"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

Bill Sohl wrote:
"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.

however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory
burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there are
examples of this already in some countries.


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

Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden
and eliminate the barriers?


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

There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including
ours have worked their way around the rules.

I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed
affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This
would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination.


*Why* should there be any testing?


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

I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now,
Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of
elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the
testing requirements. If not, I am now.

I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools
available to people who feel otherwise.

- Mike KB3EIA -