About Us

October 25th 05, 10:44 PM

wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005 10:03:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
minute, not our easy 5.

It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.

That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.

Not in every country of the world.

But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course
that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few
other countries pf the world.

might change?

Yes.

you still holding hope it will not change

Is that not allowed?

the only question is the date

It's not over till it's over.

The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement.

Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991.

The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-)

The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams
complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class
of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late
1992 or so.

Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-)

Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.

Riiiiiiight...

Glad you agree!

ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities!

Who said that?

I wrote:

"Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods."

Is that not a fact?

not it is not

it can be flat out impossible

You're right, Mark. It can be impossible
for some people.

For example, someone who doesn't know an alphabet probably
can't learn Morse Code for that alphabet. Someone who is in
a coma probably can't learn it either. Etc.

But I find it hard to accept that people who can read, write,
speak and understand the English language with a good deal of
fluency at rates in excess of 100 wpm find claim it to be
'impossible' for them to learn Morse Code at 5 wpm. Or even 13
or 20 wpm.

cut

Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain
limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of
very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if
you consider upper and lower sideband as separate).

not legaly premitted
but it can and is done at greater ranges with out even the intetion of
thse involved at times
cut

Sure. But the point is that cb is not a long-distance radio service.

Should amateur radio be patterned after cb?

October 29th 05, 12:02 AM

wrote:
wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005 10:03:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
minute, not our easy 5.

It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.

That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.

Not in every country of the world.

But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course
that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few
other countries pf the world.

might change?

Yes.

you still holding hope it will not change

Is that not allowed?

no such implication was made

the only question is the date

It's not over till it's over.

thankfully that is bull

The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement.

Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991.

The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-)

The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams
complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class
of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late
1992 or so.

Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-)

Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.

Riiiiiiight...

Glad you agree!

ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities!

Who said that?

I wrote:

"Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods."

Is that not a fact?

not it is not

it can be flat out impossible

You're right, Mark. It can be impossible
for some people.

meaning your statement was not a fact

For example, someone who doesn't know an alphabet probably
can't learn Morse Code for that alphabet. Someone who is in
a coma probably can't learn it either. Etc.

But I find it hard to accept that people who can read, write,
speak and understand the English language with a good deal of
fluency at rates in excess of 100 wpm find claim it to be
'impossible' for them to learn Morse Code at 5 wpm. Or even 13
or 20 wpm.

who are you talikgn about there? No one I have ever heard of

cut

Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain
limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of
very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if
you consider upper and lower sideband as separate).

not legaly premitted
but it can and is done at greater ranges with out even the intetion of
thse involved at times
cut

Sure. But the point is that cb is not a long-distance radio service.

not my point

Should amateur radio be patterned after cb?

never said that

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Docket 05-235 Scorecard	[email protected]	Policy	83	September 7th 05 05:32 PM
Stonewalling on WT Docket 05-235?	[email protected]	Policy	13	September 6th 05 01:13 AM
Stonewalling WT Docket 05-235?	[email protected]	Policy	2	August 31st 05 09:10 PM
Status of WT Docket 05-235	[email protected]	Policy	7	August 2nd 05 11:37 PM
WT Docket 04-140	Billy Preston	Digital	0	July 22nd 04 09:15 AM

Menu

About Us