in Amateur Radio back in the late '60s but quickly
lost interest in HF. I wanted to work 144, 432 and up, where code
wasn't used so I went into broadcast and CATV engineering, followed by
working for a company that manufactured microwave telemetry equipment.
I discovered I had more fun making equipment work than using it. Now
I'm 100% disabled and I plan to spend some time restoring the old
Amateur Radio receivers in my small collection.

My current project is a National NC183R. I may use it to listen to
some international broadcasts, but I'll probably sell it after I'm done
working on it. I lose interest in most equipment after I have it
working properly.
--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

cl wrote:

Those books do not cover electronics in great detail. They gloss over
subjects. There was a time you had to "build" a working circuit - to pass.
Yes, I'm well aware that the answers are mixed up in the test pools as
opposed to the books. Back when Heathkit was in business, they had books for
each class of license. Those books had a similar pattern, but they drilled
stuff into your head. They seemed to explain things a lot better and in more
detail. Maybe I'm just too used to the "learning" methods of yesteryear.


http://www.heathkit.com/index.html is still in business, but its changed
from their old kit lineup.


The Now Your Talking - Book, is probably one of if not "thee" only in depth
books out there at this time. I was referring - and should have been a bit
more specific, to the question and answer guides with something like a 2
sentence explanation of a procedure, theory, etc. In my opinion, they don't
teach a thing. They just provide the questions and answers. Study it long
enough, you'll get enough memorized to pass, yes... but then you're stuck
because you know little "background". I believe it used to be, if a person
had the minimum of an Advanced license, he/she could use that as somewhat of
a credential for a job in electronics. Now, "I" wouldn't dare think of
hiring anyone with just having used the Q/A books. That is my opinion - for
what it is worth.


The local ham club is looking for people to take classes with "Now
Your Talking" rather than try to find people with any electronics
background. I offered to help maintain their club equipment but they
brushed me off because I don't have a ham ticket. I still have a half
way decent RF bench, but nothing compared to the $1,000,000 plus benches
of test equipment I had at Microdyne.


I never had any formal electronics training, yet I ws a broadcast
engineer, and a engineering tech for some products at Microdyne. I
learned it because I wanted to. I went to work part time in a TV shop at
13 after school and on Saturdays. When I was drafted I was tested to
prove I didn't know electronics but it backfired. I not only passed the
MOS test for Broadcast Engineer at Ft Knox, I was told I had received
the highest score on record for the test. These are some of the reasons
for my sig file. :-)


--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida