|
FCC proposes to drop CW requirement on HF
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc John Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone technology. |
Joel Rubin wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc John Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone technology. If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license. dxAce Michigan USA |
"beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce wrote: Joel Rubin wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc John Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone technology. If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license. dxAce Michigan USA Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) |
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce wrote: Joel Rubin wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc John Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone technology. If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license. dxAce Michigan USA Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? |
"MnMikew" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce wrote: Joel Rubin wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc John Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone technology. If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license. dxAce Michigan USA Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either. Learn just enough to pass and never use it again. There should be no free lunch. |
wrote in message ... "MnMikew" wrote: "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce wrote: Joel Rubin wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc John Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone technology. If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license. dxAce Michigan USA Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either. Learn just enough to pass and never use it again. There should be no free lunch. Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people out of ham radio. |
MnMikew wrote: wrote in message ... "MnMikew" wrote: "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce wrote: Joel Rubin wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc John Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone technology. If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license. dxAce Michigan USA Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either. Learn just enough to pass and never use it again. There should be no free lunch. Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people out of ham radio. The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped. If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to master that. dxAce Michigan USA |
MnMikew:
Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is true. Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or IM clients? ROFLOL! Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin John "MnMikew" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "MnMikew" wrote: "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce wrote: Joel Rubin wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc John Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone technology. If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license. dxAce Michigan USA Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either. Learn just enough to pass and never use it again. There should be no free lunch. Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people out of ham radio. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com