|
Jeff Renkin wrote: CW wrote: This whole argument is pointless. The code requirement will be eliminated. No thinking person would dispute that. You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet this thread proves that people are either not thinking, or their way of thinking makes no ****ing sense. (Since the FCC says you can now use the word "****ing" on radio and TV, then we can now use it on newsgroups too.) The only reason we still have it now is international agreement. And that finally is now gone. So the real reason we have it now in the US when other countries got their act in gear and already eliminated it, is that in the US government moves really slow unless it is something unimportant like renaming french fries to freedom fries, that they can move really fast on legislating. I firmly believe that if people feel that a code requirement is necessary, that they should go ahead and require it. Right, those that want to learn the code should by all means learn it. Those that want to use microphones and don't like to use code, don't have to learn it. But what about affirmative action? Since people who didn't want to use code had to learn it all this time, perhaps now the government should make those that want to use code to learn something else they don't like before they can get licenses now. You know, just like the reverse discrimination and racism of affirmative action to make up for the past mistakes. I say if you want to use morse code on HF, you have to learn and be tested on Egyptian Hieroglyphics. You are truely an idiot. |
The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept
saying to you, if you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? Actually Jeff, you don't get the point. Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that point before you avoid it and jump to something else??? When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all across the board for every class of license, but the international agreement between countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses. Now that the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the requirement. The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove the requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of boring useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever watched C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is. Code does happen to represent a significant part of HF operation. So does voice. It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that are pertinent to the license. "Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are dealing with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die. Now, try to answer this without avoiding it.... What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? |
Jeff Renkin wrote: The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept saying to you, if you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? Actually Jeff, you don't get the point. Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that point before you avoid it and jump to something else??? When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all across the board for every class of license, but the international agreement between countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses. Now that the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the requirement. The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove the requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of boring useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever watched C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is. Code does happen to represent a significant part of HF operation. So does voice. It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that are pertinent to the license. "Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are dealing with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die. Now, try to answer this without avoiding it.... What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? What if to learn Morse code, you finally had to pull your head out of your ass Jeff? The sound would probably equal that of Krakatoa erupting! Steve Holland, MI Proficient in Morse code. |
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 "N8KDV" wrote in message ... Jeff Renkin wrote: The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept saying to you, if you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? Actually Jeff, you don't get the point. Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that point before you avoid it and jump to something else??? When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all across the board for every class of license, but the international agreement between countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses. Now that the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the requirement. The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove the requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of boring useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever watched C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is. Code does happen to represent a significant part of HF operation. So does voice. It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that are pertinent to the license. "Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are dealing with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die. Now, try to answer this without avoiding it.... What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? What if to learn Morse code, you finally had to pull your head out of your ass Jeff? The sound would probably equal that of Krakatoa erupting! Steve Holland, MI Proficient in Morse code. |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message
Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it. Nope, it doesn't. If that were the case, I would be in the same speed league as you. If you are going to take a 20 wpm test, and ditch the code upon passing the test, it might make sense, but to someone that intends to actually use the code, it does not. You would be a "one speed wonder" .. The first person that came along at 9 wpm would cause you to vapor lock. I started at -5 wpm and went up. Quickly. It sure didn't seem to hurt me, being I peaked at my limits of "clean" manual "paddle" keying. My abilty to send cleanly using a paddle determined my real world limit. Not my abilty to receive. I can't send cleanly with a paddle over about 55-60 wpm and thats pushing it to the edge. After that I get too sloppy for my tastes. Being I refuse to use a keyboard, which I hate, that was my limit. If I used the keyboard, I probably could have eventually hit 70-75-80 wpm. The dots are so fast at those speeds, even at 60, that you don't really listen for individual dots. You gauge from the length in ms of the string. It's almost a blur. To be a decent CW operator, you must gradually work through all the speeds. Your theory does not hold water. But to be expected from someone who doesn't work cw. Lowering the speed to 5 wpm was idiotic. As if that made it easier or something. Well, being many upgraded to extra in one fell swoop after they dropped speed, it must have made some difference if the rest couldn't get 13 or 20 wpm. Of course, I suspect the vast majority of those didn't really practice enough. Ever hear of the Farnsworth system? Duh... Learning the code is like learning a language, you hear the musical sounds of the letters and words, slowing it down only makes it harder. Slowing it down only makes it harder to keep track of previously sent letters, if head copying. That makes it harder to make words out of the copy. You have to copy behind a bit. But slowing it down does not make it harder to copy the characters. Trust me, for a rank beginner, it's easier to learn and pass 5 wpm, than it is to learn and pass 20 wpm. That is, unless they alter the proper timing, and leave huge gaps between letters on the test. And thats not 20 wpm any more. The farnsworth method teaches incorrect character spacing, and overall lousy timing. You learn lousy timing from day one, and that is no way to live. Not what I consider good. An *actual* 20 wpm at normal spacing will cause a beginner to vapor lock when they test, if they learned with the improperly spaced farnsworth method. The Farnsworth method is NOT a good method to use for people that intend to use the code in the real world. MK |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message
When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. In case you are not aware, the international treaty did not include VHF. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't it? But that was dropped, right? In case you are not aware, it was only dropped because international treaty did not include VHF. Next...MK |
I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in life
is only how hard was it to obtain? Why would anyone buy a Rolex when a Timex does the exact same thing an order of magnitude cheaper? The Rolex is a sign of achievement by the wearer. Those of us who worked to learn the code hate to see our Rolex turned in to a Timex by a group of people who can't afford a Rolex. I guess in a world where achievement is disdained, because it makes the under-achiever feel bad, the move is not unexpected. Fred W4JLE Ex V3CB V31GR (Hamming for over 47 years and still loving it!) "Stinger" wrote in message ... 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). |
"w4jle" W4JLE(remove this to wrote in message
Those of us who worked to learn the code hate to see our Rolex turned in to a Timex by a group of people who can't afford a Rolex. It doesn't really bother me. The only bummer part is there will be fewer and fewer CW ops in the next years. I could really care less if they drop the code tests. With 5 wpm, for all practical purposes, they already have. I just can't stand the whiners...Whine, whine, whine....Such a waste of energy, particularly being they are wasting it in the totally wrong direction. They should tell it to the fcc, not other hams, or SWL's on NG's. It's like whining about the broken cruise control in your Ford truck at a J.C. Penny's. :/ We don't have any control over it, so whining to us is a total waste of time. It makes me laugh that someone would spend so much time and energy trying to convince people that have absolutely no control over the matter. Better than the freaking comedy channel if you ask me. MK |
I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in life
is only how hard was it to obtain? Before you make such a statement, be sure to test it out by thinking first if there are any examples that blow holes through the theory as so many do. Many people would put a high value on their children, even though they were so easy to obtain, many were not even planned for. I put a high value on what I get just from sitting and doing nothing in the middle of nature, and is one of the easiest things to obtain. In fact, with many things, once the way of obtaining something is not worth the reward, no one bothers to put more effort in to something than they can get out of it. For instance, we know this is how MOST people felt about the code requirement as no one was getting licenses anymore, then when the requirement was dropped for the tech class license over a decade ago, there was a flood of new licenses, so many the FCC had a hard time keeping up with it and it took months for some to get their licenses. That is all the proof you need to prove that point. Watch again as soon as the US finally follows the other countries in officially dropping the code from their local wording the flood of applicants upgrading from Technician class directly to Extra Class in one sitting, while the code passing Generals STILL won't be able to get THEIR Extra class licenses because they can't pass the easy written multiple choice tests. Why would anyone buy a Rolex when a Timex does the exact same thing an order of magnitude cheaper? Because those people don't buy a watch so they know what time it is, they buy it to SHOW OFF and try to impress other people. Are you saying this is what people who learn the code are doing? Only an idiot pays the price of a car for a watch, when you can get a great one for under $100. If you really like the Rolex style, you can even get an exact copy for around $20 that is self winding and never needs batteries and keeps excellent time. The real question is, what kind of IDIOT spends thousands on a real Rolex when everyone is going to think it is just a fake $20 one anyway? I don't need the real one OR the fake one, my digital watch provides so much more information, like phone numbers, reminders, and all sorts of things the Rolexes can't do and for much less money. Intelligent people have a knack for reasoning things out and using common sense, something anyone who buys a Rolex is not doing. They are just throwing away a lot of money that could have been used for much better purposes. The Rolex is a sign of achievement by the wearer. Well, we know what category YOU fit in now. :) Those of us who worked to learn the code hate to see our Rolex turned in to a Timex by a group of people who can't afford a Rolex. What a **** poor analogy. How does someone else not learning code make your code learning and use of it, any less in value? See, again you are only concerned with OTHER people and not your OWN use for the code and the enjoyment you may have had learning it. Nothing is going to take that away. If I produce and build a beautiful radio with my own hands, and no one else has to build one, that doesn't take away the value of my radio to me at all. "by a group of people who CAN'T AFFORD a Rolex" This quote AGAIN shows us what type of person you are. Those that don't have rich parents like you must of had are not worth anything in life to you. We need high prices and morse code restrictions so that we can keep most of the public out of our exclusive clubs of elite snobs. God forbid that a commoner should be allowed into our hobby that didn't have to go through the "eating live goldfish" stunts first to be initiated into the jackass club at your high cost club. Again, there are many watches that do an exceptional job of keeping time for much less money, and those that foolishly waste and throw away money based on expensive name brands are idiots with no intelligence. People don't buy Bose speakers because they are good, Bose speakers SUCK! People buy them so when others LOOK at them, they will know how much money they spent (and what boobs they are that they don't know how ****ty they sound and could have gotten much better speakers for much less money! :) I guess in a world where achievement is disdained, because it makes the under-achiever feel bad, the move is not unexpected. In the old days, you didn't need to get a license to ride a horse. We didn't make licenses for cars to keep most of the public from driving a car, or pad it with worthless extra tests so that most could not pass it, but on the contrary, we make it easier for everyone (now even illegal alien criminals) to get a driver's license because the test is just so you know the rules of the road, not how to use morse code or something that you will never even use when driving. There would be no test at ALL for a driver's license if not for a few things you really do need to know before getting behind the wheel. The same thing applies to ham radio. If not for the fact that ham operators are allowed to build their own equipment and can use transmitters that are over Part 15 rules regarding output power and whatnot, there would be NO test at all!!! There is no test for CB, family service radios, or even GMRS!! Yes you need a license for GMRS, but there is no written OR code test, just send away for the license! Why? Because those people are only going to be using FCC approved equipment instead of playing around with making their own or using power outputs that are as high as what hams can use. We only need be tested on the dangers of the power we are playing with, and how to safeguard from interfering with other licensed services, and how not to kill birds and other life with our dangerous equipment. Otherwise, it would just be sending in a check and getting your ham license like with GMRS. Not knowing code doesn't seem to have anything to do with operating CB, FRS, or GMRS and it doesn't have anything to do with being able to use ham radio either. Ham radio can be used for remote control model aircraft, sending computer data, sending VIDEO pictures, and so many things that we are not tested on before getting the license. Once we have the license, if we are interested in learning one of the many areas of ham radio like using morse code, or using RC planes, we will learn them as we use them. No sense in testing EVERYONE in RC planes and Morse Code just to get the license, only the RULES and SAFETY need to be learned, the fun and games that have nothing to do with the dangers of operating RF need not be a requirement before the license is issued. You can use a morse code key incorrectly, and you won't kill anyone or cause any interference that using the code key properly wouldn't have done. But the transmitter you are using the code key with, you need to know a few things about that before turning it on and using it! We don't get tested before getting a driver's license on how to use the car to go out in the country for a picnic, or use it at a drive in movie, just the important SAFETY and RULES that go along with operating the vehicle which can be dangerous if not used properly. If there was no danger in operating a car, there would be no test, you would just pay the fee for your license. The testing is not to make it harder for people to get a driver's license!! The economy would crumble and people would not be able to get to work if there was a morse code requirement before you could get a driver's license!! And right now, in the time we can expect many more terrorist attacks on our soil (thanks to Bush) we need as many ham operators to assist in those times as they did during 9/11. The MORE hams the better! Silly worthless restrictions to keep qualified hams from helping is doing nothing more than HELPING THE TERRORISTS!! Ask any terrorist that hate the US and I am sure they will be for keeping the code requirement too! They don't want a surplus of hams being able to provide communications and aiding what they are trying to take down. The other countries are already on the ball and have dropped the code requirement, but the one country that should have been the first to do so, really seems to like endangering our lives. If not, they wouldn't keep terrorizing the middle east and getting them to retaliate on us so much. |
Jeff Renkin wrote: I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in life is only how hard was it to obtain? Before you make such a statement, be sure to test it out by thinking first if there are any examples that blow holes through the theory as so many do. Many people would put a high value on their children, even though they were so easy to obtain, many were not even planned for. I put a high value on what I get just from sitting and doing nothing in the middle of nature, and is one of the easiest things to obtain. In fact, with many things, once the way of obtaining something is not worth the reward, no one bothers to put more effort in to something than they can get out of it. For instance, we know this is how MOST people felt about the code requirement as no one was getting licenses anymore, then when the requirement was dropped for the tech class license over a decade ago, there was a flood of new licenses, so many the FCC had a hard time keeping up with it and it took months for some to get their licenses. That is all the proof you need to prove that point. Watch again as soon as the US finally follows the other countries in officially dropping the code from their local wording the flood of applicants upgrading from Technician class directly to Extra Class in one sitting, while the code passing Generals STILL won't be able to get THEIR Extra class licenses because they can't pass the easy written multiple choice tests. Why would anyone buy a Rolex when a Timex does the exact same thing an order of magnitude cheaper? Because those people don't buy a watch so they know what time it is, they buy it to SHOW OFF and try to impress other people. Are you saying this is what people who learn the code are doing? Only an idiot pays the price of a car for a watch, when you can get a great one for under $100. If you really like the Rolex style, you can even get an exact copy for around $20 that is self winding and never needs batteries and keeps excellent time. The real question is, what kind of IDIOT spends thousands on a real Rolex when everyone is going to think it is just a fake $20 one anyway? I don't need the real one OR the fake one, my digital watch provides so much more information, like phone numbers, reminders, and all sorts of things the Rolexes can't do and for much less money. Intelligent people have a knack for reasoning things out and using common sense, something anyone who buys a Rolex is not doing. They are just throwing away a lot of money that could have been used for much better purposes. The Rolex is a sign of achievement by the wearer. Well, we know what category YOU fit in now. :) Those of us who worked to learn the code hate to see our Rolex turned in to a Timex by a group of people who can't afford a Rolex. What a **** poor analogy. How does someone else not learning code make your code learning and use of it, any less in value? See, again you are only concerned with OTHER people and not your OWN use for the code and the enjoyment you may have had learning it. Nothing is going to take that away. If I produce and build a beautiful radio with my own hands, and no one else has to build one, that doesn't take away the value of my radio to me at all. "by a group of people who CAN'T AFFORD a Rolex" This quote AGAIN shows us what type of person you are. Those that don't have rich parents like you must of had are not worth anything in life to you. We need high prices and morse code restrictions so that we can keep most of the public out of our exclusive clubs of elite snobs. God forbid that a commoner should be allowed into our hobby that didn't have to go through the "eating live goldfish" stunts first to be initiated into the jackass club at your high cost club. Again, there are many watches that do an exceptional job of keeping time for much less money, and those that foolishly waste and throw away money based on expensive name brands are idiots with no intelligence. People don't buy Bose speakers because they are good, Bose speakers SUCK! People buy them so when others LOOK at them, they will know how much money they spent (and what boobs they are that they don't know how ****ty they sound and could have gotten much better speakers for much less money! :) I guess in a world where achievement is disdained, because it makes the under-achiever feel bad, the move is not unexpected. In the old days, you didn't need to get a license to ride a horse. We didn't make licenses for cars to keep most of the public from driving a car, or pad it with worthless extra tests so that most could not pass it, but on the contrary, we make it easier for everyone (now even illegal alien criminals) to get a driver's license because the test is just so you know the rules of the road, not how to use morse code or something that you will never even use when driving. There would be no test at ALL for a driver's license if not for a few things you really do need to know before getting behind the wheel. The same thing applies to ham radio. If not for the fact that ham operators are allowed to build their own equipment and can use transmitters that are over Part 15 rules regarding output power and whatnot, there would be NO test at all!!! There is no test for CB, family service radios, or even GMRS!! Yes you need a license for GMRS, but there is no written OR code test, just send away for the license! Why? Because those people are only going to be using FCC approved equipment instead of playing around with making their own or using power outputs that are as high as what hams can use. We only need be tested on the dangers of the power we are playing with, and how to safeguard from interfering with other licensed services, and how not to kill birds and other life with our dangerous equipment. Otherwise, it would just be sending in a check and getting your ham license like with GMRS. Not knowing code doesn't seem to have anything to do with operating CB, FRS, or GMRS and it doesn't have anything to do with being able to use ham radio either. Ham radio can be used for remote control model aircraft, sending computer data, sending VIDEO pictures, and so many things that we are not tested on before getting the license. Once we have the license, if we are interested in learning one of the many areas of ham radio like using morse code, or using RC planes, we will learn them as we use them. No sense in testing EVERYONE in RC planes and Morse Code just to get the license, only the RULES and SAFETY need to be learned, the fun and games that have nothing to do with the dangers of operating RF need not be a requirement before the license is issued. You can use a morse code key incorrectly, and you won't kill anyone or cause any interference that using the code key properly wouldn't have done. But the transmitter you are using the code key with, you need to know a few things about that before turning it on and using it! We don't get tested before getting a driver's license on how to use the car to go out in the country for a picnic, or use it at a drive in movie, just the important SAFETY and RULES that go along with operating the vehicle which can be dangerous if not used properly. If there was no danger in operating a car, there would be no test, you would just pay the fee for your license. The testing is not to make it harder for people to get a driver's license!! The economy would crumble and people would not be able to get to work if there was a morse code requirement before you could get a driver's license!! And right now, in the time we can expect many more terrorist attacks on our soil (thanks to Bush) we need as many ham operators to assist in those times as they did during 9/11. The MORE hams the better! Silly worthless restrictions to keep qualified hams from helping is doing nothing more than HELPING THE TERRORISTS!! Ask any terrorist that hate the US and I am sure they will be for keeping the code requirement too! They don't want a surplus of hams being able to provide communications and aiding what they are trying to take down. The other countries are already on the ball and have dropped the code requirement, but the one country that should have been the first to do so, really seems to like endangering our lives. If not, they wouldn't keep terrorizing the middle east and getting them to retaliate on us so much. Renkin, you are such an idiot! By the way, I own a real Rolex and I know the code too! LOL Stop whining and learn the code! |
I find that along with the value of my children, came a hell of a lot of
work. The rest of your stuff. quite frankly, is bafflegab. First you have no idea how "Most people felt", only the opinions of the noisy few in the conferences. The rest of your missive is based on conjecture on your part. More bafflegab... "Jeff Renkin" wrote in message ... I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in life is only how hard was it to obtain? Before you make such a statement, be sure to test it out by thinking first if there are any examples that blow holes through the theory as so many do. Many people would put a high value on their children, even though they were so easy to obtain, many were not even planned for |
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. Why? Because when you force someone to learn something, it is not an enjoyable memory or experience and you avoid it after you don't have to do it anymore. That is just human nature. How many kids forced to learn an instrument go on to play and enjoy it during adult life? Not many. But those kids that picked up a guitar and learned it because they wanted to, ended up playing it through adulthood. As soon as the code requirement is dropped in the US as it has already been done in other countries, we will see a giant wave of people upgrading to HF bands as well as people becoming hams for the first time and not having to stop after the tech class test but go straight on to Extra as many electronics engineers will be doing. Now what happens next? They are all on the HF bands trying it out, and find that a certain part of the band is reserved for morse code (as is the way it should be, no one is advocating banning morse code, just not forcing it as a requirement) and their curiosity will grow and many will want to get in on and learn it so they can participate on this part of the band too. See, in order to USE that part of the band, you DO have to learn the code! (you just don't need to learn code to use the voice part of the bands on HF) So now people will be learning the code because they WANT to, not because it is a requirement! And THAT is why you will have MORE morse code users on the HF bands than ever. I did learn the code many decades ago, again only to get the license, and in my case to operate on VHF, I didn't even want to use HF at all. But once I passed the test, I never again ever used morse code, in fact I forgot all of it except for SOS and 2 other letters. (R being one, as it is at the end of just about every 2-meter repeater id) But when the morse code requirement is finally dropped in the US like elsewhere, I will learn it again! I have been wanting to learn it again only for the sake of being able to know what they are saying in old movies and old time radio programs where you occasionally hear some morse code. I want to learn it for myself again because I want to learn it, but have not done so because of the bad taste in my mouth I get from knowing it was forced opon me when I got my ham license, and the only way I will learn it again is when it is MY wanting to, and not a government requirement that makes no sense. I already have my Extra license, (and the original was one of those that came in a nice certificate, not the crap laser printer kind you get today) so I don't need to learn the code, I want to learn it again for OTHER reasons, but I will wait until the requirement is dropped. Once it is dropped I may actually get on the CW part of the bands and join in the new flood of CW communications that will grow from the requirement being dropped and people learning and using it for their own nostalgic use of it, not because the government or elite snob ham operator told them they had to do it. I could really care less if they drop the code tests. With 5 wpm, for all practical purposes, they already have. You don't know much about code then. It is just as easy to learn it at 15 wpm than it is at 5 wpm and anyone that learns it at 5 is only hurting themselves, because then it becomes almost IMPOSSIBLE to learn it any faster after that! That is a proven fact, and why smart people learn the code using the farnsworth method. Dropping it to 5 wpm was ridiculous and just shows the FCC doesn't know anything about learning code, or they wouldn't have done this. Either keep it, or get rid of it, don't reduce it to 5 wpm, that is the most ridiculous and idiotic thing to do. I just can't stand the whiners...Whine, whine, whine... Yes, but those doing the whining are those that want to keep the requirement, even after it has already been dropped over a decade ago, and now even the world has agreed to drop it for HF. They would have done it sooner, but they had to wait for 2003 for some reason. I told people years ago it would be dropped at the 2003 conference because that is how far away they pushed off voting on this, else had they voted sooner, it would have been dropped sooner. .Such a waste of energy, particularly being they are wasting it in the totally wrong direction. They should tell it to the fcc, They don't have to tell it to anyone, it will be dropped without any effort at all. The FCC dropped the requirement over a decade ago! The HF part only stayed for international agreement, or that would have gone too way back then. It just takes the US government a long time to do something, so you just have to wait a few months, but they will get to it. So, why does anyone against the requirement need to whine? No reason as the requirement is gone. The only ones whining are those that wanted it to stay. And that whining we will have to listen to for another decade yet. We don't have any control over it, so whining to us is a total waste of time. Then why not stop? :) It makes me laugh that someone would spend so much time and energy trying to convince people that have absolutely no control over the matter. How much time did you spend joining this debate about something you have no control over? Do as you say, not as you do, eh? Better than the freaking comedy channel if you ask me. MK You can say "****ing" now, the FCC has approved the word for broadcast and children's ears so long as it is not used in a sexual description, so no reason to be self censoring ourselves anymore on newsgroups. Besides, how idiotic is it to make up a new word that means the old word as if one is so much more offensive than the other when they both mean the same thing. What a ****ing joke. ------------------------------------------------ |
When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that
include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. In case you are not aware, the international treaty did not include VHF. Don't change the subject, the point here is that you are not given code privileges with an HF license as is PROVEN by the fact that a tech class ham can also use code legally on VHF. Therefore, your statement is false. |
Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to
learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it. Nope, it doesn't. Do a search on Farnsworth Method. |
Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it.
|
I send code worse than I spell. :)
"CW" wrote in message news:Tjijb.777617$YN5.761156@sccrnsc01... Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it. |
On 15 Oct 2003, CW wrote:
I send code worse than I spell. :) "CW" wrote in message news:Tjijb.777617$YN5.761156@sccrnsc01... Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it. Bet everyone you talk too is glad it's being eliminated then huh :P -- Alex Devlin The Ham & Scanner Enthusiast Forum - http://tinyurl.com/qvl7 |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message ...
Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it. Nope, it doesn't. Do a search on Farnsworth Method. Why would I need to do that. A friend of mine actually knew and talked to the guy when he was alive. I don't need to search anything. What makes you think that your comments about learning CW hold any weight with me, if you can barely make out an SOS? Get a grip...I'm probably in the upper 90-95% bracket as far as CW users. I think I have a fairly good grip on the best methods of learning and using code. The farnsworth method is bad news to anyone that plans to actually use the code on the air. It promotes poor timing. MK |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message
Don't change the subject, the point here is that you are not given code privileges with an HF license as is PROVEN by the fact that a tech class ham can also use code legally on VHF. Therefore, your statement is false. Yea, right, it's false. Treaty included VHF and above. Right. You do need to get a grip. MK |
I can see why you may have a problem with CW, I too would abhor another
language that required me to spell... "CW" wrote in message news:Tjijb.777617$YN5.761156@sccrnsc01... Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it. |
We had to learn morse code to advance in Boy Scouts. I remember thinking we
were all pretty sharp signalling each other with flashlights at campouts. Then, our scoutmaster (who was a HAM) let us hear some of the code on his rig. Those guys were FAST. -- Stinger "Mark Keith" wrote in message om... Jeff Renkin wrote in message ... Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it. Nope, it doesn't. Do a search on Farnsworth Method. Why would I need to do that. A friend of mine actually knew and talked to the guy when he was alive. I don't need to search anything. What makes you think that your comments about learning CW hold any weight with me, if you can barely make out an SOS? Get a grip...I'm probably in the upper 90-95% bracket as far as CW users. I think I have a fairly good grip on the best methods of learning and using code. The farnsworth method is bad news to anyone that plans to actually use the code on the air. It promotes poor timing. MK |
Code will be eliminated. All the arguments in the world will not change
that. Get over it. " |
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! =----- |
Code will be eliminated. All the arguments in the world will not change
that. Get over it. Morse code is a fact of life. There are THOUSANDS that LOVE it and many are learning it right now. Deal with it. jw wb9uai |
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! =----- |
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! =----- |
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? "J999w" wrote in message ... Code will be eliminated. All the arguments in the world will not change that. Get over it. Morse code is a fact of life. There are THOUSANDS that LOVE it and many are learning it right now. Deal with it. jw wb9uai |
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! =----- |
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com