|
US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code
requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't they come to some decision quickly. Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. |
"Joe Guthart" wrote in
: What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't they come to some decision quickly. Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. I did, but it was last year!! Maybe someone in the FCC is a pro code test ham who is delaying the process? The FCC in general has been in favour of removing the requirement for a long time. The US may be the last country to abolish the code test, the way things are going. Mind you, AFAIK the code test has still not been abolished in Spain or Italy(?), although I don't think there's a code test anywhere else much in Europe anymore. |
"Joe Guthart" wrote in message ... What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't they come to some decision quickly. Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. I think the hams shot themselves in the foot on this one. There have been at least 18 petitions regarding code/no-code and restructuring submitted to the FCC. Each one of these had to be opened to comments. The FCC will have to rule on each petition and then take time to digest them and consolidate into a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should they choose to proceed. Then this NPR will have to be open to comments for awhile. On top of that keep in mind that the FCC is drastically understaffed. Finally, the FCC implemented a major restructuring in the year 2000. They may simply not want to make any changes this soon. Besides, how often (except in times of war) have you seen the government do anything quickly. I estimated July of 2005 and am beginning to think that even that was not a conservative enough guess. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , Alun
writes: Maybe someone in the FCC is a pro code test ham who is delaying the process? Maybe. Or maybe it's just not a high priority to FCC. The FCC in general has been in favour of removing the requirement for a long time. That's what I thought, based on the Report and Order to 98-143. But maybe that's changedsince 1999. The US may be the last country to abolish the code test, the way things are going. Mind you, AFAIK the code test has still not been abolished in Spain or Italy(?), although I don't think there's a code test anywhere else much in Europe anymore. What about the former "Soviet Bloc" countries? Scandinavia? How about New Zealand, Asia, Africa, South America? Canada is only now proposing to change the code test rules. And Japan, long the poster country for no-codetest-HF ham licenses, hasn't changed anything. Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Joe Guthart"
writes: What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. No, it's only 14 months. WRC-2003 changed the treaty in July 2003 Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Not really. Count 'em up - they are but a small fraction of the countries who have retained the requirement. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't they come to some decision quickly. I think that FCC had the authority to just drop Element 1 back in July 2003. But they decided to go through the entire regulatory process, which takes time. And it's just not a high priority to FCC. In the 14 months since last July, there have been well over a dozen different restructuring proposals to FCC from various groups and individuals. They range from as simple as "drop the code test and leave everything else alone" to major renovations including new license classes, subband changes, etc. Each and every proposal I know of has been assigned an RM number, put on the public record, opened for public comment, etc. Eventually the FCC will generate an NPRM from all that info, there will be more comments and reply comments and eventually the rules may change. Or not. 73 de Jim, N2EY Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. |
"Joe Guthart" wrote in message ...
What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S. around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your pick. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam levels down. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands. Can't they come to some decision quickly. Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe?? Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once. w3rv |
|
On 21 Sep 2004 00:12:02 GMT, Alun wrote:
The US may be the last country to abolish the code test, the way things are going. Mind you, AFAIK the code test has still not been abolished in Spain or Italy(?), although I don't think there's a code test anywhere else much in Europe anymore. Most of the countries where the code test has been dropped do not have the same requirement for rules changes that the US has, such as consideration of public input and comments, publication of notice of rulemaking, petitions for reconsideration and court appeals, etc. They just DO it ..... (usually because someone in the regulatory Administration thinks that it is a good thing to do without public input....) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Joe Guthart wrote:
What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't they come to some decision quickly. Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. The proposals to keep code for extras but not generals probably make little sense to the FCC. The main attraction of removing the code test completely is less regulatory burden on everyone. And that no other service uses Morse code anymore doesn't help pro coders much either. |
"N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. |
"Joe Guthart" wrote in message ... What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't they come to some decision quickly. Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. Just wait til after the November elections. This time of the election year nothing gets done. Everyones busy flapping their gums. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 21 Sep 2004 00:12:02 GMT, Alun wrote: The US may be the last country to abolish the code test, the way things are going. Mind you, AFAIK the code test has still not been abolished in Spain or Italy(?), although I don't think there's a code test anywhere else much in Europe anymore. Most of the countries where the code test has been dropped do not have the same requirement for rules changes that the US has, such as consideration of public input and comments, publication of notice of rulemaking, petitions for reconsideration and court appeals, etc. They just DO it ..... (usually because someone in the regulatory Administration thinks that it is a good thing to do without public input....) How about when the ITU thinks its a good thing to do? |
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. Why? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In the 14 months since last July, there have been well over a dozen different restructuring proposals to FCC from various groups and individuals. They range from as simple as "drop the code test and leave everything else alone" to major renovations including new license classes, subband changes, etc. Each and every proposal I know of has been assigned an RM number, put on the public record, opened for public comment, etc. Eventually the FCC will generate an NPRM from all that info, there will be more comments and reply comments and eventually the rules may change. Or not. Yes, and eventually the world will end...or not. :-) To be informative, you could have named the Petitions for Rule Making in their number groups (three groups in all), when they were released (again in three groups) and how to access them. All are still on public viewing by anyone, either at the FCC Reading Room or over the Internet at the FCC ECFS (Electronic Comment Filing System). You COULD have given that information...but did not. Instead there was some kind of assortment of undetailed facts which were obvious but uninformative. That is pretense at expertise, a sort of show-off of words rattled off to make it sound like you know what you are about. But they aren't helpful to those unaquainted of the facts, are they? Naturally, you will launch into a tirade of "you are wrongs!" at being negatively criticized. That is also Standard Operating Procedure in here. :-) [PCTA extras are always right, all others "wrong"...:-) ] Consider this: Amateur radio is communications. With all the near-instant communications capability of radio amateurs, you would think that all would have found out about the 18 petitions for rule making within twelve months. Apparently not. You depend on a single source for all the "information," the ARRL bulletins and news...or various rumors (and myths) propagated across the Internet. So, what are all those radios good for? Making casual quick contacts which you all amplify to "making lifelong friends" via a 5-minute QSO? Having "radio sport" of making the most contacts in a given time? But, not to worry. All those who are licensed at the "top" class now will be grandfathered to continue in U.S. ham radio. You PCTA extras will never be affected by the presence or absence of a morse code test. That only affects newcomers. "Drudges," newbies, those who you PCTA extras allege are "still wet behind the ears." Isn't the wind cold at those high altitudes of Mt. Olympus? Tsk. |
In article , Alun
writes: (Brian Kelly) wrote in . com: "Joe Guthart" wrote in message ... What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S. around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your pick. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam levels down. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands. Can't they come to some decision quickly. Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe?? Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once. w3rv That's not a troll Alun, Kelly's remarks are "civil discourse" of PCTA extras. :-) As a sidelight, Ellis Island has been closed for immigration purposes for years. My mother and her family came through there in 1924, my father and his brother through there in 1928. Both parents became naturalized U.S. citizens later. Apparently the "Kelly" surname is native to North America, judging by the tenor of the "civil discourse." :-) [this is beginning to sound like the PCTA are a branch of the DAR...:-) ] |
Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: "Phil Kane" Date: 9/21/2004 1:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: On 21 Sep 2004 00:12:02 GMT, Alun wrote: The US may be the last country to abolish the code test, the way things are going. Mind you, AFAIK the code test has still not been abolished in Spain or Italy(?), although I don't think there's a code test anywhere else much in Europe anymore. Most of the countries where the code test has been dropped do not have the same requirement for rules changes that the US has, such as consideration of public input and comments, publication of notice of rulemaking, petitions for reconsideration and court appeals, etc. They just DO it ..... (usually because someone in the regulatory Administration thinks that it is a good thing to do without public input....) But Phil, after the opening of the No Code Tech in 91 along with the FCC's stated psoition on the relevence of Code testing, along with the tons of papaer they've received on it already, just how many more "hearings" or comments do they need? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Alun" wrote in message
... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb- m17.aol.com: In article et, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. Why? 73 de Jim, N2EY It puts people off, especially those who have no plans to ever use CW, and there are a lot of those. If I remember correctly, this is why the no-code Tech license was created. Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something (Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you may never use. Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! It "puts people off," it'd almost be funny...if it weren't so sad. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384 QRP ARCI #11782 |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
: "Alun" wrote in message ... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb- m17.aol.com: In article et, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. Why? 73 de Jim, N2EY It puts people off, especially those who have no plans to ever use CW, and there are a lot of those. If I remember correctly, this is why the no-code Tech license was created. Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something (Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you may never use. Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! It "puts people off," it'd almost be funny...if it weren't so sad. You are (deliberately) confusing the issue of having to learn more theory to upgrade with the issue of learning to use CW in order to use HF phone. This has nothing to do with teaching kids they should get something for nothing, if that's what you are saying. But then, if you regard CW as a holy sacrament, your argument would make sense, which it doesn't. Alun, N3KIP |
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ??? From: "Phil Kane" Date: 9/21/2004 1:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: On 21 Sep 2004 00:12:02 GMT, Alun wrote: The US may be the last country to abolish the code test, the way things are going. Mind you, AFAIK the code test has still not been abolished in Spain or Italy(?), although I don't think there's a code test anywhere else much in Europe anymore. Most of the countries where the code test has been dropped do not have the same requirement for rules changes that the US has, such as consideration of public input and comments, publication of notice of rulemaking, petitions for reconsideration and court appeals, etc. They just DO it ..... (usually because someone in the regulatory Administration thinks that it is a good thing to do without public input....) But Phil, after the opening of the No Code Tech in 91 along with the FCC's stated psoition on the relevence of Code testing, along with the tons of papaer they've received on it already, just how many more "hearings" or comments do they need? Doesn't matter, Steve. Once they decided to go the NPRM route, the wheels will turn at their designated speed. Note also that the quoted code-test positions of FCC are close to 5 years old. (The Report and Order for 98-143 was written in late 1999). Maybe all the comments have had an impact. If the code test is such a "barrier" to would-be hams, why aren't they telling FCC? When you total up the comments *by author*, you find that most people who bother to comment want to keep at least some code testing. You also find that most commenters already have a ham license. What you do not see are large numbers of nonhams telling FCC that they'd become hams if the code test were removed. So wouldn't it make sense for FCC to conclude that there are *not* a lot of people who are "being kept out" by the code test? I think N8UZE has a very valid point that all the proposals simply slow the machinery down. Note that NCVEC has *two* proposals! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(Len Over 21) wrote in news:20040921232140.06972.00000803
@mb-m03.aol.com: In article , Alun writes: (Brian Kelly) wrote in .com: "Joe Guthart" wrote in message ... What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S. around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your pick. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam levels down. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands. Can't they come to some decision quickly. Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe?? Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once. w3rv That's not a troll Alun, Kelly's remarks are "civil discourse" of PCTA extras. :-) As a sidelight, Ellis Island has been closed for immigration purposes for years. My mother and her family came through there in 1924, my father and his brother through there in 1928. Both parents became naturalized U.S. citizens later. Apparently the "Kelly" surname is native to North America, judging by the tenor of the "civil discourse." :-) [this is beginning to sound like the PCTA are a branch of the DAR...:-) ] I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others. |
"N2EY" wrote So wouldn't it make sense for FCC to conclude that there are *not* a lot of people who are "being kept out" by the code test? I don't think the code test keeps anyone out of the Amateur Radio service. On a somewhat related matter, I also don't think that we need a code test to prove anyone's worthiness to operate on amateur frequencies below 30MHz. 73, de Hans, K0HB "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." -- Bokonon |
Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something (Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you may never use. One can't "sell" the hobby while imposing things no longer necessary to it. Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! People have been saying that since day one. So what else is new... |
I think N8UZE has a very valid point that all the proposals simply slow the machinery down. Note that NCVEC has *two* proposals! That machinery is probably a few brearucrats that will get to it when there's nothing else to do.... |
Alun wrote:
(Len Over 21) wrote in news:20040921232140.06972.00000803 @mb-m03.aol.com: In article , Alun writes: (Brian Kelly) wrote in e.com: "Joe Guthart" wrote in message ... What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S. around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your pick. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam levels down. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands. Can't they come to some decision quickly. Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe?? Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once. w3rv That's not a troll Alun, Kelly's remarks are "civil discourse" of PCTA extras. :-) As a sidelight, Ellis Island has been closed for immigration purposes for years. My mother and her family came through there in 1924, my father and his brother through there in 1928. Both parents became naturalized U.S. citizens later. Apparently the "Kelly" surname is native to North America, judging by the tenor of the "civil discourse." :-) [this is beginning to sound like the PCTA are a branch of the DAR...:-) ] I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others. Yes, if you can also rationalize all the other parts of the test that you don't use. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: "Alun" wrote in message .. . PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb- m17.aol.com: In article et, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. Why? 73 de Jim, N2EY It puts people off, especially those who have no plans to ever use CW, and there are a lot of those. If I remember correctly, this is why the no-code Tech license was created. Then you should also remember that no-code-TEST Techs were forbidden operation below 30 MHz in the USA. Somehow some amateurs still believe in the myth that morsemanship is "essential" (enough for "qualifications") to operate below 30 MHz. Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something (Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you may never use. The alleged "need" to do morse code below 30 MHz is an artificiality. That doesn't bother the qualifications of all those other radio services operating below 30 MHz. Tsk, tsk. Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! [you spelled "reagent" wrong...but that's perhaps too subtle...] Yes, heaven forbid that ANYONE EVER be allowed to transmit below 30 MHz without full and complete "qualifications" by testing in morsemanship! :-) It "puts people off," it'd almost be funny...if it weren't so sad. The "sadness" is that the PCTA simply can't get up to speed on the newer technology nor do they want to change their ways. Tsk, tsk. Everyone must do as they do...or else! :-) |
Code and Riley suck!
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... "N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:52:21 GMT, Bert Craig wrote:
Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! Are the Regents' Exams no longer given in NY? I discovered ham radio in HS, and wished that there was a Regents in that subject so I could ace it..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others. Yes, if you can also rationalize all the other parts of the test that you don't use. - Mike KB3EIA - False logic, bad connections. Clean your iron, too many cold solder joints. Test Element 1 in the USA only involves morsemanship. Morse code mode is the ONLY one of many - all optional - modes allowed to U.S. amateur radio. There has never been another manual operating test for any other mode in the 70-year history of the FCC in amateur radio. Morse code testing doesn't compare to any other thing but morse code. Trying to draw analogues to other things is ridiculous...but you knew that, didn't you? The written part of the U.S. amateur radio test involves FCC regulations. Those regulations include all the permissible modes and modulations available to U.S. amateur licensees. It is logical that the written test include something involving all those modes and modulations. Try to remember that the FCC's test for an amateur radio license is NOT an academic achievement test. It is NOT about how much knowledge of radio is gained, it is all about proving the applicant to the Commission on the Commission's standards for being licensed. |
In article , Alun
writes: I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others. The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century ago, altered my thinking about "radio." Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth. It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some, but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and continue was my way. I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other radio services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year I operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB transceiver, designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's company...both sadly SK now] As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested: Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society. Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz. I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various "classes" beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is that it is an artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants. Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a guild, not a union, not a working craft. Why have all those "classes" that will, auto- matically, lead to internal conflict of some "better" than others? Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but many others are that way] |
In article , Alun
writes: (N2EY) wrote in news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb- m17.aol.com: In article et, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. Why? It puts people off, So do the written tests. especially those who have no plans to ever use CW, How about the folks who have no plans to build their own rigs? Which do you think are more numerous - hams using CW/Morse or hams using homebrew rigs? Why is so much more written testing, particularly theory testing, needed for HF privileges (and full privileges) when a Tech license gives full amateur power and all authorized amateur modes - just not all authorized amateur spectrum? oh wait - NCVEC is proposing a "no homebrew" license. Is that a good thing? and there are a lot of those. How many? And why aren't they letting FCC know? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et... On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:52:21 GMT, Bert Craig wrote: Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! Are the Regents' Exams no longer given in NY? I discovered ham radio in HS, and wished that there was a Regents in that subject so I could ace it..... The Regents are still given in NY, Phil. The Debacle to which I referred happened a year or two ago when a large percentage of NYC kids flunked it. They (Parents included.) argued that it was unnecessarily tough and culturally biased...in other words, they whined. The failing grades were thrown out. (I'm not sure if they were administered an easier exam or thrown a curve.) Had they been held back and forced to attend summer school and, dare I say, "earn" their passing grades, some college guidance counselors and subsequently some employers (Read: society as a whole.) would have been grateful. Instead, the bar was lowered. Is this what we want to do with AR? The same AR we want to recuit youngsters into...and then teach them (by example) that if they whine long enough, they can have what they want. "Learn to earn!" Today privileges in an avocation, tomorrow wages to comfortably support a family in a fierce fiscal environment. Some whould say ther's no corrolation, but the priciples learned today will be applied tomorrow. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384 QRP ARCI #11782 |
"Alun" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in : "Alun" wrote in message ... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb- m17.aol.com: In article et, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. Why? 73 de Jim, N2EY It puts people off, especially those who have no plans to ever use CW, and there are a lot of those. If I remember correctly, this is why the no-code Tech license was created. Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something (Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you may never use. Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! It "puts people off," it'd almost be funny...if it weren't so sad. You are (deliberately) confusing the issue of having to learn more theory to upgrade with the issue of learning to use CW in order to use HF phone. No, Alun...I'm not deliberately confusing the issue. I'm very deliberately offering MY take on it. I believe the question was; "Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal?" IMHO, no it is not! No confusion there. This has nothing to do with teaching kids they should get something for nothing, if that's what you are saying. It's a lead by example thing, Alun. The principles a youngster learns in an early avocation will likely carry over intotheir later endeavors, both presonal and professional. Again, IMHO. But then, if you regard CW as a holy sacrament, your argument would make sense, which it doesn't. Holy sacrament? Definitely not. A very cool (And challenging!) mode of operation that lends itself very well for low power comms and sheer simplicity? "Noboubtadoutit!" (A NYism, hi.) And oh, BTW...it's not my argument, it's just my opinion. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384 QRP ARCI #11782 P.S. My 3-1/2 year old lad can identify the characters A, B, C and J in Morse code...and I'm sending the character at, at least, 15-wpm. |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Alun wrote: I'm an Extra too. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others. Yes, if you can also rationalize all the other parts of the test that you don't use. .. . . I wish I'd written that . . . - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:52:21 GMT, Bert Craig wrote: Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! Are the Regents' Exams no longer given in NY? I discovered ham radio in HS, and wished that there was a Regents in that subject so I could ace it..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane They still have them but a recent news article that I saw mentioned that they are considering making the exams simpler. Not enough students are taking them and on top of that the students' average scores have dropped over the years. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Alun wrote: PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb- m17.aol.com: In article et, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal? Yes. Why? 73 de Jim, N2EY It puts people off, especially those who have no plans to ever use CW, and there are a lot of those. Well I could not care less if I ever used CW again. That being said, I would like some insight on why a person would not get a ham license simply because of a Morse code test. To me, you just do what you need to do. What are the positive aspects of people that refuse to "get" something that included something that they didn't want to do? - Mike KB3EIA - |
(Len Over 21) wrote in
: In article , Alun writes: I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others. The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century ago, altered my thinking about "radio." Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth. It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some, but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and continue was my way. I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other radio services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year I operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB transceiver, designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's company...both sadly SK now] As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested: Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society. Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz. I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various "classes" beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is that it is an artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants. Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a guild, not a union, not a working craft. Why have all those "classes" that will, auto- matically, lead to internal conflict of some "better" than others? Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but many others are that way] I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for the whole band. Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this idea impracticable. |
In article , Alun
writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in : In article , Alun writes: I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others. The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century ago, altered my thinking about "radio." Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth. It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some, but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and continue was my way. I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other radio services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year I operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB transceiver, designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's company...both sadly SK now] As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested: Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society. Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz. I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various "classes" beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is that it is an artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants. Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a guild, not a union, not a working craft. Why have all those "classes" that will, auto- matically, lead to internal conflict of some "better" than others? Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but many others are that way] I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for the whole band. All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for amateur radio but adopted for that particular market. I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain how to make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10 KHz references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if they knew how a DDS works... :-) Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this idea impracticable. Those vests (of the ones in here) are over-stuffed... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com