the sky is falling oh my oh my--no code, no steam engines, no dials on
phones, no steamships, no reheating the leftovers in the oven, no cloth
diapers, and they even have taken the cranks off the fronts of the cars
(how will we start them)

wrote in news:1166369273.864290.176050
@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

the sky is falling oh my oh my--no code, no steam engines, no dials on
phones, no steamships, no reheating the leftovers in the oven, no cloth
diapers, and they even have taken the cranks off the fronts of the cars
(how will we start them)


You missed the point entirely. While making things easier is a great
vision, there comes a point when making something to easy to perform
will in the long term make something more difficult.

No matter how much bandwidth the FCC provides, there is only a limited
amount. Think of it as the highway that will never expand but the total
amount of traffic does.

Given the projected reports on how many stations will upgrade to HF
equipment combined with an inundation of new licensees whose only
intentions are to operate under 30mhz and you have a formula for a
frequency pileup.

The lack of cw knowledge reduces the ability of an operator to function
especially in times of an emergency. Propagation beacons use cw to
identify themselves as well as beacons used in aviation. The point here
being, how will you positively know your listening to the correct beacon
if you can't read the id. Digital stations such as pactor, packet, amtor
and the like can if initiated identify themselves with cw in place of a
digital transmission.

No, the FCC blew this big time. They didn't take into account all the
facets of HF operation that operators use to comply with local and
international regulations. A non-code HF operator will not have the
ability to detect or determine the seriousness of emergency cw calls
should one incur.

Those stations that have the ability to detect them may have a problem
requesting a standby from other stations operating near a distress
frequency.

Since my initial licensing in 1991 I have only heard two distress calls
using cw. Both were handled by other stations, but again, the point here
being that this situation does periodically exist and as a consequence of
our licensing, all radio operators should be capable of providing
assistance when it is required without any allowances for a lack of
common sense, knowledge or ability.

Last but not least, I feel it is just wrong to eliminate a testing phase
that has been in existence for many years, allowed tens of thousands
people nationally and millions worldwide the pleasure of amateur radio
because less than one half of one percent of them say cw is to difficult.

73 de N9LCP - Marc

Please folks, do not reply to these off topic posts.

If these idiots never get any replies, they will eventually give up
and go away.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT

because less than one half of one percent of them say cw is to difficult.

73 de N9LCP - Marc


Where did you ever get this number from ?

So your reply is somehow 'special'? Why do you not practice your own
recommendation?


"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
Please folks, do not reply to these off topic posts.

If these idiots never get any replies, they will eventually give up
and go away.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT

Ron wrote in :

because less than one half of one percent of them say cw is to
difficult.

73 de N9LCP - Marc


Where did you ever get this number from ?



Applying some diligence. I don't keep spreadsheets or records.
The question itself regarding the elimination of cw has been
an active topic for many years.

Do some research among people who "HAD" to take the test since the
inception of the no-code tech license.

I was amazed to find among those people who "HAD" to take the test that
perhaps 1 in 250 criticized cw as a dinosaur that should of died years
ago. By their own admission, they felt "annoyed" taking the cw test as
they believed cw had no useful purpose.

Opinions expressed were wide and varied. However, one opinion that stood
out from the rest was the speed qualifications. Most thought the minimum
speeds presently associated with a class of license were not fair.

Some thought as an example, speeds of 3 for Novice, 5 for Tech, 7 for
General, 10 for Advanced and 13 for Extra were more appropriate.

I'm sure if you conducted a poll breaking the responses down into
categories such as type of license, how often they use cw and for what
purpose, you'll come up with numbers all over the place.

The reasons I stated for not eliminating cw are entirely my own.

Marc

"Zommbee" wrote in
:

So your reply is somehow 'special'? Why do you not practice your own
recommendation?


"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
Please folks, do not reply to these off topic posts.

If these idiots never get any replies, they will eventually give up
and go away.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT




That's gonna leave a bruise!