Rationalize? That wasn't rationalization, CW. That was observation.

I could care less about the code requirement. I just don't want the
airwaves polluted -- I'd like to see some sort of reasonably difficult
knowledge requirement for operating ham equipment.

Oh, and THAT was an opinion, CW -- not a rationalization. (And your mileage
may vary).

Don't get so caught up in the code/anticode argument that you don't think
about the big picture, okay?

-- Stinger

"CW" wrote in message
news:ynGjb.790683$Ho3.212067@sccrnsc03...
Why waste your time trying to rationalize one side or the other. The morse
requirement will be dropped. Just the way it is.


"Stinger" wrote in message
...
Actually, John, I agree with what you're saying as far as some sort of
"entrance test" idea goes. Code has served in large part in the past,
but
if it were replaced with something that required the same committment
and
education, it could be a good thing.

HF mentioned that I was repeating the "badge of honor" argument in my
earlier post. Perhaps I did paraphrase it. But that's not a refutation
of
my point -- it's what I believe. We just disagree. Let's try a
test.....

I urge anyone leaning toward supporting a policy of "If you can afford
it,
you can operate it" to listen to CB radio in any major US city. If you
haven't done this, you cannot imagine what those frequencies are like
now.

Now, ask yourself which is better for amateur radio -- a smaller
population
of dedicated hobbyists on the air, ready to assist in emergencies, or a
much
larger population of vandalistic undisciplined, disrespectful radio
operators that could **** off ham operators around the world,
frustrating
anyone that would want to take ham up as a hobby?

-- Stinger


"John S." wrote in message
om...
Said another way, hams that are willing to learn how to send and
receive morse code should be recognized for their newly attained
skill. It is equally important to recognize that those skills can
only be put to use with a gradually shrinking group of other amateur
radio operators. Morse code is no longer used in any meaningful way
by the military, in commerce or in emergency operations. It is a
skill with only limited useful application, sort of like knowing how
to use a buggywhip.

If the gatekeepers are going to reverse the declining trends in the
amateur radio hobby they are going to have to find new ways to attract
younger members. One way would be to craft an entrance test that
corresponds to the way the world is now. To provide some level of
assurance for safety and courteous operations it is necessary to have
some sort of test to become a licensed radio operator. The applicant
should be able to demonstrate a good working knowlege of radio and
electronic principles. The applicant should also be able to
demonstrate the ability to set up and operate radio equipment and show
that they have the skills to communicate effectively using voice and
digital modes on several bands from HF on up. The semi-digital very
slow morse code should not be a part of that test.

I've heard the argument that knowlege of code is needed to support
domestic emergency operations. Well, I have yet to see a recent
example of hams providing a meaningful contribution to some emergency
project. I do remember a severe carribean hurricane that resulted in
much damage. Numerous hams were trying to contribute to an H&W net,
but the babble of simultaneous voice and morse code made it all but
impossible to understand anything. Emergency operations should be
left to the professionals with the requisite communications tools and
skills needed to communicate effectively in an emergency situation.

HFguy wrote in message
...
Stinger wrote:

Bottom line, it's too bad the trend is toward dropping the
requirement.

Until now, the morse code requirement served the dual purpose as a
de
facto
"intelligence test" to get in to ham radio, and it also required
some
committment (which in turn gets hams to respect the medium).

What I think worries everyone is that without this requirement,
the
bar will
be lowered to the extent of becoming glorified Citizens Band
radio.

And that would be a shame.

-- Stinger

You're repeating the well worn 'badge of honor' justification for
requiring morse code, otherwise known as 'I had to do it, so
everyone
should.' Contrary to what many pro-coders want to believe, the
ability
to learn morse code has very little to do with higher intelligence.
In
fact it can be argued that there may be a reverse relationship. It's
not
unusual for very intelligent people to find it harder to learn
certain
skills, which are easier for those of average intelligence. Learning
morse code may be an example of this. I've known people who were
very
good at code but were lost when it came to understanding complex
subjects requiring a higher level of reasoning. IOW- the ability to
learn morse code is not a valid IQ test.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jeff Renkin wrote in message ...
It doesn't really bother me. The only bummer part is there will be
fewer and fewer CW ops in the next years.

Not once the code requirement is dropped. You will see the opposite, MORE CW
will be on the bands.

Right...When they started novices on 10m fone, the use of code on the
other HF novice bands dropped 50% overnight. When they started the no
code tech, the use dropped even farther. Like I said the other day,
whatever it is that you are using, send me some. I want to become
delusional and bark at the moon also. MK

"Stinger" wrote in message
...

[snip}


I urge anyone leaning toward supporting a policy of "If you can afford
it,
you can operate it" to listen to CB radio in any major US city. If you
haven't done this, you cannot imagine what those frequencies are like now.

Now, ask yourself which is better for amateur radio -- a smaller
population
of dedicated hobbyists on the air, ready to assist in emergencies, or a
much
larger population of vandalistic undisciplined, disrespectful radio
operators that could **** off ham operators around the world, frustrating
anyone that would want to take ham up as a hobby?

-- Stinger


CB ain't what it used to be. I haven't seen modulation bars on channel 5 in
over 10 years. Haven't heard a CBer on the AM radio in almost 20. There
used to be traffic on all 40 channels, and then some. Tuned by a few days
ago, and maybe four channels were audible. Now it sounds mostly like
truckers and a few retired guys who still like to whistle into the mike.

There used to be alot of kids on CB. I guess they're using cheap cell
phones now. And kids don't seem to have the same interest in component
level electronics and radio that kids did 30 years ago. Can't blame 'em.
Consumer electronics are cheap, usually not worth fixing, and made offshore
now. A smart kid may prefer to develop an interest in the law or medicine,
rather than electronics, the way the economy looks.

I don't see how the unregulated world of CB radio bolsters either side of
the code debate. I don't think there's vast horde of disrespectful radio
vandals waiting for the new Okalahoma land rush of ham radio frequencies,
once the code requirement is dropped. I'm not sure disrespectful radio
vandals would pay much attention to licensing requriements, anyway. But, I
don't think there's a large group of people who would be good hams if only
the code requirement were dropped.

Maybe it's still like 1978 in other parts of the country. It's not here.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
I don't see how the unregulated world of CB radio bolsters either side of
the code debate. I don't think there's vast horde of disrespectful radio
vandals waiting for the new Okalahoma land rush of ham radio frequencies,
once the code requirement is dropped. I'm not sure disrespectful radio
vandals would pay much attention to licensing requriements, anyway. But,
I
don't think there's a large group of people who would be good hams if only
the code requirement were dropped.


You should tune in a 2m repeater in any city of over 100,000.... sounds very
much like CB did 20 odd years ago... :(

This is more a reflection of society in general than anything else.


"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

You should tune in a 2m repeater in any city of over 100,000.... sounds
very
much like CB did 20 odd years ago... :(

Stinger wrote:

Actually, John, I agree with what you're saying as far as some sort of
"entrance test" idea goes. Code has served in large part in the past, but
if it were replaced with something that required the same committment and
education, it could be a good thing.

HF mentioned that I was repeating the "badge of honor" argument in my
earlier post. Perhaps I did paraphrase it. But that's not a refutation of
my point -- it's what I believe. We just disagree. Let's try a test.....

I urge anyone leaning toward supporting a policy of "If you can afford it,
you can operate it" to listen to CB radio in any major US city. If you
haven't done this, you cannot imagine what those frequencies are like now.

Now, ask yourself which is better for amateur radio -- a smaller population
of dedicated hobbyists on the air, ready to assist in emergencies, or a much
larger population of vandalistic undisciplined, disrespectful radio
operators that could **** off ham operators around the world, frustrating
anyone that would want to take ham up as a hobby?

-- Stinger

If the goal is to 'weed out' the undesirables, increasing the knowledge
base of the technical test(s) would be a more useful gatekeeper than
learning morse code. Knowing more about the technical aspects of the
hobby might also encourage more construction and experimentation, which
is (was) the primary reason why amateur radio was created.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Not quite correct. Amateur radio was around before commercial or military
radio. When the government finally got in on it, the amature licensing rules
and qualifications were put in place to ensure that those on the air new
what they were doing. At the time, most equipment was home made due to the
unavailability of anything commercial and they wanted to ensure that
armatures would know enough not to interfere with others and not kill
themselves in the process. Remember spark gap? Could be very user
unfriendly.
"starman" wrote in message
...

If the goal is to 'weed out' the undesirables, increasing the knowledge
base of the technical test(s) would be a more useful gatekeeper than
learning morse code. Knowing more about the technical aspects of the
hobby might also encourage more construction and experimentation, which
is (was) the primary reason why amateur radio was created.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"CW" wrote in message
news:aaNjb.791973$YN5.789906@sccrnsc01...
Not quite correct. Amateur radio was around before commercial or military
radio. When the government finally got in on it, the amature licensing
rules
and qualifications were put in place to ensure that those on the air new
what they were doing. At the time, most equipment was home made due to the
unavailability of anything commercial and they wanted to ensure that
armatures would know enough not to interfere with others and not kill
themselves in the process. Remember spark gap? Could be very user
unfriendly.
"starman" wrote in message
...

If the goal is to 'weed out' the undesirables, increasing the knowledge
base of the technical test(s) would be a more useful gatekeeper than
learning morse code. Knowing more about the technical aspects of the
hobby might also encourage more construction and experimentation, which
is (was) the primary reason why amateur radio was created.

Actually, both of you are partially correct. Amateur radio has been around
since radio was invented pretty much. What is now the commercial AM
broadcast band was once amateur radio frequencies. The old ship to shore
stuff was largely in the LW bands (spark gap, and later keyed-carrier CW).
The "higher frequencies" were considered worthless. But as amateur
experimentation continued, and it was found that higher frequencies could be
very useful, the government (and international treaties) gradually
reassigned those frequencies to other services. The amateurs were allowed
to keep slivers of MW and SW bands for their continued use, and reasonably
large sections of VHF and UHF bands. Much of the SHF bands (microwave) is
still open to amateur use. I believe that pretty much everything above 1
terrahertz (1000 gigahertz) is amateur frequencies.. until they figure out
how to effectively use them..

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


You should tune in a 2m repeater in any city of over 100,000.... sounds
very
much like CB did 20 odd years ago... :(




OK, I don't listen to hams very often, and I haven't tuned in 2 meters in a
couple of years. At that time, the hams were all well behaved.

I can respect either side of the code debate. But I don't see the same
interest in radio technology that was around 25 years ago. And I'm not sure
there's any large group of people interested in the ham bands who need to be
managed one way or the other.

Frank Dresser

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

I can take either side in the code debate... but I think it's a mistake to
do away with it entirely, because there are certain circumstances where
code
is the only way to get through.


I'm sure code would still be allowed, even if the licensing requirement was
dropped. Since there seems to be enough room to expand the SW broadcast
bands, maybe the ham bands could be expanded to give the code capable hams
more of their own bandwidth.



What I DO think, though, is that they need to get rid of the question
pools,
and make books on those pools illegal. Make people actually STUDY to
learn
the law and theory, instead of memorizing a bunch of questions. If there
were those sorts of books around when I got my license, I sure never saw
one
(of course, I was too cheap to have bought one even if I knew they
existed... since I was a youngster with little to no money... good thing
that the testing at the time was free..) As far as I am concerned,
studying
the question pool is cheating... the same as using a calculator in math
class.. what's up with that, anyway??




Well, people are free to ask questions and print the answers to those
questions. Unless the FCC exam can be treated like a state secret. But I
don't see much of a practical problem. Are there really that many
unqualified hams out there? I listen from time to time on SW, and they
generally seem do what they do pretty well. I suppose there's problem
operators out there, but are they problem operators because they don't know
the code or radio technology or just because they have problematical
personalities? Does the FCC administer "jerk tests"?

Frank Dresser