Matt wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...
Having no interest in the mode is not a valid reason for dropping
it from
testing. There are rational reasons for dropping it (just as there
are
equally rational reasons for keeping it) but having no interest in
the
mode
is not one of them. That same argument could be applied to every
test
question and test element since there is sure to be at least one
person
who
has no interest in that question and/or element for every item on
the
test.

I've never operated satellite and never intend to and have no
interest in
ever doing so. Yet I had to answer questions on it. Do I think it
should
be taken out of the test? No, because it is something allowed by
my
privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

As I understand it, the reason for the requirement to display
proficiency in
CW stemmed from times in the ancient past where CW was the primary
(if not
the only) option for communicating, and there was also the
requirement that
we be proficient so that we could understand emergency traffic and
pass it
on / respond to it.

Those were a couple of reasons - but there are others.

The CW emergency freqs (i.e. 500 KHz) are no longer
used or monitored by the vast majority (is not all) of the emergency
groups
(i.e. Coastguard) and CW is not really used by many people or
organisations
outside of the amateur community.

That's true - but hams were not allowed on those frequencies anyway.

There is really no valid reason for the retention of CW as a
mandatory
requirement for HF access

Many people agree - but others disagree. What constitutes a valid
reason depends entirely on personal opinion.

For example, Morse code is widely used in the amateur radio service. On
HF it is secondary only to SSB in popularity, and not by much of a
margin. That popularity alone, IMHO, is a valid reason to keep at least
a basic Morse Code test.

- many countries around the world have removed it

How many? Most of the countries have retained the test so far,
including Japan, which has had a QRP nocodetest HF ham license for
decades.

and surprisingly enough, now that it is no longer a requirement,
there is
apparently a resurgence of interest in the mode (here in VK for one).
If
you want to keep on using it, feel free, but please don't force
others to
learn a mode that is no longet essential, and indeed only barely
relevant.

Then delete most of the written test too, because most of it is
arguably less relevant.

Here in VK we removed the CW requirement for HF access just over a
year ago
and while the bands are only slightly more active, there hasn't been
the
flood of moronic operators that were being forecasted.

So there really hasn't been much change.

P.S. if I use some of the digital data modes, I can send and receive
100%
copy when CW cannot even be heard - go digital modes.
How popular are those digital modes?

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think the proper analogy would be to test applicants on how to
drive a
buggy or ride a horse to get a drivers license. There are plenty of
people who enjoy these equine hobbies, but they have little to do
with
driving a car. Of course, in an emergency, when no gasoline is
available
or the roads are washed out, those on horseback will have an
advantage
and save the day, but it would be foolish to restrict millions of
potential drivers because they realize it would be STUPID to make
them
learn to ride a horse!

Not a valid analogy at all. Try this one:

It's more like requiring all applicants to learn to drive stick shift
(manual transmission) cars, even if they only intend to drive automatic
transmission cars."

Of course the test in the USA basically equates to being able to get
the car moving, into second gear and back to a stop without stalling
out too many times, but it's still there.


I learned the code to get my general and haven't used it since. I did

it, but for me, it was an enormous waste of time.

How many technical subjects did you learn for that test which you have
never used since? Should they also be eliminated?

Another apt analogy is that code is a form of hazing to join the
fraternity of hams. Maybe we should carve our callsigns into paddles
and
whack all prospective hams until they copy 20 wpm.

Not at all.

After WWII, there was a huge pool of of veteran radio operators who
knew
and loved the code for what it was, the best and most reliable mode
OF
ITS TIME. Sadly these pioneers are dying out, but their legacy
persists.

Is something bad just because it is old?

Most hams I have met did not learn the code in the military - they
learned it in ham radio. And Morse Code use is alive and well in ham
radio.

Prospective hams are allowed to use newfangled calculators on their

exams. Shouldn't we demand that they use sliderules?

There's no math on the current exams that even requires a calculator.

If you are worried about our CB good buddies taking over the bands,
tune
into the 80 Meter band any evening. They are already there yammering
about their "legal limit" amps. That battle has already been lost.

Not on 80 meters. On 75 meters, maybe, but not 80. Believe it or not,
Part 97 lists them separately!

Note that what you describe isn't happening on CW.

As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR
anymore!

So why should there even be a written test?

I could buy and drive and repair an old VW like I did for so many
years, but I've grown up and actually enjoy my 21st century ride! My
wife owns, rides, and maintains a beautiful horse, but when we need a

half gallon of milk, she doesn't saddle up and ride into town. She
gets
into our 21st Century car and DRIVES to the store.

Sounds like you're saying that there should be no requirements at all.

The arrow of time points in one direction. The clock ticks. So what
is
it going to be? Buggywhips or PSK? While we argue over buggywhips the

FCC will take back the hambands or destroy them with BPL.
How will dropping the code test defend against BPL?

73 de Jim, N2EY

jakdedert wrote:
whoever wrote:
jakdedert wrote:

IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how
to

I think it would be more like knowing how to change a tire to get a
drivers license!

NIMO...in an emergency, one might actually 'have' to change a tire.

Yet there's no test for it, and if the spare is flat you're out of
luck.

They'll
never HAVE to reupholster the seats. They might 'want' to, and learn
how,
but I can't imagine it ever being required.

How about requiring everyone to know how to drive stick shift, even if
they never intend to? In an emergency, a manual transmission vehicle
might be the only one available...

If one just learns enough code to pass the test, it's doubtful
they'll
remember enough to communicate a year later...even in an emergency.

Same is true of many subjects. How much of what was learned in high
school does the average person remember, outside of things that are in
their chosen field of work?

----

What's happening in Canada is simply this: A survey was done and then a
proposal. In both cases, there was clear majority support to end
*mandatory* code testing for a ham license.

But when such surveys and proposals are done here in the USA, there is
no clear majority to end the code test.

However, there's a big difference:

IIRC, the RAC would *raise* the written requirements, and allow a
prospective ham to skip the code test if they scored high enough on the
written.

That's a concept that hasn't been discussed much, if at all, outside of
Canada. Imagine such a system in the USA: Perhaps we could have it that
if you get a 90 or better on your General, you can skip Element 1. Or
maybe create a new written test that could be taken *instead of*
Element 1, and let the new ham decide which test to take - code, or the
additional written.

Could we all live with that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

While this argument has been running amok for many years and probably
will for many more, it will never come to a conclusion that will please
everyone.
I, personally, would like to see the code requirement dropped, but I do
see the point of the "old-timers" that the requirement helps to keep out the
"less-desireable" people. I am still studying the code, so that I can pass
it, whether the requirement is dropped or not.
However, for the people that would like to see all the requirements
dropped, so that they can have their license with no effort, there is
already a class for them...CB and GMRS. Through CB, they have HF and unless
they make themselves a major nuisance, they can do almost anything they
want. With GMRS, they can have fun in the UHF band and even use repeaters
and some of the other electronic "toys."
Just my two cents.

Guy P. Distaffen

KB0SWS


wrote in message
oups.com...
snip
As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR
anymore!

So why should there even be a written test?
snip

wrote:


What's happening in Canada is simply this: A survey was done and then a
proposal. In both cases, there was clear majority support to end
*mandatory* code testing for a ham license.

But when such surveys and proposals are done here in the USA, there is
no clear majority to end the code test.

However, there's a big difference:

IIRC, the RAC would *raise* the written requirements, and allow a
prospective ham to skip the code test if they scored high enough on the
written.

That's a concept that hasn't been discussed much, if at all, outside of
Canada. Imagine such a system in the USA: Perhaps we could have it that
if you get a 90 or better on your General, you can skip Element 1. Or
maybe create a new written test that could be taken *instead of*
Element 1, and let the new ham decide which test to take - code, or the
additional written.

Could we all live with that?


You've hit on exactly the reason I can't get behind the
ARRL's motion to do away with Element 1 for General Class
and *automatically* upgrading current Techs to General.

There should still be a requirement to pass an additional
test, be it the current Element 3 or an equivalent technical
exam before the no-code Techs get General priviledges.

No "freebies." If folks want HF, they must at least pass
a technical test to show that they understand the information
and the responsibilies that go with the upgrade.

Funny, I didn't notice the ARRL saying that current General
holders should be bumped up to Extra class if the code
goes away. The General holders would have their class watered
down even more with the sudden influx of newly minted
Techs-to-Generals though.

If the code must go, let it go, but *don't* ditch the
requirements for the other technical elements. At least
still make the Techs *earn* the upgrade to HF by showing
some mastery of the basic knowledge they'll need to use it
properly.

Nyssa - K4HZY (Jr.)

wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...
Having no interest in the mode is not a valid reason for dropping
it from
testing. There are rational reasons for dropping it (just as there
are
equally rational reasons for keeping it) but having no interest in
the
mode
is not one of them. That same argument could be applied to every
test
question and test element since there is sure to be at least one
person
who
has no interest in that question and/or element for every item on
the
test.

I've never operated satellite and never intend to and have no
interest in
ever doing so. Yet I had to answer questions on it. Do I think it
should
be taken out of the test? No, because it is something allowed by
my
privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

As I understand it, the reason for the requirement to display
proficiency in
CW stemmed from times in the ancient past where CW was the primary
(if not
the only) option for communicating, and there was also the
requirement that
we be proficient so that we could understand emergency traffic and
pass it
on / respond to it.

Those were a couple of reasons - but there are others.

The CW emergency freqs (i.e. 500 KHz) are no longer
used or monitored by the vast majority (is not all) of the emergency
groups
(i.e. Coastguard) and CW is not really used by many people or
organisations
outside of the amateur community.

That's true - but hams were not allowed on those frequencies anyway.

There is really no valid reason for the retention of CW as a
mandatory
requirement for HF access

Many people agree - but others disagree. What constitutes a valid
reason depends entirely on personal opinion.

For example, Morse code is widely used in the amateur radio service. On
HF it is secondary only to SSB in popularity, and not by much of a
margin. That popularity alone, IMHO, is a valid reason to keep at least
a basic Morse Code test.

- many countries around the world have removed it

How many? Most of the countries have retained the test so far,
including Japan, which has had a QRP nocodetest HF ham license for
decades.

and surprisingly enough, now that it is no longer a requirement,
there is
apparently a resurgence of interest in the mode (here in VK for one).
If
you want to keep on using it, feel free, but please don't force
others to
learn a mode that is no longet essential, and indeed only barely
relevant.

Then delete most of the written test too, because most of it is
arguably less relevant.

Here in VK we removed the CW requirement for HF access just over a
year ago
and while the bands are only slightly more active, there hasn't been
the
flood of moronic operators that were being forecasted.

So there really hasn't been much change.

P.S. if I use some of the digital data modes, I can send and receive
100%
copy when CW cannot even be heard - go digital modes.
How popular are those digital modes?

73 de Jim, N2EY


And many of the people who tout these digital modes as the "holy grail"
forget that CW is a digital mode and that each mode has advantages and
disadvantages. Depending on conditions, one mode will fail while another
will succeed. For example, PSK fails when there are disturbances causing
phase shifts, RTTY fails under conditions of high static. CW comes through
in both cases. On the other hand, PSK is a winner on bandwidth usage,
minimal power consumption, and under weak but otherwise clear band
conditions. Every mode is important in its own way.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Nyssa
writes:

wrote:

What's happening in Canada is simply this: A survey was done and then a
proposal. In both cases, there was clear majority support to end
*mandatory* code testing for a ham license.

But when such surveys and proposals are done here in the USA, there is
no clear majority to end the code test.

However, there's a big difference:

IIRC, the RAC would *raise* the written requirements, and allow a
prospective ham to skip the code test if they scored high enough on the
written.

That's a concept that hasn't been discussed much, if at all, outside of
Canada. Imagine such a system in the USA: Perhaps we could have it that
if you get a 90 or better on your General, you can skip Element 1. Or
maybe create a new written test that could be taken *instead of*
Element 1, and let the new ham decide which test to take - code, or the
additional written.

Could we all live with that?

You've hit on exactly the reason I can't get behind the
ARRL's motion to do away with Element 1 for General Class
and *automatically* upgrading current Techs to General.

Remember that back in 1998, ARRL proposed an automatic upgrade of all Novices
and Tech Plus to General. FCC said no.

What about the idea of automatically upgrading all Advanceds to Extra? Do you
oppose that?

There should still be a requirement to pass an additional
test, be it the current Element 3 or an equivalent technical
exam before the no-code Techs get General priviledges.

No "freebies." If folks want HF, they must at least pass
a technical test to show that they understand the information
and the responsibilies that go with the upgrade.

Funny, I didn't notice the ARRL saying that current General
holders should be bumped up to Extra class if the code
goes away. The General holders would have their class watered
down even more with the sudden influx of newly minted
Techs-to-Generals though.

If the code must go, let it go, but *don't* ditch the
requirements for the other technical elements. At least
still make the Techs *earn* the upgrade to HF by showing
some mastery of the basic knowledge they'll need to use it
properly.

But why *must* Element 1 go, if a majority of those who express an opinion want
it to stay?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Jim - NN7K" wrote in message
om...
Well, just how DIFFICULT is it to plug in a radio to the CIGARETTE
LIGHTER hole (unless you smoke)?, or stick a mag mount on a steel roof ?
Lets let the whole thing go the CB route-- and be done with it (but
then, some folks will want to eliminate that fun, whih "SERVICES" that
pay their own way thru licensing fees ! As a TECHNICAL pool, admit it:
Amateur radio is now little more than a higher power CITIZENS /FREE
bander group, and is ripe for abolishment to the garbage can of history,
next to the buggy whips! Jim NN7K

Ahhhhhh, yes of course and the retention of CW will keep the riff raff out
won't it!! Really - the worst behaviour that I have heard from amateurs has
come from those whose licence class requires CW proficiency - didn't work
too well there did it? In the end, CW is just one of a huge number of
different modes that we have access to - as to why it should be retained,
well in my opinion, there are no valid reasons. CW is just another mode
that cann be used, and with the progression of time and improving
technology, requirement for HF users to demonstrate proficency is no longer
there.




Matt

wrote in message
oups.com...
As I understand it, the reason for the requirement to display
proficiency in
CW stemmed from times in the ancient past where CW was the primary
(if not
the only) option for communicating, and there was also the
requirement that
we be proficient so that we could understand emergency traffic and
pass it
on / respond to it.

Those were a couple of reasons - but there are others.

And they are?

There is really no valid reason for the retention of CW as a
mandatory
requirement for HF access

Many people agree - but others disagree. What constitutes a valid
reason depends entirely on personal opinion.

For example, Morse code is widely used in the amateur radio service. On
HF it is secondary only to SSB in popularity, and not by much of a
margin. That popularity alone, IMHO, is a valid reason to keep at least
a basic Morse Code test.

Your are of course free to state your opinion, but please do not feel to bad
if it is ridiculed if it is away from the norm. My HF experience has been
that there are far more operators on SSB than CW - and yes I do listen in
the CW segments as well. I would hesitate to describe CW as being used more
often than or in similar amounts as SSB. 80/90 years ago, most if not all
of the activity would have been CW - now it is used less than SSB. In 20
years how popular will it be?? By forcing CW onto people, yes some will
love it and continue, but almost all of my friends and acquaintances in the
radio arena (excluding one or two) who have done the CW testing, did so
purely for the exams, and then never picked up their key since then - what a
terrible waste of time to do that (even if it gave them HF access), wouldn't
we be far better learning more on other areas that would benefit far more?

- many countries around the world have removed it

How many? Most of the countries have retained the test so far,
including Japan, which has had a QRP nocodetest HF ham license for
decades.

Not terribly up to date these days, but the following link is of interest.
http://www.nocode.org/articles.html


and surprisingly enough, now that it is no longer a requirement,
there is
apparently a resurgence of interest in the mode (here in VK for one).
If
you want to keep on using it, feel free, but please don't force
others to
learn a mode that is no longet essential, and indeed only barely
relevant.

Then delete most of the written test too, because most of it is
arguably less relevant.

How so? The main reason forthe theory testing is to demonstrate that you
have the basic proficiencies
The testing for CW merely shows that you have been able to learn CW and pass
a test - there is no real relevance to it in todays radio world - at least
none that would keep a potential amateur off the radio because he couldn't
display the appropriate proficiencies with CW.

Here in VK we removed the CW requirement for HF access just over a
year ago
and while the bands are only slightly more active, there hasn't been
the
flood of moronic operators that were being forecasted.

So there really hasn't been much change.

Could't quantify the actual increase, but HF has become somewhat more active
since the CW requirements were removed. The only change has been positive -
i.e. removal of an unecessary barrier.

P.S. if I use some of the digital data modes, I can send and receive
100%
copy when CW cannot even be heard - go digital modes.
How popular are those digital modes?

Again, I cannot quantify the popularity of these modes, but many amateurs
that I interact with do use multiple different digital modes depending on
what their interests and abilitiies.




Matt

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...
And many of the people who tout these digital modes as the "holy grail"
forget that CW is a digital mode and that each mode has advantages and
disadvantages. Depending on conditions, one mode will fail while another
will succeed. For example, PSK fails when there are disturbances causing
phase shifts, RTTY fails under conditions of high static. CW comes
through
in both cases. On the other hand, PSK is a winner on bandwidth usage,
minimal power consumption, and under weak but otherwise clear band
conditions. Every mode is important in its own way.

OK, talking in an precise fashion, yes, CW is a digital mode. I think that
the most important thing to take from your posting is your last comment -
indeed, CW is important, but not more than any other mode of comms. Remove
it as an unecessary barrier to HF access (personally it will not effect me -
I live in VK where we made this decision a couple of years agoand all is
well with the HF bands.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE






Matt