Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
jakdedert wrote: IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how to reupholster their car in order to get a drivers license. It's unlikely that they will ever use the knowledge. OTOH, I've seen a number of very simplistic technical questions posted lately in this and in other forums, by 'hams' who should know better.... jak I think it would be more like knowing how to change a tire to get a drivers license! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
whoever wrote:
jakdedert wrote: IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how to reupholster their car in order to get a drivers license. It's unlikely that they will ever use the knowledge. OTOH, I've seen a number of very simplistic technical questions posted lately in this and in other forums, by 'hams' who should know better.... jak 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. They'll never HAVE to reupholster the seats. They might 'want' to, and learn how, but I can't imagine it ever being required. 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. jak |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
jakdedert wrote:
whoever wrote: jakdedert wrote: IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how to reupholster their car in order to get a drivers license. It's unlikely that they will ever use the knowledge. OTOH, I've seen a number of very simplistic technical questions posted lately in this and in other forums, by 'hams' who should know better.... jak 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. They'll never HAVE to reupholster the seats. They might 'want' to, and learn how, but I can't imagine it ever being required. 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. jak 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! 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. 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. 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. Prospective hams are allowed to use newfangled calculators on their exams. Shouldn't we demand that they use sliderules? 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. As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR anymore! 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. 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. Enough Tom Nelson KD6EVM A 21st Century Ham |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article , KD6EVM
writes: wrote: 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. T 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. Not in California. Not in most other states, either. But to go with your analogy, people that want to drive a stick are free to do so. They don't need to drive a stick shift to get get their licenses. Your analogy has made my point. If all you want is a passenger car/light truck license, you don't need to know how to drive a manual transmission. But for many other levels of vehicle license, stick shift skill *is* often required. Equate the Tech to a passenger car/light truck license, and a General or Extra to other types of motor vehicle license, and see what conclusion results... 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? I was writing about the code, not techinical subjects. Why shouldn't the written test be subject to the same criteria as the code test? Think about it - how much *did* you learn to pass the written test that you've never really used as a ham? 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? Not at all. I am old, but not obsolete. So perhaps their legacy should persist too. 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. Also, most hams alive today did not learn Morse Code in WW2, or even for decades later. Of the 670,000 US hams today, more than half have been licensed since about 1975 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. Consider this too: We still *require* all children in the US be taught, and learn, to do arithmetic manually. Add, subtract, multiply, divide, even fractions, decimals and some roots - all manually, to several significant digits. Yet calculators that can do the job have been give-away items for decades. Why force all those kids to learn to do arithmetic the old way? 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. You have made an excellent point. Thanks. My point was that the code requirement has not maintained the "purity" of the HAM bands in general. You mean it hasn't maintained the purity of the *phone* ham bands. The written tests haven't maintained that purity either - even though they deal directly with the rules and what is acceptable amateur radio on-air behavior. Should we eliminate the written tests because they're not perfect at keeping out a few bad apples? I submit to you that *no* one-time test could possibly guarantee that everyone who passes it will automatically be a good, law-abiding, courteous amateur operator for their entire time as an amateur. That doesn't mean we should get rid of the tests! 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? There is plenty to know aside from the code. I would be in favor in making the rest of test more comprehensive. I think if there were proposals that linked making the code test optional with better written tests, you'd get more widespread support. But look at the nocodetest proposals in the USA - they *all* want to just drop the code test, and many want to *reduce* the written requirements! Look at the monstrosity proposed by NCVEC for just one example. But if you propose that the written tests be made more comprehensive, how do you answer those who say that the changes will be a barrier to new hams? 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. Not at all. She still had to get a driver's license. Which doesn't require that she know how a car works, does it? 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? Perhaps dropping the code will encourage new operators to enter the hobby. We were promised that back in 1990, when the code test for Tech was dropped. We got a short-term surge of new hams - then the growth rate went down to *below* what it was in the '80s. Back in April 2000 the 13 and 20 wpm code tests were dropped completely by FCC. The written test for Tech went from two separate elements totalling 65 questions to 1 test of 35 questions. The written test to upgrade from General to Extra went from two tests totalling 90 questions to a single test of 50 questions. Yet today we have a few thousand *fewer* hams than back then. Suppose the code test is dropped for a test period of, say, 3 years. If we don;t get growth, will it be put back? When the number of operating amateurs drops below a critical mass and the ARRL loses its clout in Washington, there will be nothing left to balance the public relations machine promoting BPL. In spite of the recent successes of the ARRL, the power industry is in this for the long haul. I disagree - here's why: First off, it's difficult to know the actual number of *active* hams, particularly considering the 10 year license term. Second, the power industry is only interested in BPL as a revenue stream. Power companies don't operate BPL systems, they simply lease the use of their lines to BPL operators. Most of them will wait until a BPL system actually makes money before they even think of jumping in. Third, one weakness of BPL systems is that, ironically, they're sensitive to line noise. So the power companies have to keep their lines low-noise for the systems to work, which may erase profits. Fourth, ADSL, Wi-Fi, and other technologies are rapidly expanding in many markets. They offer superior performance, lower price and none of BPL's headaches. For example, here in 19087 we have the choice of Comcast cable broadband or Verizon DSL, to name just the two biggest competitors. I realize that other areas aren't so well served, but they're slowly being reduced. Fifth, BPL is several different technologies, all incompatible. Sixth and most important: ARRL's constant opposition *is* a major factor. If the code test is dropped, will there be lots more ARRL members and more anti-BPL resources at ARRL's disposal? Or will it be like 1991 all over again? As our numbers dwindle, their stock goes up. I'd be willing to bet that if the code requirement were dropped, that in the long run, the percentage of CW operators would eventually go up. Maybe. There is no doubt that CW is a great mode for those who enjoy it. The more hams who are licensed will increase the pool of operators who will eventually discover the inherent qualities of CW. But that can only happen if we get more hams in the first place. I think the code test is not a real barrier to people becoming hams. We have more ways to learn the code now than ever before, in less time and with less effort, and many of them are inexpensive or even free. For example, G4FON's excellent code training software is a free download that runs on almost any PC. It can teach most people enough code to pass the test in about a month of half-hour-a-day practice sessions. I think the real barriers to growth are things like lack of publicity, misunderstanding of the ARS (and morse Code!), and antenna restrictions, to name just three factors. How many movies and TV shows have you seen in the past 10 years with ham radio in them? I recall the movie "Frequency", which portrayed amateur radio as a thing "people did before the internet", and never mentioned that it exists today. There was also the film "Contact", which begins with an excellent amateur radio sequence - again in the past - but *never* mentions amateur radio by name! The main character doesn't do ham radio as an adult, and again the impression could be gotten that it doesn't exist anymore. That's two films out of how many thousand? And both of them portray amateur radio as something done years ago, with no mention of its existence in the present. I appreciate your response, Jim. I appreciate yours. I know we each are concerned about the future of our hobby. I hope when the dust settles, our licenses will still be good for something. Me too! I'll leave you with this thought: People today are still interested in all sorts of hobbies. Making them "easier", however, doesn't always make them more attractive. Often what is attractive is the fact that something is a challenge, out of the ordinary, requires special skills, etc. This is particularly true of young people, the ones we often say we need to attract the most. 73 de Jim, N2EY "If it was easy, anybody could do it" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"If it was easy, anybody could do it" Jim, I hope you don't mind if I snipped 99% of our previous messages. It's not because I am unwilling to challenge point for point, but rather because, after a hard day of work, I don't have the time or energy! I might try harder next Saturday evening, but tonight I need my rest. I have avoided becoming engaged in this debate for several years because I didn't feel that it was pertinent in the survival of the hobby. Now I do. Your best arguments are those regarding the feasibility of BPL as a technologically appropriate means of delivering high speed internet service. The laws of physics will trump the "laws" of economics any day of the week. My worry is that logic is often the last consideration in a scramble for the buck. You are operating under the assumption that logic will prevail the onslaught of megabucks in the "free" and "unregulated" marketplace. My major argument against your viewpoint is that the code IS a major detriment to beginning the process of becoming a ham. When I was young there was a MAGIC to wireless communication that simply does not exist today. I work with students whose cell phones are far more sophisticated than our best handhelds. They send images back and forth that the sstv operators would die for. How much do their "transceivers" cost? NOTHING! They are free (?) with their service! Put yourself in my position trying to explain that they can really have a lot of fun talking with strangers from different cultures with EXPENSIVE radios AND they need to study for a test in order to do so. They say, "GEE, ATT wireless never asked me to take a test to talk to my uncle in Thailand. He's just there!" The killer is when I tell them, "In order to talk to these really cool strangers around the world you need to learn this really cool code that was invented in 1844. It's REALLY slow compared with what you are used to, but in the event of a disaster, you will really appreciate it." To sell ham radio, we are in the marketplace of ideas. The code requirement makes a hard sell even harder. "If it was easy, anybody could do it," HELLOOO! Anybody CAN do it! If you don't believe me, bop on down to your local high school and try to sell them a top notch handheld! NO WAY! They want a cell phone that lets them trade images and text messages. Amateur radio has a history of being at the cutting edge of communication technology. Has anybody else noticed that, while we have been arguing over 160 year-old technology, we have been overtaken by commercial digital technology? Jim, how do you propose to stem the tide of the declining number of amateur radio operators regardless if they are CW or phone operators? More significantly, how do you propose that we increase OR MAINTAIN the proportion of amateur operators relative to the general population? I apologize if my remarks are particularly strident this evening. I think we are far closer on this issue than you might realize. I am torn between the simplicity of the code and the realities of the digital age. I have had my students make and use telegraph sets while studying the "Western Movement." They are always curious about the novelty of Morse Code, especially with regard to the sinking of the Titanic. Between myself and other amateurs who teach high school, I would estimate our "conversion rate" optimistically at about 1 in 4,000. Of the same sample, I would guess that at least 90% are cell phone subscribers. Thinking about the Titanic, I hope we are not rearranging the deck chairs.... I would like to discuss these issues with you on the air, but, of course, on SSB. TNX Tom |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps dropping the code will encourage new operators to enter the
hobby. When the number of operating amateurs drops below a critical mass and the ARRL loses its clout in Washington, there will be nothing left to balance the public relations machine promoting BPL. In spite of the recent successes of the ARRL, the power industry is in this for the long haul. As our numbers dwindle, their stock goes up. I'd be willing to bet that if the code requirement were dropped, that in the long run, the percentage of CW operators would eventually go up. There is no doubt that CW is a great mode for those who enjoy it. The more hams who are licensed will increase the pool of operators who will eventually discover the inherent qualities of CW. I think more important to the hobby is to re-farm the bands. Let's get more hf spectrum for ssb and do away with the novice cw bands. Roland, NK2U |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Morse Code: One Wonders... and Begins to Think ! [ -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ] | Shortwave | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
Canada says... "Drop the Code!" | Swap | |||
My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |