Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a
morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has
never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF
phone.....

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
homebrewing to use manufactured radio sets.

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
voice modes to use Morse Code and data modes.

Apples vs oranges. No other mode requires a "skill"
test which is exactly what the current CW test is...a skill
test.

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on the
limits of VHF/UHF ham bands to operate on the HF/MF ham bands.

Ditto my last

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on RF
exposure and electrical safety to use low power battery-operated rigs.

Ditto my last

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
transistors and ICs to use vacuum tube rigs.

Ditto my last

Etc.

Suppose someone wanted to operate a low-power Morse Code amateur radio
transceiver on 7020 kHz. Just a simple 50 watt transceiver and dipole
antenna, with key and speaker.

To operate legally, such a person would need an Extra class license,
which requires passing tests that include all sorts of stuff that is
unnecessary for the legal and correct operation of the above station.

But not one of those subject areas stands alone as a pass/fail
gate as does the CW test. THAT is the difference. You
want some questions added to the pool regarding morse
as a mode, no problem. That is, however, not the same as
having a single stand-alone morse profficiency test.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed" with a slow typist there?

It sucks, yes, I would allow for having one come up to speed before using
IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed. That same
system would work well for Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a
"newbie frequency" until they get up to speed and have range of the whole
cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me!

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"John Smith"
wrote in message
news
Bill:
Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed"
with a slow typist there?

Sure. No problem. It still worked.

It sucks, yes,

No, that's your opinion only.

I would allow for having one come up to speed before using
IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed.

I don't think the FCC has domain over internet. Who'd enforce
your rule/requirement?

That same system would work well for
Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a
"newbie frequency" until they get up to
speed and have range of the whole
cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me!

Have you found the CW segments of HF heavily
populated with very slow operators? Doesn't
seem to be any problem today.

Do you expect that
to change if the code test is ended completely?

What you (John) suggest happens by default now.
While there are no "newbie frequencies"
(although the novice segments could be viewed in
that light), in reality, no one, including yourself, is
forced or required to engage with another ham
who operates code (or keboard) at a speed
that is too slow for your liking. The choice
is yours. No pretest needed.

Additionally, having passed a test in no way
guarantees continued profficiency. I passed
13 wpm over 10 years and haven't use code
in probably 8 years or so. You'd probably not want to
have a CW QSO with me now :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
---------

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF,
and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps
they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

Sounds like there is no problem then, let the "key bangers" hold to their
own "key banger club", I don't think the new cb'ers on phone are going to
bother them. If there are happy with their numbers on key, great! Seems
like you won't mind any cb'ers which might like to try a key and head over
towards you at 1wpm, good luck!

Sounds to me like the whole problem is just an imagined one! Can't
imagine why some jerk ever even mentioned some problem, damn fool!

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:32:52 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


"John Smith"
wrote in message
news
Bill:
Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed"
with a slow typist there?

Sure. No problem. It still worked.

It sucks, yes,

No, that's your opinion only.

I would allow for having one come up to speed before using
IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed.

I don't think the FCC has domain over internet. Who'd enforce
your rule/requirement?

That same system would work well for
Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a
"newbie frequency" until they get up to
speed and have range of the whole
cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me!

Have you found the CW segments of HF heavily
populated with very slow operators? Doesn't
seem to be any problem today.

Do you expect that
to change if the code test is ended completely?

What you (John) suggest happens by default now.
While there are no "newbie frequencies"
(although the novice segments could be viewed in
that light), in reality, no one, including yourself, is
forced or required to engage with another ham
who operates code (or keboard) at a speed
that is too slow for your liking. The choice
is yours. No pretest needed.

Additionally, having passed a test in no way
guarantees continued profficiency. I passed
13 wpm over 10 years and haven't use code
in probably 8 years or so. You'd probably not want to
have a CW QSO with me now :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
---------

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF,
and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps
they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

Additionally, having passed a test in no way
guarantees continued profficiency. I passed
13 wpm over 10 years and haven't use code
in probably 8 years or so. You'd probably not want to
have a CW QSO with me now :-)

And yet we'll wait hours or even days for a reply to a NG post. This
form of communicating has to be about the slowest.

73 Bill,
Jeff KH6O


--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

On 7 Aug 2005 05:19:31 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

Additionally, having passed a test in no way
guarantees continued profficiency. I passed
13 wpm over 10 years and haven't use code
in probably 8 years or so. You'd probably not want to
have a CW QSO with me now :-)

And yet we'll wait hours or even days for a reply to a NG post. This
form of communicating has to be about the slowest.

73 Bill,
Jeff KH6O

Two words: Snail mail.

Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to
ever build anything?


Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.

*Why* should there be any testing?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Like, what size soldering iron would you need to replace most SMC
components? Or, what card would you replace in your receiver if the audio
goes out? Or, if you are going to operate a webcam what card supplies the
video to the monitor? Or, what card in your computer supplies the
audio to the xmitter card? Etc... I mean get real, radio is about to
become PCI and USB cards you add to you computer. I still see linears
(higher than say 20 watts) at external, and feedline and antennas are
something an avg amateur will work with...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:32:19 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to
ever build anything?


Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.

*Why* should there be any testing?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to
use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever
build anything?

Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.

Not so. Part 97 gives reasons AND, the international treaty
still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated
mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge
of radio, etc.

*Why* should there be any testing?

If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file
your comments with the FCC accordingly.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK