| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Canada want to drop the code!
Yeppers...and you can read all about it in this weeks ARRL Letter on
Hamwave. http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=614 |
Hamguy wrote:
Yeppers...and you can read all about it in this weeks ARRL Letter on Hamwave. http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=614 wish the U.S. would too. |
"Sarco" wrote in message . 97.142... It always amazes me that when ever "change" is proposed in any organization, there are many people who quiver at the thought, and also boast the downfall of the establishment that will come with the proposed change. Q. How many Ham Radio Operators does it take to change a light bulb? A. Change?!! VK2QQ |
Not this Canadian.
(Heck, I passed 10 and 15, and people complain about 5?? You can look the darn letters up on a chart at that that speed.) Hamguy wrote: Yeppers...and you can read all about it in this weeks ARRL Letter on Hamwave. http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=614 |
"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. 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. There is really no valid reason for the retention of CW as a mandatory requirement for HF access - many countries around the world have removed it 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. 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. 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. Matt |
"bob" wrote in message
(Heck, I passed 10 and 15, and people complain about 5?? You can look the darn letters up on a chart at that that speed.) Exactly, people are just lazy, I passed a 20WPM code test becase "I" wanted to prove to myself that I was willing to learn and EARN my privledges not get them handed to me. We live in a microwave centered society where the vast majorty of people just arn't willing to extend themselves a little. I agree change is always a hard thing to swollow but I value what amateur radio is to me and I think it's very sad when someone isn't willing to spend 15-20mins a day for a month to sit down and learn something.. Personally I think CW is an amazing mode, because it can be used anywhere, not just in radio. If I'm trapped in a room I can tap it on a wall or I can send it with a flashlight, etc.... I'm not one of those people who thinks we should revert back to talking like they did in the 1800's however I believe that Amateur Radio was built on the principle of morse code and don't see whats wrong with keeping it in our history.. I bet most everyone in here had to study and take some form of driving test to get your dirvers license, I suppose we should stop doing that because it's to hard? The way I see it, you drop the code eventlly someone will want to drop the written test. If I wanted that I'd go buy a bunch of CB, MURS, FRS or GMRS radios and find someone to talk to. Take some pride in yourself, why must be dumb down out standard over lazyness or because the rest of the world is? Adair - KD5DYP |
You hit it right on the head...."I personally think CW is an amazing
mode." However, many do not think it is "amazing". Just because they disagree with you on this, does not mean they are "lazy". The function of antenna's and building home brew antennas is also in the written test. Let's make people writing the test be able to show the instructor how to build every possible antenna ever designed. They may be trapped behind a wall somewhere, and need to construct a J-Pole on the spot!....good God....come out of the dark ages. If people want to actually WORK CW, then they should be tested on it. "Adair Winter" wrote in om: "bob" wrote in message (Heck, I passed 10 and 15, and people complain about 5?? You can look the darn letters up on a chart at that that speed.) Exactly, people are just lazy, I passed a 20WPM code test becase "I" wanted to prove to myself that I was willing to learn and EARN my privledges not get them handed to me. We live in a microwave centered society where the vast majorty of people just arn't willing to extend themselves a little. I agree change is always a hard thing to swollow but I value what amateur radio is to me and I think it's very sad when someone isn't willing to spend 15-20mins a day for a month to sit down and learn something.. Personally I think CW is an amazing mode, because it can be used anywhere, not just in radio. If I'm trapped in a room I can tap it on a wall or I can send it with a flashlight, etc.... I'm not one of those people who thinks we should revert back to talking like they did in the 1800's however I believe that Amateur Radio was built on the principle of morse code and don't see whats wrong with keeping it in our history.. I bet most everyone in here had to study and take some form of driving test to get your dirvers license, I suppose we should stop doing that because it's to hard? The way I see it, you drop the code eventlly someone will want to drop the written test. If I wanted that I'd go buy a bunch of CB, MURS, FRS or GMRS radios and find someone to talk to. Take some pride in yourself, why must be dumb down out standard over lazyness or because the rest of the world is? Adair - KD5DYP |
Should they be tested on SSB, FM, RTTY, ATV, SSTV, and PSK31 also ?? Does not compute We really are talking about license requirements as set by a governing body as opposed to learning the required skills to operate a mode. -- Caveat Lector "Sarco" wrote in message . 97.142... You hit it right on the head...."I personally think CW is an amazing mode." However, many do not think it is "amazing". Just because they disagree with you on this, does not mean they are "lazy". The function of antenna's and building home brew antennas is also in the written test. Let's make people writing the test be able to show the instructor how to build every possible antenna ever designed. They may be trapped behind a wall somewhere, and need to construct a J-Pole on the spot!....good God....come out of the dark ages. If people want to actually WORK CW, then they should be tested on it. |
Sarco wrote:
You hit it right on the head...."I personally think CW is an amazing mode." However, many do not think it is "amazing". Just because they disagree with you on this, does not mean they are "lazy". The function of antenna's and building home brew antennas is also in the written test. Let's make people writing the test be able to show the instructor how to build every possible antenna ever designed. They may be trapped behind a wall somewhere, and need to construct a J-Pole on the spot!....good God....come out of the dark ages. If people want to actually WORK CW, then they should be tested on it. 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 "Adair Winter" wrote in om: "bob" wrote in message (Heck, I passed 10 and 15, and people complain about 5?? You can look the darn letters up on a chart at that that speed.) Exactly, people are just lazy, I passed a 20WPM code test becase "I" wanted to prove to myself that I was willing to learn and EARN my privledges not get them handed to me. We live in a microwave centered society where the vast majorty of people just arn't willing to extend themselves a little. I agree change is always a hard thing to swollow but I value what amateur radio is to me and I think it's very sad when someone isn't willing to spend 15-20mins a day for a month to sit down and learn something.. Personally I think CW is an amazing mode, because it can be used anywhere, not just in radio. If I'm trapped in a room I can tap it on a wall or I can send it with a flashlight, etc.... I'm not one of those people who thinks we should revert back to talking like they did in the 1800's however I believe that Amateur Radio was built on the principle of morse code and don't see whats wrong with keeping it in our history.. I bet most everyone in here had to study and take some form of driving test to get your dirvers license, I suppose we should stop doing that because it's to hard? The way I see it, you drop the code eventlly someone will want to drop the written test. If I wanted that I'd go buy a bunch of CB, MURS, FRS or GMRS radios and find someone to talk to. Take some pride in yourself, why must be dumb down out standard over lazyness or because the rest of the world is? Adair - KD5DYP |
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 Corse just how many repair their own radios - let alone design them- Like requireing a person to Build a PORSCH from scratch, when he only wants to avoid pedestrians, and other traffic! Lets get rid of ALL testing materials, and abolish the FCC -- then ANYONE can transmit ANYWHERE, from DC to LIGHT! No callsign required, nor power limits! Free speech at last ! Makes as much sense! Jim NN7K |
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! |
"Sarco" wrote in message
You hit it right on the head...."I personally think CW is an amazing mode." However, many do not think it is "amazing". Just because they disagree with you on this, does not mean they are "lazy". The function of antenna's and building home brew antennas is also in the written test. Let's make people writing the test be able to show the instructor how to build every possible antenna ever designed. They may be trapped behind a wall somewhere, and need to construct a J-Pole on the spot!....good God....come out of the dark ages. If people want to actually WORK CW, then they should be tested on it. I say lazy because that's what 90% of the people I know who haven't learned the code are. period. Me: When you gonna get upgraded? Them: Oh, when I get the time to learn the code I guess. Me: Well it's really not that hard, you can do it in a couple weeks with just 15-20 min a day. Them: Yeah, I know, just haven't got around on to it, sure would be nice get get on HF tho........ |
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 |
Jim - NN7K 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 Corse just how many repair their own radios - let alone design them- Like requireing a person to Build a PORSCH from scratch, when he only wants to avoid pedestrians, and other traffic! Lets get rid of ALL testing materials, and abolish the FCC -- then ANYONE can transmit ANYWHERE, from DC to LIGHT! No callsign required, nor power limits! Free speech at last ! Makes as much sense! Jim NN7K The kinds of questions to which I'm referring, are things like; how to hook up a power supply, and whether a roof-mounted antenna should be grounded (that was the question...not whether the MAST should be grounded)...things that are covered in detail in the ARRL publications...and that are at least 'covered' in the license-study materials. Of course, those 'hams' may in fact be unlicensed CB'ers or whatever...but in any case I think a more solid grounding in the electronic aspects of operation and installation are more important than learning how to communicate with dits and dahs. jak |
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 jakdedert wrote: The kinds of questions to which I'm referring, are things like; how to hook up a power supply, and whether a roof-mounted antenna should be grounded (that was the question...not whether the MAST should be grounded)...things that are covered in detail in the ARRL publications...and that are at least 'covered' in the license-study materials. Of course, those 'hams' may in fact be unlicensed CB'ers or whatever...but in any case I think a more solid grounding in the electronic aspects of operation and installation are more important than learning how to communicate with dits and dahs. jak |
I think if the FCC gave away ham tickets with no fee or test, there still would
not be a lot of people signing up for one. The hobby does not have the appeal that it used to. Too bad because the spectrum we have is worth a lot in the commercial business. |
It's simple, really. The only reason the Morse testing was required was
because of the international agreement that code is needed for HF access. Now that the world agrees that code is no longer required for HF access (from the WRC-03), there is no reason to keep it as a licensing requirement. All of the emotional arguments about "tradition" and "keeping the riff-raff out of the hobby" are irrelevant. Anyone who wants to use code will still learn it, and the mode will still continue to be used by amateurs (who are really the only people still using it). Every country should drop the testing requirement, including Canada and the US because it simply is no longer needed, and the whole world agrees, except for a bunch of stubborn old hams (and no one even cares what they think any more). |
Despite all the "emergency" arguments, even the coast guard dropped it. If there ever was a situation where CW might actually be needed, that was it. Now, it's just for contests, and hobbies. |
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 |
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 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 |
In article , "Matt"
writes: wrote in message roups.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? - Popularity of Morse in amateur radio today - Ability to use almost any radio technology with Morse (old/new, simple/complex) - Human/machine interface - Spectrum economy (most important on HF, where bandspace is most limited) 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. Why should any opinion be ridiculed? I can see that some folks will disagree, but that's a different thing than ridicule. And if the comments to various FCC petitions are any indication, "the norm" is to *retain* at least some code testing. 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. That's one data point. Others' experience shows the difference is not nearly as great. For example, look at the number of participants and the total QSO counts in various HF contests. While the SSB totals are higher, and more hams use that mode, CW is not far behind - despite the fact that SSB should be faster. I would hesitate to describe CW as being used more often than or in similar amounts as SSB. I don't claim that either. What I do say is: "On HF it is secondary only to SSB in popularity, and not by much of a margin." That still puts SSB first. 80/90 years ago, most if not all of the activity would have been CW - now it is used less than SSB. That's true. But 'phone (AM, NBFM, DSB, SSB) operation has been a part of ham radio since the 1920s, yet CW operation hasn't died out in all those years. In 20 years how popular will it be?? Who knows? I've been a ham since 1967, and interested in amateur radio even longer. More than 40 years ago, there were affordable SSB transceivers all over the amateur market, and all over the bands. Yet CW operation did not die out on the HF ham bands. 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? Which areas would you prefer? And how would you answer those who are not interested in those areas, and want them removed from the test? For example, in order to get my license, I had to learn about VHF/UHF, SSB and RTTY, even though I had no interest in those subjects at the time. Why did I *have to* take a test containing all that stuff just to use HF CW or AM? - 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 Does it say how many countries have removed it compared to those that have retained it? Should the USA follow what other countries do, or what its own citizens want? 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? Simple - most hams don't do most of the things covered in the written test. The main reason forthe theory testing is to demonstrate that you have the basic proficiencies What basic proficiencies are really needed? Why must a ham memorize all those band edges if not interested in those bands? Why all the radio theory to use manufactured, certified equipment with digital readout and few if any operational adjustments? Back in the days of analog dials and rigs requiring knowledgeable adjustment, it could be argued that a ham had to know how a rig worked to avoid off-frequency operation or poor signal quality. But why must a ham know all that stuff to use a modern rig? What it boils down to is that every anticodetest argument can also be used against the written test. The testing for CW merely shows that you have been able to learn CW and pass a test That's true. The same is true of the written test - the questions are multiple choice, from a public pool of questions and answers. If you get at least the required number of questions right, you pass, regardless of real understanding of radio. - there is no real relevance to it in todays radio world - That's simply not true, unless you don't consider amateur radio to be part of "today's radio world". And since we're discussing the requirements for an amateur radio license, can you really say that Morse code skill has no real relevance in today's amateur radio? You may say the relevance isn't enough (in your opinion) to justify Element 1, but to say there's no real relevance at all isn't based in fact. at least none that would keep a potential amateur off the radio because he couldn't display the appropriate proficiencies with CW. Apply that logic to most of what's in the *written* test. Consider this: A Technician licensee is allowed to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies above 30 MHz, based on passing a 35 question written test. And those modes and frequencies can be used at full 1500W power, as well as building/repairing/adjusting any sort of equipment to do so. But to use most of those same modes on amateur HF, a General class license is needed, with its additional written test. Why? What's so different about running 1500W of SSB on 2 meters and 20 meters? And to get full privileges requires an Extra, requiring yet another written. What's the fundamental difference? 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. But did you get a flood of new hams, new modes, etc., as has been promised for the USA? 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. There's another factor to remember in all this: cultural and societal differences. Here in the USA we have about 670,000 hams and about 300,000,000 people. How many hams are there in Australia, which has about the same land area as the USA? What are your written tests like? How expensive is a ham station? If the majority of Australians and Canadians who have an opinion on the subject want to remove code testing, the treaty allows it. But what if the majority of Americans want to keep it - is that not allowed? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
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" |
In article , "Dave VanHorn"
writes: Despite all the "emergency" arguments, even the coast guard dropped it. It's a bit more complex than that. Newer radio systems replaced the need for *radio operators* on ships in the 1990s, and the rules were changed to eliminate the need for maritime CW capability. Eliminating those jobs saves money, so the shipping companies were all for the changes. The Coast Guard eliminated their use of it when the rules changed for the same reason. If there ever was a situation where CW might actually be needed, that was it. In the recent tsunami disaster, a significant part of the initial radio communications by amateurs in the disaster area was reportedly done with Morse Code. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
"Roland Stiner" wrote in message ... 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 Let's refarm the bands and get more space for CW and the other digital modes. We're getting pretty crowded down there. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"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 |
KD6EVM wrote: "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 suggest you try answering them when you're more rested, Tom. No hurry. 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. Agreed! Logic and engineering judgement would replace all the make-do systems we have with an optical fiber to each customer. Such a fiber could deliver TV, data, broadband, POTS and lots more. Eventually we'll see it - but not now. You are operating under the assumption that logic will prevail the onslaught of megabucks in the "free" and "unregulated" marketplace. Not at all! The bucks themselves are now BPL's worst enemy, since FCC won't do its regulatory job. BPL cannot compete with DSL or cable broadband in the large markets - which is where the money is! And the DSL/cable served areas keep growing, not shrinking. Meanwhile Wi-Fi offers freedom from wired connections, and may eventually undercut DSL *and* cable in cost. What ARRL and hams have done is to gain valuable time in the anti-BPL fight. My major argument against your viewpoint is that the code IS a major detriment to beginning the process of becoming a ham. How so? The Technician license has had no code test for almost 14 years now. Techs are hams just as much as anyone else. When I was young there was a MAGIC to wireless communication that simply does not exist today. If that's universally true, then ham radio is doomed and there's nothing anyone can do about it. But I don't think it's true. 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. With all due respect, I think you're trying to sell ham radio the wrong way. Ham radio cannot compete with commercial communications services, and shouldn't try. They say, "GEE, ATT wireless never asked me to take a test to talk to my uncle in Thailand. He's just there!" Right - because of the enormous infrastructure beyond the cell phone. If someone simply wants to communicate in normal situations, ham radio is pretty far down on the options list. Always has been. As VoIP and similar technologies become more common, it will soon be common for people to connect via internet telephone for free - all over the world. 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." Perhaps if *your* attitude were positive about the code rather than negative, you might have more success.... None of this is new, Tom. We're not that far apart in age. I graduated high school in 1972 - here's what it was like for me: Back then we all had TV, AM and FM BC radio, record players and tape recorders, cameras and other gadgets. Every kid I knew had access to a telephone - the rich kids had their own, us poorer kids had the family phone, but local calls were unlimited and free. Some kids had CBs - a few of us were hams. I went to a boys' Catholic high school that had 2500 students in 4 grades - and maybe 6 hams. Of those, perhaps 3 of us are still hams. We grew up watching NASA send men to the moon and unmanned probes to Mars and beyond. I clearly remember John Glenn's flight in 1962 (when I was 7 years old) and live TV coverage from the Apollo missions, including watching the later missions blast off *from* the moon. Also pictures coming from the Mariner missions to Mars, so far away that it took a dozen minutes or more for the signals to get here at the speed of light! What could our trivial HF "DX" offer to compare with that? IOW, we were no strangers to radio communication. Yet amateur radio back then was smaller and there were far fewer hams per capita in those days than today. To sell ham radio, we are in the marketplace of ideas. The code requirement makes a hard sell even harder. If you take the stand that it's a hard sell, it will be. "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. Will dropping the code test create that in amateur radio? Here's an example of what works. Here's what one ham is doing - and has been doing for years.=AD I don't know this ham personally, but he is right here in EPA. Note =ADthe results and the reactions he gets. The following is a direct=AD quote: BEGIN QUOTE I have had the privilege of teaching an after school activit=ADy, at the local middle school, for five years. I named it Tune in the World=AD, and it covers many aspects of radio and television, and of course, pushes =ADham radio. Each year I have had several students, both boys and girls, obtai=ADn their license and try to help them continue on the hobby. With this as my basis, I can tell you that 95% of the studen=ADts were a pleasure to work with and each year the district offers me a=AD nice salary to teach the class and each year I decline it. Yes, it is a lo=ADt of work,but the students enjoy it and come away with a very positive ide=ADa of ham radio. The attention span varies, but I have found that I have to w=ADork at making sure I have an interesting program and that no part of it go=ADes on and on and on. I set the rules at the first meeting and have not had a=ADny serious problems. (My son and his friends have been my biggest prob=ADlem.) If one expects the students to sit in their chairs and liste=ADn to a presentation for an hour, after being in school all day, the=ADy good luck. I combine power point presentations, live demonstrations, part=ADs of ARRL videos short movies, simple building projects and computers. Inte=ADrestingly, the students are always VERY interested in the Morse code and se=ADem less so in modes connected with the computer. I am not a STRONG disciplinarian, but we have rules and the =ADkids obey them and something must be going right, a few kids who were in th=ADe previous class always take the next year's class and we always have 35 to 4=AD0 students. In fact, my biggest problem is that other students want to join=AD the class after it has been on a few weeks. Last year at the last minute, I offer the Radio Merit Badge =ADat Boy Scout Camp. I was given a terrible time and hoped for six kids. =ADI had over 1/4 of the camp at the classes and more wanted to attend. We go=ADt a dozen hams out of that one. So, if we want to get new, young hams, then think about reac=ADhing out to the Middle Schools, and Scout Camps. Just the camp alone, with =ADeight weeks of camp, would produce between 80 and 100 new hams....with abou=ADt 400 Scout Camps in the USA, (Cub and Boy Scout) that would mean a very=AD nice increase in our membership. I do agree, that like every previous generation, the new ham=ADs need help in getting into the hobby and if nothing else, get their email =ADaddress and send them info as well as forwarding the address to the ARRL, and=AD local clubs. We can sit here and complain about the lack of young people =ADin our hobby, or we can do something, or expect someone else to do it. Ahhh,=AD it is easier to complain...right? END QUOTE Note particularly when he writes: "the students are always VERY interested in the Morse code a=ADnd seem less so in modes connected with the computer." A block to the license process? Note also he's targeting the middle school kids. I got my license at 13 - 7th grade. That was after building a receiver from junk parts in order to learn the code. 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? This may be heresy to some, but the above is simply not true if you are talking about the technology used by the vast majority of hams. It hasn't been true since at least the 1920s. Sure, small groups of pioneering hams have led the way. Whether it was 1XAM, 1MO and 8AB working transatlantic on 110 meters in 1923, or W6DEI and a handful of others using SSB in 1934, or the folks doing EME, OSCAR, SSTV, etc., those folks were the pioneers - but it took a while for the majority of ham radio to get there, and in many cases the new technologies remained special interests. What percentage of hams do SSTV? EME? satellites? Where amateur radio shines is being able to do a lot with a little bit of technology, not from being on the cutting edge, because most of us aren't. 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? First off: Publicity. People need to know ham radio exists! When you talk to those kids and their parents - how many have even heard of ham radio before, let alone have a clear idea what it is like today? 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. Of course. What I'm saying is that it is precisely the simplicity and uniqueness that is the selling point. Anybody can pick up a 'phone and call Australia - no big deal. Just as in my high school days it was no big deal to call the other side of the continent. But to build a simple radio and do it directly, with no infrastructure beyond the ionosphere? *That* was exciting! The biggest selling point for amateur radio today - as it was in my time - is that it is different, unique, and off the beaten path. That it is *not* just like a cell phone, or IM, or email. That it takes real skill and knowledge, not just a few button pushes. That's what "if it was easy, anyone could do it" really means. Of course not everyone wants a challenge. Not every kid wants to climb rocks, run a marathon, bike 100 miles, build a computer from junk, etc. The trick is to focus on those who do. 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. Get them to watch "A Night To Remember" rather than the recent James Cameron film. Much better IMO. 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. Then I suggest perhaps the method needs to change. For example - do they ever see Morse Code in use by a skilled operator? Say, someone capable of wiggling a bug at 25 wpm, and writing down what comes in as if it were someone talking? Most nonhams - and indeed many hams - have not seen what Morse operation is like with skilled ops at both ends. And the biggest selling point for a kid is that it is something *they* can learn to do. On recent Field Days I have run a CW station, and even "experienced" hams are surprised by how fast we can make QSOs while they struggle along on 'phone. The most interested folks are invariably the kids. 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. Why do you say "of course, on SSB"? TNX Thank you. Please consider what I've written, both in this post and the ones preceding. It's easy to simply blame the code test for ham radio's problems. The solution seems simple and quick. But I think the real problems lie elsewhere. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:13:33 GMT, "Hamguy"
wrote: Yeppers...and you can read all about it in this weeks ARRL Letter on Hamwave. http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=614 Code sucks and so do you, buttnut. _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
IF YOU CAN'T LEARN IT AND DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT IT, WHY THE HELL BLAST IT
! great you were born "knowing how to run a PC" , no training time, no challenge sk "KC8QJP Kathy Lee" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:13:33 GMT, "Hamguy" wrote: Yeppers...and you can read all about it in this weeks ARRL Letter on Hamwave. http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=614 Code sucks and so do you, buttnut. _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com