Count Floyd CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:20 UTC, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

How about making them demonstrate competence operating five different
modes of their choice? They can choose between HF SSB, VHF/UHF FM, CW,
SSTV, fax, RTTY, packet, what have you. That way folks who want to learn
code and might use code have an advantage, but folks who can type 130 wpm
also have an advantage...

I agree with you! It is organizations like ARRL who continue to
insist on Code! Keep up with the times and test over what is current
and actually being used. I have a restored 1940 Chrysler but I also
have a 2005 PT Cruiser with A/C and all the options. I enjoy the
1940, but I would not take it on a cross-country trip.

Well, the argument is that you have to do _something_ to ensure that people
licensed are competent operators and have some usable skills. I think the
code requirement is not the best way of doing that, but it's better than
nothing. The only alternative I ever seen proposed is just that, nothing.

So, I am in favor of dropping the code requirement, IF it can be replaced
with something else that helps ensure licensed operators are competent and
skilled.
--scott

But then, I _would_ take a 1940 Chrysler cross-country.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Slow Code wrote:
Dumbing it down cheapened the license, making being a radio amateur
nothing special. No wonder they leaving.


I'll bet that most of the folks "leaving" are simply not renewing being
SK. Code is in a way a dying art quite literally. Which is a shame.

We have to face it, this hobby doesn't attract a lot of new blood and
the existing stock is rapidly growing older. The advantage to me is
that I can find old ham equipment at estate sales for next to nothing
but that's not what I'm posting about..

I don't think things are all that "unfair" with the maximum code speed
we currently test being 5 WPM. Of course that's what I got tested at
so you can charge bias if you want. I currently don't operate CW (heck,
I don't operate at all right now) but all that spectrum space in the
lower part of the bands is starting to beckon. I've got a code
practice program and I work on my code from time to time so maybe
someday...

So where do I fall in this debate? I certainly don't favor the removal
of the code requirement for all license classes. Extra's surely need
to be tested at the current 5 WPM. But the fact remains that the
interest in this hobby as shown by the decline in the number of
licenses needs some attention.

We don't need to "dumb" down the hobby to get more folks in it, but we
do need to bring the requirements into the current age. Before the
advent of the personal computer 20 years ago, it would have been very
expensive to set up an automated CW send and receive station, but now
you can do it for next to nothing. One can actually send and receive
CW without ever learning it and get transmission rates much faster than
just about anybody can copy by ear, just hook up your PC to the rig
load the software and voila, the no code licensee is sending and
receiving at 25 WPM the day after he failed the 5 WPM test.

On the other hand, you guys that struggled to get their code speed up
to 20 WPM so they could get their Extra have my respect. I understand
that lowering that requirement seems like we are dumbing down the
hobby, but I hope you can understand that like AM, CW is being replaced
by other modes that you and your generation have pioneered.

My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

May code never die, there are times it's the only option, but we have
to keep the hobby relevant or it will all go away when the hobby dies.

-= Bob =-
KC4UAI

wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't think things are all that "unfair" with the maximum code speed
we currently test being 5 WPM.

I don't think the code require is necessarily "unfair" somehow, but it does
seem awfully "arbitrary" these days. In *today's* world, it's just one mode
of many, and a rather unpopular one at that.

So where do I fall in this debate? I certainly don't favor the removal
of the code requirement for all license classes. Extra's surely need
to be tested at the current 5 WPM.

If we're going to make people show a certain commitment to amateur radio
before giving them advance privileges -- reasonable enough --, to me it seems
that the study should be of something more people are likely to use... say,
error correction coding theory, or modulator design or something. Or maybe
something even more practical such as demonstrating the ability to perform
link planning (antenna selection, power selection, etc.). I imagine one of
the reasons CW testing remains is because it is so easy to test compared to
those options.

I think I'm pretty much in agreement with you... 5 WPM is not an unreasonable
barrier to entry, and I don't particular oppose keeping it around, but I do
think it seems awfully arbitrary, and this refelcts somewhat poorly on hams as
a group trying to present themselves as modern and professional.

---Joel Kolstad

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:32:22 -0700, bob_deep wrote:


Slow Code wrote:
Dumbing it down cheapened the license, making being a radio amateur
nothing special. No wonder they leaving.


I'll bet that most of the folks "leaving" are simply not renewing being
SK. Code is in a way a dying art quite literally. Which is a shame.

We have to face it, this hobby doesn't attract a lot of new blood and the
existing stock is rapidly growing older. The advantage to me is that I
can find old ham equipment at estate sales for next to nothing but that's
not what I'm posting about..

I don't think things are all that "unfair" with the maximum code speed we
currently test being 5 WPM. Of course that's what I got tested at so you
can charge bias if you want. I currently don't operate CW (heck, I don't
operate at all right now) but all that spectrum space in the lower part of
the bands is starting to beckon. I've got a code practice program and I
work on my code from time to time so maybe someday...

So where do I fall in this debate? I certainly don't favor the removal of
the code requirement for all license classes. Extra's surely need to be
tested at the current 5 WPM. But the fact remains that the interest in
this hobby as shown by the decline in the number of licenses needs some
attention.

We don't need to "dumb" down the hobby to get more folks in it, but we do
need to bring the requirements into the current age. Before the advent of
the personal computer 20 years ago, it would have been very expensive to
set up an automated CW send and receive station, but now you can do it for
next to nothing. One can actually send and receive CW without ever
learning it and get transmission rates much faster than just about anybody
can copy by ear, just hook up your PC to the rig load the software and
voila, the no code licensee is sending and receiving at 25 WPM the day
after he failed the 5 WPM test.

On the other hand, you guys that struggled to get their code speed up to
20 WPM so they could get their Extra have my respect. I understand that
lowering that requirement seems like we are dumbing down the hobby, but I
hope you can understand that like AM, CW is being replaced by other modes
that you and your generation have pioneered.

My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to
SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

May code never die, there are times it's the only option, but we have to
keep the hobby relevant or it will all go away when the hobby dies.

-= Bob =-
KC4UAI

I was under the impression that CW would get through under worse
conditions and/or with lower power requirements than other modes.

Does no one run "flea power" anymore?

I sometimes listen in on 10 meters but don't hear much there. A bit of CW
every now and then, but not much of anything, usually. Maybe I'm listening
at the wrong times? Or is it mostly vacant and just freebanders buying the
10 meter rigs?

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:34:17 UTC, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

Count Floyd CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:20 UTC, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

How about making them demonstrate competence operating five different
modes of their choice? They can choose between HF SSB, VHF/UHF FM, CW,
SSTV, fax, RTTY, packet, what have you. That way folks who want to learn
code and might use code have an advantage, but folks who can type 130 wpm
also have an advantage...

I agree with you! It is organizations like ARRL who continue to
insist on Code! Keep up with the times and test over what is current
and actually being used. I have a restored 1940 Chrysler but I also
have a 2005 PT Cruiser with A/C and all the options. I enjoy the
1940, but I would not take it on a cross-country trip.

Well, the argument is that you have to do _something_ to ensure that people
licensed are competent operators and have some usable skills. I think the
code requirement is not the best way of doing that, but it's better than
nothing. The only alternative I ever seen proposed is just that, nothing.

So, I am in favor of dropping the code requirement, IF it can be replaced
with something else that helps ensure licensed operators are competent and
skilled.
--scott

But then, I _would_ take a 1940 Chrysler cross-country.

Scott,
I took the 1940 Royal Coupe on a mini-cross country trip here in
Florida, managed 60-65 with the overdrive, the original factory AM
radio pulling in at least 10 states, remember those days! Got about
19-21mpg with the old flathead 6, but the 2/60 A/C wasn't really up to
snuff. Once I opened the cowl vent and the vent windows turned all
the way in on us, it became tolerable. Waiting for the winter months
here in Florida to really enjoy the old car.
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

a.k.a. The Stupidest Person in The
World, wrote in message (nothing important, as usual)
///////remainig drivel flushed///////

wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very
much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters
even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of
carriers into the space of one SSB channel.

And hey, what's happening to the 500KC marine allocation? That's pretty
much dead... I wonder if the ITU could be convinced to give that to the
ham radio operators. Nobody else wants it.

May code never die, there are times it's the only option, but we have
to keep the hobby relevant or it will all go away when the hobby dies.

I don't think code ever will die, but I could see a world in which it is
even less relevant than it is today. That's not to say we shouldn't encourage
its use.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very
much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters
even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of
carriers into the space of one SSB channel.

So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be
impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with
a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without
learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear
what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.

I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.

As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however
it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new
blood is not required to learn it as well as the old.

Change is neither good or bad, it's just change.

-= Bob =-

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very
much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters
even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of
carriers into the space of one SSB channel.

So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be
impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with
a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without
learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear
what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.

I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.

As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however
it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new
blood is not required to learn it as well as the old.

Change is neither good or bad, it's just change.

-= Bob =-

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very
much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters
even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of
carriers into the space of one SSB channel.

So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be
impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with
a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without
learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear
what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.

I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.

As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however
it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new
blood is not required to learn it as well as the old.

Change is neither good or bad, it's just change.

-= Bob =-