"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
Are there really that many
unqualified hams out there?

There are a lot of them that are technically unqualified. I see such
questions in the ham NG's as "Can I run my mobile radio as a portable with a
battery?" or "How do I set the SWR on my antenna?" The latter is something
even most CB'ers know how to do... sure makes a ham look bad.. :(

That's fine with me. I'll just continue to ignore them. Beginning here
shortly, everyone will have the same option as testing for code will no
longer happen. ****es you off, doesn't it?


Not in the least.

I'll give you one guess where I do 99% of my operating, and there's no shortage
of folks to talk to !

:^]

The only time you'll find me in the phone band is during a contest, so it's 59
see 'ya later, who's next?

jw
wb9uai
dit dit !!

I think we agree, the issue isn't whether there should be a test. The
real question is what skills should the test validate and why. I don't
think that there is a test around that will keep the CB crowd and
other riffraff out of the ham bands. A tour below 4mhz in the evening
or tuning in to certain frequencies above 14mhz shows that code is
pretty much a failure in that regard. I think if the test is focused
on skills that are needed to operate safely and effectively today that
we have the best chance of attracting new blood to the hobby.

At the abstract level, the test should be stringent. But once passed
the license holder should have access to all bands allocated to radio
amateurs.

I said it once, but it is worth repeating. The point in time where
amateur radio operators can contribute something to emergency
communications has passed. From what I have heard during hurricane
season they seem to get in one anothers way more than anything else.
It would be nice to think that a cadre of amateur radio operators with
key in hand are at the ready to help in a natural disaster. The
reality is somehting different. It is best to think of amateur radio
as somehting that interested hobbyists can engage in if they can prove
it can be done safely and courteously.

"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! =-----

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


There are a lot of them that are technically unqualified. I see such
questions in the ham NG's as "Can I run my mobile radio as a portable with
a
battery?" or "How do I set the SWR on my antenna?" The latter is something
even most CB'ers know how to do... sure makes a ham look bad.. :(




If they look bad, it's mostly other hams who are doing the looking. I don't
listen in very often, and I think I'm typical of non-ham SWLs. The general
public hardly knows ham radio exists.

Anyway, I think there's a difference between being technically ignorant and
a jerk. Consider driving. A person could be an excellent driver without
knowing how to change their spark plugs. Knowing how to shift a manual
transmission or rebuild an engine isn't much evidence that the person isn't
a maniac or half blind.

If somebody needs some on the air guidance on the basics, I think that is
half a problem, at worst. That somebody is at least interested in radio,
which is increasingly rare.

I'm not a ham, and I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on the
code debate. Both sides want to protect their part of the radio hobby. But
I think disinterest is the real threat.

Frank Dresser

You make a good point...ham radio was once the only way citizens had
to communicate over great distances without a telephone. Post WWII
there was a crush of vets with radio skills to populate the hobby, and
the 50's were probably it's heyday. Because amateur radio had no
competition the ham community could get away with doling out certain
portions of the amateur radio spectrum to the speediest morse code
operators.

Unfortunately for the hobby the world has changed and we now have
several other less restrictive ways of communicating. First CB radio
opened the door just a crack to show what was possible at a minimal
cost. Next came PC based BBSes and dialup information services to
show we could communicate 'round the world with no antenna or license
needed. And of course there was the cell phone invasion which for
most people looks and works very much like a 2 meter HT. And now we
have all manner of ways of communicating and otherwise hearing the
world instantly via the internet. And a license is not required for
any of these amateur radio alternatives.

So the real question for the gatekeepers of the radio hobby is how to
make it interesting to all the post WWII generations. They are
proficient at designing tests that prove mastery of skills that are no
longer of much use. The ARRL and the FCC and all the other radio
gatekeepers really need to reinvent this whole testing and licensing
process. Unfortunately I think they will continue to fiddle around
the edges. I'm not encouraged when I read that they are asking for
comment on whether the morse code restriction should be modified for
certain small portions of the spectrum. It means the licensed hams
through the ARRL and the FCC are going to continue to do business as
usual and watch the age of the average ham creep up inexorably.

(Mark Keith) wrote in message . com...
(John S.) wrote in message

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.

It will never happen, and has nothing to do with the code tests, or
anything else. Ham radio is getting to be old hat, and fairly boring.
It will NEVER see the glory days it once did. Dropping the code tests
will not have a bit of effect on that. They sure haven't so far. You
see a quick rush at first, but most get bored and slowly fade out.
Being mainly a highly technical hobby, it was never meant to be for
everyone. And I have no problems with that. When I can do a highly
accurate simulation of flying a B737, or Lear 31a, or about anything
else you want to fly, on my computer, talking to people on radio, that
was invented 100 years ago, starts to look fairly boring. Being I've
been a licensed ham 26 years, and a SWL since I was 7, I'm about
burned out on it anyway. I built my first 40m transmitter when I was
in the 8th grade. To me, it feels like I've been a ham nearly all my
life, and I'm not 50 yet. Just flight simulation alone has greatly
diminished the amount of time I spend on amateur radio. And it's been
that way since 1992. MK

"Jeff Renkin" wrote in message
...

Try to send an email with handwriting on a piece of paper. Perhaps you
should post to these groups with handwriting too.


Try to send a court summons and a multitude of other legal documents via
email. Both methods of communication have their place.

Wow, what bull**** talk. It is the people who find code so easy to
learn
that have the problems with the theory and technical stuff, so they can't
design
or invent anything. And so many of the engineers that do design the
technology we use, are not allowed to operate hobby ham radios on certain
frequencies because they don't know morse code. Human society is a
joke.


Your denial of the fact that advances in radio digital technology was due to
code users is silly. It's a documented fact.

Complex infrastructures should always be backed up by
simple basic methods.

Yes, but talking into a microphone is the most simple basic method we have
in
radio, using complex codes is what no one needs to know.

For the last time......

The military, police, fire, paramedics, etc. all do NOT learn or use morse
code.

It has no use, even for back up or emergencies, or they would be using it.

The military does continue to use it under some conditions.

The police, fire, paramedics are operating local communications only so
their requirements are quite different. VHF frequencies are more than
sufficient for their needs.

Your arguments simply demonstrate your lack of knowledge about operating on
the HF frequencies.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I never said all I wish to communicate is a mere 20 or 30 miles.... you did.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Well if all you are concerned about is communicating a mere 20 or 30 miles
and only care about US, that is your prerogative but even in the mainland
of
the US, it is possible for a hurricane or earthquake to knock everything
out
in larger areas than that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Ryan wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
What are you going to use when HF propagation
is too weak to support voice???

1. Change frequency. (snip)

If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what
frequency would you suggest changing? (snip)

(snip) But if propagation is poor, voice may not be
intelligible yet CW will often come through quite
clearly under those conditions.


Nonsense, Dee. I've never, ever, saw HF messed up enough not to support
voice on at least some frequency. Regardless, if HF was truly somehow messed
up that badly (enough not to support voice on any frequency), CW probably
wouldn't get through either (CW doesn't get through that much better).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mark Keith" wrote:
Jeff Renkin wrote:

The International Maritime Organization (snip)

FOR COMMERCIAL VESSELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So that answer would be, the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System.

Right...A guy on a 20 ft sailboat is going to buy a
system that costs more than his boat...Good
grief....Get a grip. (snip)


Inexpensive Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) units,
Inmarsat, and other relatively low cost emergency related systems are
available for recreational boaters. EPIRB's can be found in boating catalogs
selling marine electronics and information about Inmarsat can be found on
the web (and at many retail locations). SSB marine radio equipment has a
typical range of several hundred miles. Boaters with VHF can also seek
assistance from nearby marine vessels, including Coast Guard, Navy,
commercial, and private, vessels. The Coast Guard recommends a combination
of these for those heading far off shore (VHF, SSB, and EPIRB, for example).
CW is not recommended for emergency use today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Doesn't matter ... CW (morse) is FUN !!!

It's all good !

jw
wb9uai