|
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message om... Stebe, countless garments at the store claim "one size fits all." A page from Daddy, I see. Yes, many items CLAIM to be "one size fits all". Now...DO they...?!?! Unless you can provide some tangible examples that contradict that? Pantyhose. Oooops...still doesn't work. Betcha I can find a pair of "one size fits all" pantyhose that won't fit my 12 year old daugher OR my ex-mother-in-law. Steve, K4YZ I can guarantee you that the "one size fits all" pantyhose really don't. Been there, done that. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... Lets's save some bandwidth, snip! I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. I'm not much into the newer digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem. (Psst, it's a character issue.) No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill? Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture, many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks. Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn. You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above, NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point. YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you! Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Too easy, Bill. If you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers, guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level. Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they have my best interests at heart. My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading and new learning will be tied to the end of code testing. You must have really been disappointed when states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes. For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that want to learn will. Trying to claim some great philosophical tie of ending code testing being the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to learn is just bunk. We both know the manual gearshift analogy really doesn't work, so I'll skip that part. However, on the subject of you kids, weren't you the least bit concerned that some other impatient jackass might choose to jump in his college roomates car and just "wing it" down to the store for a pack of cigarettes? I've seen this at Wagner College in Staten Island. The "down" part refers to "down the hill" to Targee Ave. as cigarette machines were not allowed on campus. This is the jerk who'll say he's sorry over and over for hitting your kid's car. I guess that's why defensive driving is so important. Still...I'd sure be concerned. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required effort. So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined, unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be trying to have in place for any license level? No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort for two (Not any.) license levels. Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming commence. It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in the late 50s exactly that way. I have the Ameco Novice guide and I kinda like it. Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20 mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code characters. Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement determinator. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone, Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.) There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be issued a license. Those that wish to engage in morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it. The issue is solely the test requirement and has no link to actual morse use by anyone. The FCC's goal is less work. (Something in common?) BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re. squeaking vs. achieving. That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one. The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now if code testing goes altogether. Sometimes, the prospect of less work can be a powerful motivator. Do you really want to focus on the code test, Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm. Yawn. Sorry 'bout that. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however, correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes? Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices. What, no motivation? :-) :-) Lol. :-) Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room. The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do. Will do. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really just a ticket to learn. Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh, I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity of effort for all ham licensing. 1. Second most populat mode in use in the ARS today. 2. Unlike speech, this is a new skill that must be acquired. 3. Because an awfully large portion of licensed ARO's want it. What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of 2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes." The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on 7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel encouraged? IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of place they'd shift to calmer waters. Not very nice, Bill. I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just breezed on by with very little effort or tension. To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse is allowed as long as they do so within the rules. It's like pairing up Tennis partners. A beginning recreational player is usually not paired up with the club pro unless it's for lessons. (Elmer) BTW, I have a confession. My very first AR CW QSO was on 7031 kHz, but it was wuth my Elmer. ;-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Len Over 21" wrote Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical, inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc. I knew you'd agree with me. 73, de Hans, K0HB I just happen to agree with Hans' plan. Allow the amateur to distinguish him or herself through actions rather than an FCC forced march. |
"Bert Craig" wrote:
(snip) The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. (snip) And, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient justification - no more than the fact that vacuum tubes or circular analog tuning dials were once popular justifies a requirement that they continue to be used. Clearly, unless there is a valid reason otherwise, anyone should be free to use those if he or she wants, but there should be no government regulation mandating that. The same with Morse code. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. If a person has no interest in code, the speed certainly isn't going to change that. (snip) Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS (snip) The Amateur Radio Service does not exist in a vacuum, Bert. The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. (snip) If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even fifth, most popular modes? By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today. Note that the newsgroups "rec.radio.cb" and "rec.radio.shortwave" were removed from this reply (off-topic in those newsgroup). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote: [snip] The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." That deemphasis has already occurred. The no-code tech was instituted in the late 1980s and the code for the higher classes was dropped to only 5wpm in 2000. There is no need for further deemphasis. Particularly when the stated reason was attract technically inclined people. That hasn't happened so the reason for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. (snip) If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even fifth, most popular modes? By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today. The poster should have qualified that by saying "second most popular mode on HF". The usage of FM on HF is very strictly limited and regulated and isn't appropriate for use on bands that are as narrow as the HF bands. As far as testing for the other modes: Voice - we've all been talking quite some time, the only additional knowledge needed is procedural, which can easily be covered by the written tests SSTV - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then following the correct operating procedures, both of which can easily be covered by the written tests. Digital modes - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then following the correct operating procedures, both which can easily be covered by the written tests. Morse code/CW is unique and cannot be covered by the written tests. Actually I happen to believe that there would be great benefit to requiring candidates to demonstrate other basic skills, such as soldering a PL-259 to coax as an example, for licensing. But I know it won't happen. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... Lets's save some bandwidth, snip! I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. We don't require knowledge of second languages just because one or more languages other than English are used by vast numbers of non-USA hams. Why does mode popularity mandate a separate skill test just because others use it? NO other mode has that special treatment...and, it appears, the FCC understands that. I'm not much into the newer digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem. (Psst, it's a character issue.) No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill? Of course it is an issue. Any test requirement that can't be justified has no reason to exist...regardless of how much or how little effort may be required. Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture, many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks. Your elected representatives? Is that ARRL reps? If not, who else as an elected representative would you expect cares? Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn. You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above, NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point. YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you! Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Too easy, Bill. Too bad your argument doesn't hold sway with the FCC. Additionally, a dozen or so other countries have already abandoned morse testing completely. The dominos are falling...it is just a matter of time. The USA fully endorsed the end of mandatory code testing in the treaty. Do you expect a reversal of mindset on the internal (USA only) position by the FCC? If you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers, guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level. Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they have my best interests at heart. My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading and new learning will be tied to the end of code testing. You must have really been disappointed when states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes. For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that want to learn will. Trying to claim some great philosophical tie of ending code testing being the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to learn is just bunk. We both know the manual gearshift analogy really doesn't work, so I'll skip that part. However, on the subject of you kids, weren't you the least bit concerned that some other impatient jackass might choose to jump in his college roomates car and just "wing it" down to the store for a pack of cigarettes? I've seen this at Wagner College in Staten Island. The "down" part refers to "down the hill" to Targee Ave. as cigarette machines were not allowed on campus. This is the jerk who'll say he's sorry over and over for hitting your kid's car. I guess that's why defensive driving is so important. Still...I'd sure be concerned. Other than a rather funny tale of an auto thief wo didn't drive a manual but hijacked a car that was and the bozo lurched the car a couple of times and then stalled it...I have never heard of anyone being a threat to me or my kids because they didn't know how to drive a manual gearbox. Frankly, if you are worried about that happening, you must lead a very paranoid life. Far greater danger exists from the general driving public who can't handle their vehicles in anything that resembles non-perfect driving conditions. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required effort. So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined, unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be trying to have in place for any license level? No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort for two (Not any.) license levels. And when the FCC ends that requirement, what is your desire for additional "work effort" requirements? Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming commence. It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in the late 50s exactly that way. I have the Ameco Novice guide and I kinda like it. Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20 mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code characters. Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement determinator. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone, Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.) Sorry, not everyone talks as you well know. Based on your claim, everyone should at least be able to have a "voice" QSO, because voice IS the most popular mode...yet there is NO requiremnt that anyone be conversant or have voice skills at all. Yes a significant portion of hams have natural speaking ability, BUT that is NOT true of 100% of hams...yet there is NO requirement at all for speaking ability. There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be issued a license. Those that wish to engage in morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it. The issue is solely the test requirement and has no link to actual morse use by anyone. The FCC's goal is less work. (Something in common?) Gross oversimplification and very uninformed viewpoint. The FCC's goal is to have rules and regulations that make sense. If FCC work were the ONLY driving force, they'd probably end amateur radio completely. BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re. squeaking vs. achieving. That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one. The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now if code testing goes altogether. Sometimes, the prospect of less work can be a powerful motivator. What or how would ending morse result in less work for me and/or other NCI folks that previosuly passed any code test? We gain nothing. Do you really want to focus on the code test, Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm. Yawn. Sorry 'bout that. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however, correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes? Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices. What, no motivation? :-) :-) Lol. :-) Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room. The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do. Will do. If you can't find a copy, let me know. I'm pretty sure its on the FCC web pages. It may also be on or have a link to it from the www.nci.org web site. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really just a ticket to learn. Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh, I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity of effort for all ham licensing. 1. Second most populat mode in use in the ARS today. Failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143 2. Unlike speech, this is a new skill that must be acquired. Also Failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143 PLUS, there is no known harm, danger or threat if a ham does NOT know te code and/or if a ham decided to learn and practice on the air even though s/he never took a code test. 3. Because an awfully large portion of licensed ARO's want it. Totally failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143 The rules and regs of amaeur radio are NOT decided by popular vote of already licensed hams. Even as to a position of actually what percent of already licensed hams might want code testing retained, there is no good data that provides an accurate picture. The last "survey" of any type was done by the ARRL almost 10 years ago. NCI did an analysis of comments filed pro/con when 98-143 was open for comment and which showed the continued drift from support of code testing. That too is now over 5 years ago. The bottom line, (you can agree or not) is that ever since the concept of no code testing began, the amateur community has not been universally opposed to ending code testing. From my perspective, the percent of hams that absolutly want code testing to stay is an ever decreasing percentage. Exactly what that percentage isn't known...but, if a survey was held again, I'm sure it is less today than it was a 5 years ago and will be even less again a year from now since newcomers are 'generally' not proponents of code testing and as older hams which constitute the bulk of code testing support die off. That may seem crass, but that's the truth as I see it. In the end, again, the FCC isn't going to make any determination to keep code testing because X perecnt of hams want to keep a code test. That is, again, very clear in the 98-143 R&O. What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of 2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes." The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on 7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel encouraged? IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of place they'd shift to calmer waters. Not very nice, Bill. Life's a bitch and then we die. Those that are uncomfortable as new drivers at highway speeds stay off the highway. Most highways have minimum speeds to maintain that mindset. If segments of amateur spectrum became known as high speed CW segments, then what;s the problem? I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just breezed on by with very little effort or tension. To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse is allowed as long as they do so within the rules. It's like pairing up Tennis partners. A beginning recreational player is usually not paired up with the club pro unless it's for lessons. (Elmer) BTW, I have a confession. My very first AR CW QSO was on 7031 kHz, but it was wuth my Elmer. ;-) I repeat, if a new ham ventures into a band segment that is known or expected to have high speed CW as the norm...and that ham doesn't get anyone to respond at his/her slow code speed, that's just the way it goes. That's part of learning for any new ham. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote: [snip] The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." That deemphasis has already occurred. The no-code tech was instituted in the late 1980s and the code for the higher classes was dropped to only 5wpm in 2000. There is no need for further deemphasis. Particularly when the stated reason was attract technically inclined people. That hasn't happened so the reason for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid. I have never accepted the argument that ending code testing would result in more technically inclined folks becoming hams, BUT... until access to the full spectrum of ham privileges comes with no code test at all, the statement that: "That (more tech inclined hams) hasn't happened so the reason (ending some code testing, but not all) for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid" IS on its own merits invalid. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. (snip) If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, fourth or fifth, most popular modes? By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today. The poster should have qualified that by saying "second most popular mode on HF". The usage of FM on HF is very strictly limited and regulated and isn't appropriate for use on bands that are as narrow as the HF bands. As far as testing for the other modes: Voice - we've all been talking quite some time, the only additional knowledge needed is procedural, which can easily be covered by the written tests BUT, there are some hams who have NO voice ability at all. Should they be prohibited from becoming hams? Should we have a medical waiver for those voice handicapped hams? SSTV - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then following the correct operating procedures, both of which can easily be covered by the written tests. Digital modes - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then following the correct operating procedures, both which can easily be covered by the written tests. Morse code/CW is unique and cannot be covered by the written tests. Wrong. The ability (the skill) to send/recieve may not be a written test aspect, but the theory, signal characteristics, and some other aspects can be and are on the writtens. Actually I happen to believe that there would be great benefit to requiring candidates to demonstrate other basic skills, such as soldering a PL-259 to coax as an example, for licensing. But I know it won't happen. Why would you want that? Frankly, soldering has never been a strong point with me...yet I've been able to do quite well technically in my career as well as ham radio. I can "get by" but prefer to have others do some of the connector soldering chores for me. Additionally, a soldering test, especially a PL-259 would be too subjective a determination. Even soldering can't be learned by all hams. Would we then have a soldering waiver for blind hams or other hams handicapped by some affliction that didn't allow them to ever pass a soldering test? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... Lets's save some bandwidth, snip! I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. Bert, if you're using popularity as a justification--and the test questions may have changed to inlcude this since I entered ham radio--then why are there no questions or demonstration required during testing for the *number 1* most popular mode of operation? Not that I am arguing against your desire to see CW stay as a test element--that is your desire and I have no problem with it at all. But, the argument of popularity probably doesn't, in fact doesn't with me, hold water for importance--and can be turned around to my question above: why not have questions based on phone operation and also have the mode tested? A net condition is easy to establish for testing, doesn't even really require radio at all (it could be "pretended" in any room with more than one person). No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill? For me, there is an issue at *any* speed for CW testing. It's validity has waned. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks. heh heh...see...I haven't sent any, as the issue isn't that important to me and I can live with it either way. I really never intend on upgrading, and already 5 wpm. I leave the real meat of this issue to those who are that passionate about it. :) You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above, NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point. YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you! Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Too easy, Bill. Again, I point out that it would probably not be a plus for the FCC to continue facilitating a CW test, when it is nearly only the ARS that has it in use today. I am not sure what costs are associated with administering the CW test, but one must inlcude any time spent/wasted (depending on your point of view) for the FCC, congresspersons, etc., to read and deal with the issue. So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined, unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be trying to have in place for any license level? No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort for two (Not any.) license levels. I think it's OK to have two license levels. But, rather than a CW test, I'd support nearly anything else but a mode test--any mode. Written tests suffice for any level of license. Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement determinator. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone, Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.) Ruh roh...there you go again with the "second most popular mode." If that is justification, then the first most popular mode needs to be tested, not the second. :o Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote: You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. (snip) If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even fifth, most popular modes? OH, NO...Dwight. Now we're thinking alike! Hmmmm, 'cept you forgot to mention testing *THE* most popular mode! Kim W5TIT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com... Morse code/CW is unique and cannot be covered by the written tests. Actually I happen to believe that there would be great benefit to requiring candidates to demonstrate other basic skills, such as soldering a PL-259 to coax as an example, for licensing. But I know it won't happen. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE There ya go!!! Man, I'd love to see establishing a station tested--AND--that can be done either through written explanation or physical demonstration. And, soldering would certain be something that I'd agree with, too! Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote: (snip) The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. (snip) And, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient justification - no more than the fact that vacuum tubes or circular analog tuning dials were once popular justifies a requirement that they continue to be used. Clearly, unless there is a valid reason otherwise, anyone should be free to use those if he or she wants, but there should be no government regulation mandating that. The same with Morse code. Nobody's forcing anybody to use it, just learn it...and only for HF privies. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. If a person has no interest in code, the speed certainly isn't going to change that. At 5-wpm, it's more a demonstration of discipline than proficiency. That is where the true crux lies. (snip) Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS (snip) The Amateur Radio Service does not exist in a vacuum, Bert. The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." They've already reduced the emphasis by creating the no-code Technician ticket and further by reducing the required code speed for the General and Extra tickets. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. (snip) If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even fifth, most popular modes? Unique skill, Dwight...decoded by the human brain. Speach for phone and reading ability for digital are skills brought into the fray from day one. By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today. My apologies, I should have been more clear. I actually meant Phone vs. Morse code. I used SSB because I almost never use FM, only for ARES work. Additionally, I'm pretty much always on HF. Note that the newsgroups "rec.radio.cb" and "rec.radio.shortwave" were removed from this reply (off-topic in those newsgroup). Good call, Dwight. Embarassingly enough, I hadn't even noticed. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) 73 de Bert WA2SI |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: After playing around search the FCC database, the previous license of the vanity holder appears to be marked as terminated not expired so that the vanity call rules do not effect the numbers if the search is done correctly. If one searches for expired only, what they get as a result are only those that have lapsed due to non-renewal not those terminated due to changes in call sign and not those terminated due to disciplinary actions by the FCC. Agreed on all that but my point was somewhat different. With one exception, the way the rules have worked for some time now is that you can only renew within a time window of 90 days before or two years after your license expires. So it would seem that the expiration dates would be spread out over time, and not cluster in any particular year. But a vanity call gets you a renewal regardless of where you are in the license term. And when the vanity rules changed, there was naturally a spike in application numbers - and 10 years later, a spike in expirations. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum of knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full privilege license. Yes. Good plan. (Toss in Novice and Advanced while we're on the topic.) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need
clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? So lets see here. If the new jet airliners will fly and land themselves, the persons that occupy the cockpit don't really need to learn to fly. Makes perfect sense. They don't need to learn to fly because the computer does it for them. |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... Lets's save some bandwidth, snip! I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. Bert, if you're using popularity as a justification--and the test questions may have changed to inlcude this since I entered ham radio--then why are there no questions or demonstration required during testing for the *number 1* most popular mode of operation? Because for 99.9% of ARO's, speach is a skill that's already in our toolbox upon entry into the ARS. Not that I am arguing against your desire to see CW stay as a test element--that is your desire and I have no problem with it at all. But, the argument of popularity probably doesn't, in fact doesn't with me, hold water for importance--and can be turned around to my question above: why not have questions based on phone operation and also have the mode tested? A net condition is easy to establish for testing, doesn't even really require radio at all (it could be "pretended" in any room with more than one person). I understand, Kim...and I agree. Whatever the questions or "requirements" are, bring 'em on. I'd be willing to make the effort to meet the requirements for the desired privies. No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill? For me, there is an issue at *any* speed for CW testing. It's validity has waned. See the language post I pasted into my reply to Bill's post. I can communicate effectively with my Japanese counterpart without actually speaking Japanese. Let 'em try that on phone. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks. heh heh...see...I haven't sent any, as the issue isn't that important to me and I can live with it either way. I really never intend on upgrading, and already 5 wpm. I leave the real meat of this issue to those who are that passionate about it. :) A reasonable stance. You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above, NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point. YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you! Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Too easy, Bill. Again, I point out that it would probably not be a plus for the FCC to continue facilitating a CW test, when it is nearly only the ARS that has it in use today. I am not sure what costs are associated with administering the CW test, but one must inlcude any time spent/wasted (depending on your point of view) for the FCC, congresspersons, etc., to read and deal with the issue. I agree that time and expenditure is at the heart of the FCC's support of ending code testing. So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined, unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be trying to have in place for any license level? No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort for two (Not any.) license levels. I think it's OK to have two license levels. But, rather than a CW test, I'd support nearly anything else but a mode test--any mode. Written tests suffice for any level of license. Mee too, just can the published Q&A pools. Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement determinator. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone, Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.) Ruh roh...there you go again with the "second most popular mode." If that is justification, then the first most popular mode needs to be tested, not the second. :o Bring it on. Kim W5TIT 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"N2EY" wrote And when the vanity rules changed, there was naturally a spike in application numbers - and 10 years later, a spike in expirations. We're about 30 months shy of even the leading edge of that spike. 73, Hans, K0HB |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote: (snip) The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. (snip) And, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient justification - no more than the fact that vacuum tubes or circular analog tuning dials were once popular justifies a requirement that they continue to be used. Clearly, unless there is a valid reason otherwise, anyone should be free to use those if he or she wants, but there should be no government regulation mandating that. The same with Morse code. Dwight, how about giving us a good rational reason to continue testing at all. I can break every reason with either rationale or minor modifications to equipment. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ,
"Bert Craig" wrote: snip That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. snip That's nice. The thread has moved on to the other main amateur Troll subject "code." Nobody in rec.radio.shortwave cares. Please trim the newsgroups. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
"Bert Craig" wrote: snip I gotta tell ya, Bill. You're your own worst adversary wrt to this debate. Did you bother to tell the NCI newbies about the benefit of using Q signals and prosigns on CW? Remember this post, Bill? snip I got to tell you that you look like a fool discussing ARRL, code and Q signals in rec.radio.shortwave. Please trim the newsgroups. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
In article ,
(Brian) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: There can be no fun in the ham SERVICE. Says who? The Field First Sergeant of your SERVICE company when you fall out for roll call at 0530. Answer "here" as your name is called...sound off like you got a pair... Hup, too, tree, foah... LHA He's still out there, somewhere, marching and calling cadence all by hisself. Yes...I can hear him even now...beat of 120 per minute "I don't know but I've been told...morse code mode is solid gold!" :-) LHA |
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Bert Craig" wrote: (snip) The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. (snip) And, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient justification - no more than the fact that vacuum tubes or circular analog tuning dials were once popular justifies a requirement that they continue to be used. Clearly, unless there is a valid reason otherwise, anyone should be free to use those if he or she wants, but there should be no government regulation mandating that. The same with Morse code. Irrelevant, Dwight. The amateur community has specifed the criteria and goals of amateurism. First and foremost is morsemanship. This is necessary to show the requisite dedication and commitment of all amateurs to the community, that they posess the needed self-discipline to learn the most vital and important mode in radio today, on-off keying by morse code. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. If a person has no interest in code, the speed certainly isn't going to change that. Obviously such individuals are unworthy of amateurism, lacking the necessary dedication and commitment to morsemanship and possessing absolutely no self-discpline. (snip) Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS (snip) The Amateur Radio Service does not exist in a vacuum, Bert. The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." Irrelevant. The amateur community sets standards. FCC, ITU, IARU has no bearing on standards and practices. Morsemanship is vital and important to save the world should aliens arrive from outer space, trying for conquest of the earth. Morsemanship is vital and important to home security, protecting us from terrorism. Morsemanship is vital and important during disasters and emergencies when all the communications infrastructure fails. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. (snip) If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even fifth, most popular modes? Irrelevant. Morsemanship stands on its own. It does not need polls or popularity opinions. Morsemanship is the most important aspect of amateur radio today. It demonstrates self-discipline, dedication, and commitment to the amateur community. That is vital and necessary. By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today. Irrelevant for reasons shown above. Morsemanship is vital and necessary, stands on its own. It is LAW. LHA |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... Lets's save some bandwidth, snip! I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. Morse code skill is the epitome of amateur radio. The morse code test should never, ever be removed from US amateur radio law. If fact, the morse code test word rate should be increased to HIGHER than 20 WPM. This will inspire even greater self-discipline, dedication, and commitment to the amateur comunity's goals and standards. Morse code modes SHOULD be First, not second. Morsemanship is vital and important. That morse code modes are merely second shows a definite lack of self-discipline, dedication, and commitment to the goals of amateurism. I'm not much into the newer digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem. (Psst, it's a character issue.) No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill? Absolutely. Morsemanship is vital and important. The test shows self-discipline, dedication, and commitment to the amateur community. Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture, many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks. Insufficient self-discipline and dedication to morsemanship. You can do more. You are judged a slacker and ne'erdowell, demonstrating insufficient dedication and commitment to the amateur community. You have been warned. LHA |
In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "Bert Craig" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message m... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? Oh, I don't know, Bill.let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater.right through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna.that ought to be good enough, right? And none of this would have happened if only he had known code? Give me a break. I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. It's the LAW, Bill. LAW can't be changed. [normal US democratic principles and the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not apply to amateur radio law...] I'm not much into the newer digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem. (Psst, it's a character issue.) No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Morse code is the epitome, the ultimate top-most skill that amateurs can possess. Morse code skill is absolutely vital and important for all radio amateurs. Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture, many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to remove said offensive task.would certainly be concerned and cognizant of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass that 35 multiple-guess.er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him "ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not CW. ;-) The analogy is a joke. Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.) HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the above scenario may be playing out as you read these words.and that's no joke. The potential for harm, physical or otherwise is NOT tied to anyone's knowledge of code. THAT is the point. Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn. You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above, NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point. Everything outside of amateur radio is irrelevant. Amateur radio communications operates outside radio physics laws applying to every other radio service. I have been told these TRVTHS as they were engraved on the marble and granite of other amateur extra's minds and stated to me. If you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers, guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level. Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they have my best interests at heart. My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading and new learning will be tied to the end of code testing. Absolutely. You must have really been disappointed when states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes. For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that want to learn will. Trying to claim some great philosophical tie of ending code testing being the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to learn is just bunk. No, it is Divine Law. US amateur radio is all about morse code. There is ZERO element of safety involved wit CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required effort. So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined, unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be trying to have in place for any license level? Absolutely vital, important, and a fact of life that all must demonstrate SELF-DISCIPLINE, DEDICATION, and COMMITMENT to olde-tyme hamme tradition. Morse code skill is an integral ingredient of that tradition. IT MUST NOT BE BROKEN. EVER! Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming commence. It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in the late 50s exactly that way. Irrelevant, Bill. That does not demonstrate self-discipline and blind obediance to the traditions of the amateur community. Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20 mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code characters. Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement determinator. Self-discipline demonstrated to the whole of the amateur community. Vital, important, necessary. There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be issued a license. Those that wish to engage in morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it. The issue is solely the test requirement and has no link to actual morse use by anyone. Option is a failure. Morse code skill MUST be demonstrated to the amateur community to show dedication and commitment to olde-tyme hamme radio. BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re. squeaking vs. achieving. That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one. The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now if code testing goes altogether. Morse code skill MUST be the prime focus of all amateur radio. All else is superfluous and irrelevant. Except membership in ARRL, of course... Do you really want to focus on the code test, Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm. Yawn. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however, correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes? Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices. What, no motivation? :-) :-) Insufficient dedication and commitment to the amateur community. ARRL speaks for amateur radio. Individuals do not count. Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room. The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do. The Holy Words of amateurism were written by T.O.M. Those are the only ones that matter. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really just a ticket to learn. Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh, I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity of effort for all ham licensing. US amateur radio is all about morse code skill. All amateurs must exercise self-discipline, dedication, and commitment to the amateur community by becoming morsemen. What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of 2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes." The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on 7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel encouraged? IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of place they'd shift to calmer waters. Not relevant. No dedication or commitment to the epitome of amateur radio skill embodied in morsemanship. I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just breezed on by with very little effort or tension. To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse is allowed as long as they do so within the rules. Those should be drummed out of the corps, banished to the nether world of VHF and higher. All must show commitment and dedication to the amateur community by maintaining a pool of trained morsemen ready and waiting to save the world from alien invasion. Everything good in US amateur radio is about morse code skill. Self-discipline, dedication, committing to the olde-tyme hamme traditions. Showing all one's hard work and efforts. Words to live by in the amateur lifestyle, the belief system that is the bastion of amateurism. Amen. LHA |
In article ,
(JEP) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (JEP) writes: Don't see where a morse test was ever required for a 1st phone. Not only are you an anonymous bigot but you have reading difficulty as well. You asked only if anyone passed "a test" at an FCC office. Did you ever pass a ham exem at the FCC office? Never tried to, not even for an exam rather than an "exem." Just another wanna be? Hardly. I started as a hobbyist in electronics in 1947. After my military service I made a career out of electronics engineering. I'm still doing that even if I don't keep regular hours. What is your excuse, anonymous one? LHA Hey stupid. The thread is about "Why I hate ARRL". Incorrect. The thread subject is titled "Why You Don't Like The ARRL - More to like than dislike." Your web browser seems to be defective. Get it corrected. This concerns HAM RADIO. "Ham is the butchered meat of swine." [You can get the same sort of definition from the official FDA if you like... :-) ] Ham radio operators operate on shortwave. "Shortwave?!?" In the electronics industry, the term "shortwave" or "shortwaves" is becoming common in defining microwaves. US radio amateurs are allocated a number of HF bands plus one band within the MF portion of the EM spectrum. US radio amateurs are also allocated a number of bands above 70 cm which can qualify as "shortwave." Glad to have you correct my spelling anytime oh great one. It's a tough job but someone has to do it. Anonymous? Naw. I have a valid email address listed in each and every header. Absolutely NO valid amateur radio identification for you, ANONYMOUS PERSON. Anyway, if you check out the thread you will find it does not concern you. Oh, my, another Raddio Kop, self-imposed guardian of the webways. Such come out of the webwork like mice or rats, ready and eager to gnaw on meager morsels of melifluous metaphors of others. Bon apetit, ANONYMOUS ONE. LHA Leonard H. Anderson retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
|
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "Brian" wrote in message . com... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/25/03 5:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Sounds like what we've inherited today. Let's do something rational instead. It will be interesting to see what YOU call "rational". Steve, K4YZ Steve, you never pay attention, do you? I've said it many, many times. One amateur radio service, one amateur radio license. And maybe a learners permit as Hans suggests. How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum of knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full privilege license. All that is required is a test of morsemanship. All else is irrelevant. Morsemanship is the epitome of amateur radio today. Passing a morse test shows dedication, commitment, and self- discipline to the amateur community. That is vital and necessary. LHA |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum of knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full privilege license. Yes. Good plan. (Toss in Novice and Advanced while we're on the topic.) 73, de Hans, K0HB Well of course but that's already been done. The current Tech pool now covers the old Novice material and the current Extra pool now covers the old Advanced material. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote And when the vanity rules changed, there was naturally a spike in application numbers - and 10 years later, a spike in expirations. We're about 30 months shy of even the leading edge of that spike. Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even if it has much of an effect at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote And when the vanity rules changed, there was naturally a spike in application numbers - and 10 years later, a spike in expirations. We're about 30 months shy of even the leading edge of that spike. Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even if it has much of an effect at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no siginificant spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or entry from long expiration). By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the arena of testing? Kim W5TIT |
|
"Brian" wrote in message om... Steve will have to try them all on to prove me wrong. He should get the white ones so he can wear them to work. Brian, IMHO, what Steve does for a living is one hell of a noble occupation. Discuss, debate, or argue about ARS related stuff all you want, but I'd cut the man some slack wrt mentioning his job in a disrespectful light while doing so. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even if it has much of an effect at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no siginificant spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or entry from long expiration). Quite possible. By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the arena of testing? That was a pool, not a poll. I just updated it in its thread. So far four predicted dates have passed. You may just wind up being the winner of that one, Kim. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Bert Craig" wrote: (snip) The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. (snip) And, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient justification - no more than the fact that vacuum tubes or circular analog tuning dials were once popular justifies a requirement that they continue to be used. There were never any test questions on circular analog tuning dials AFAIK. There used to be lots of test questions on tubes but they are almost all gone now - because most hams' rigs don't use tubes any more. But the use of Morse Code in amateur radio is very popular. It's a big part of *today's* amateur radio, not just its past. There are far more hams on the air today using Morse Code than hams using homebrew ham rigs. Yet we still test for theory knowledge even though most hams won't ever need to use most of it. Clearly, unless there is a valid reason otherwise, anyone should be free to use those if he or she wants, but there should be no government regulation mandating that. The same with Morse code. Yet in order to get a ham license today, one must pass written tests containing many questions on solid-state electronics - even though there is no requirement to use that technology. A ham who wants to get on HF in the non-General parts of the bands using only vacuum- tube equipment still has to pass 3 tests full of questions on solid-state technologies, even though there is no mandate that s/he use those technologies. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. If a person has no interest in code, the speed certainly isn't going to change that. Apply that same logic to the written test... (snip) Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS (snip) The Amateur Radio Service does not exist in a vacuum, Bert. The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." The FCC also said that BPL was a step toward "broadband Nirvana". Heck, a *commissioner* said that... They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. Sure. Did anyone think they would contradict themselves? They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." Has any communication system been designed in many years that depends on *any* special radio operator skills? And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." But that hasn't happened. Didn't happen after 1991, nor again after 2000. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. (snip) If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even fifth, most popular modes? Because none of those modes require learning specific new skills. By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today. On amateur HF/MF, it's the second most popular mode. And a code test is only needed for amateur HF/MF. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even if it has much of an effect at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no siginificant spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or entry from long expiration). Quite possible. By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the arena of testing? That was a pool, not a poll. I just updated it in its thread. So far four predicted dates have passed. You may just wind up being the winner of that one, Kim. 73 de Jim, N2EY Uh huh...and you *could* validate me as a ham by inserting my callsign on the submission. :o Kim W5TIT |
|
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: [snip] The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." That deemphasis has already occurred. The no-code tech was instituted in the late 1980s and the code for the higher classes was dropped to only 5wpm in 2000. There is no need for further deemphasis. (snip) I disagree. The reasons stated for reducing code (changes over last 50 years, no system dependant on code in many years, and so on) could just as easily be used to argue against a code test of any kind. In other words, how are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of a 13 wpm test? (snip) Morse code/CW is unique and cannot be covered by the written tests. Actually (snip) It is unique only in the level of emphasis placed on it. Without that emphasis, there would be no unique test for it. Which brings us right back where I started, pointing to what the FCC has said - "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Bert Craig" wrote:
Nobody's forcing anybody to use it, just learn it...and only for HF privies. Given another statement in your reply ("unique skill...decoded by the human brain"), that statement is rather illogical, isn't it? If the "skill" tested is the ability to decode code with the human brain, it would seem one would have to "use" that ability at some level just to pass the test. At 5-wpm, it's more a demonstration of discipline than proficiency. That is where the true crux lies. The FCC doesn't have a mandate to test discipline. And, beyond the rules and good operating practices, we shouldn't expect it either. After all, we're not the military or a karate school. They've already reduced the emphasis by creating the no-code Technician ticket and further by reducing the required code speed for the General and Extra tickets. As I told Dee, the reasons quoted in my earlier message for reducing code (changes over last 50 years, no system dependant on code in many years, and so on) could just as easily be used to argue against a code test of any kind. In other words, how are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of a 13 wpm test? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com