New Morse Code Requirement

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]FCC Enacts Internet Morse Code Requirement

The FCC, under pressure to clean up the internet, especially after the Communications Decency Act provisions regarding Internet content regulation were stricken as violating the U.S. Constitution, has decided instead to require a Morse code requirement for Internet users.

Citing the success of the Amateur Radio Service and the general belief that its requirement for operators to pass a Morse code proficiency exam and other technical requirements, has kept the A.R.S. “clean” (relative to the Internet), the FCC will enact a 5 word-per-minute requirement for all internet users. They are leaving open the issue of whether there should be a codeless class of Internet user and are soliciting comments on this proposal. Persons wishing to develop a web site having only links to other web sites having links to other web sites, and so forth, must pass a 13 word-per-minute test and demonstrate proficiency in HTML, the Internet authoring language.

Persons wish to develop web sites that have actual content, as compared to just links to other web sties, must pass a 20 word-per-minute Morse code proficiency test, demonstrate proficiency in HTML, and the Java programming language, and show that they have the mastery of at least one human language, such as English.

The FCC, which lacks budgetary authority to implement the testing program, has stated that it intends to create Volunteer Examiner programs for Internet applicants.


Editor’s note: This humerous article was compliments of Jim Thompson –W3LAP done a few years ago. It does raise a few interesting points. The two best examples of large services without regulation are the CB Bands and the Internet...think about it. It is an interesting twist on "the code test is not a filter" argument.

[N2RJ]

Thanks Charlie, I needed that. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

One thing in th FISTS response to the FCC NPRM was that most of the violation letters have to do with voice modes. I wonder why?

I don't believe that morse alone will make an effective filter, but the evidence is overwhelming.

Even in the amateur service, consider this -

Which band has the most courteous operators?

Which has the worst?

Who gets cited for more violations? The phone folks or the CW folks?

Whose signals are usually dirtier and splatter more?

[K7JEM]

Boy that code is sure a cure-all!

Maybe people that drive cars should pass a code test.

Maybe doctors should pass a code test.

Maybe cops and firefighters should pass a code test, then mount a key on the dash of the cop car or fire truck, since we all know that code is the best method to get through in an emergency.

Maybe the astronauts should use code instead of voice, there is not a lot more critical than that.

Maybe pilots should use code instead of voice, I know I would feel much safer.

Joe

[KC0OFZ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 25 2006,15:02)]Boy that code is sure a cure-all!

Maybe people that drive cars should pass a code test.

Maybe doctors should pass a code test.

Maybe cops and firefighters should pass a code test, then mount a key on the dash of the cop car or fire truck, since we all know that code is the best method to get through in an emergency.

Maybe the astronauts should use code instead of voice, there is not a lot more critical than that.

Maybe pilots should use code instead of voice, I know I would feel much safer.

Joe
Works for me!

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ...maybe a cw requirement is necessary to post a message on qrz ?

Nah, that would eliminate too many nice folks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kf4lne]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 25 2006,10:02)]Boy that code is sure a cure-all!

Maybe people that drive cars should pass a code test.

Maybe doctors should pass a code test.

Maybe cops and firefighters should pass a code test, then mount a key on the dash of the cop car or fire truck, since we all know that code is the best method to get through in an emergency.

Maybe the astronauts should use code instead of voice, there is not a lot more critical than that.

Maybe pilots should use code instead of voice, I know I would feel much safer.

Joe
While we are at it lets add truck drivers, gas station attendants and porn stars.

[AG3Y]

Awwww, it will never work. You can't even get people to speak English in this country if they don't want to. How ya gonna get them to talk in "Morris" ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 25 2006,15:02)]Boy that code is sure a cure-all!

Maybe people that drive cars should pass a code test.

Maybe doctors should pass a code test.

Maybe cops and firefighters should pass a code test, then mount a key on the dash of the cop car or fire truck, since we all know that code is the best method to get through in an emergency.

Maybe the astronauts should use code instead of voice, there is not a lot more critical than that.

Maybe pilots should use code instead of voice, I know I would feel much safer.

Joe
Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. LOL!

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 25 2006,12:19)]Thanks Charlie, I needed that. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

One thing in th FISTS response to the FCC NPRM was that most of the violation letters have to do with voice modes. #I wonder why?

I don't believe that morse alone will make an effective filter, but the evidence is overwhelming.

Even in the amateur service, consider this -

Which band has the most courteous operators?

Which has the worst?

Who gets cited for more violations? The phone folks or the CW folks?

Whose signals are usually dirtier and splatter more?
Uh, how many phone operators are there versus CW ops?

Which mode has the more complicated transmitters and receivers?

I'm sure there must be no correlation there.

I've got it, let's just do away with phone! That will eliminate all these pesky problems!

Mike http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Sep. 26 2006,07:38)]I've got it, let's just do away with phone! That will eliminate all these pesky problems!

Mike http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I agree. Would weed out the 99% of the drunks on 75M fer shure besides 99% of the no code criers. Hmmmm... maybe there 's something there to learn.

[kj3n]

I can just feel the love..........

[kc7jty]

Code sucks!

[KE4FES]

Quote[/b] (kf4lne @ Sep. 25 2006,17:16)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 25 2006,10:02)]Boy that code is sure a cure-all!

Maybe people that drive cars should pass a code test.

Maybe doctors should pass a code test.

Maybe cops and firefighters should pass a code test, then mount a key on the dash of the cop car or fire truck, since we all know that code is the best method to get through in an emergency.

Maybe the astronauts should use code instead of voice, there is not a lot more critical than that.

Maybe pilots should use code instead of voice, I know I would feel much safer.

Joe
While we are at it lets add truck drivers, gas station attendants and porn stars.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif YOU LEFT OUT HOOKERS,,,,,, then maybe you are prejudice ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[ai4ep]

CODE keeps the lids out.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Sep. 27 2006,03:17)]Code sucks!
Only for those that refuse to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Sep. 27 2006,08:28)]CODE keeps the lids out.
You mean lids like K1MAN and KV4FZ?

Ham radio enforcement history is replete with "coded" lids, so let's stop repeating a myth, shall we?

[W0LPQ]

Jim, 3Y I thought that Morris died..??

Meow..

Bill, W0LPQ

[ai4ep]

The use of CW keeps the lids out. # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kf4lne]

Quote[/b] (KE4FES @ Sep. 26 2006,20:03)]Quote[/b] (kf4lne @ Sep. 25 2006,17:16)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 25 2006,10:02)]Boy that code is sure a cure-all!

Maybe people that drive cars should pass a code test.

Maybe doctors should pass a code test.

Maybe cops and firefighters should pass a code test, then mount a key on the dash of the cop car or fire truck, since we all know that code is the best method to get through in an emergency.

Maybe the astronauts should use code instead of voice, there is not a lot more critical than that.

Maybe pilots should use code instead of voice, I know I would feel much safer.

Joe
While we are at it lets add truck drivers, gas station attendants and porn stars.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif YOU LEFT OUT HOOKERS,,,,,, then maybe you are prejudice ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
OK, and lot lizards,"johns" crack dealers, pot heads and anyone who uses gravity. We can't require regular hookers to learn code, it would remove that element of cheap trash and they would all become high class call girls, and have to raise rates. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Sep. 26 2006,09:38)]
Uh, how many phone operators are there versus CW ops?
Well, judging from what I hear/work on HF, sometimes I begin to wonder whether the CW guys outnumber the phone guys. It certainly seems that way sometimes!

The band could be completely DEAD on the phone segments, yet it's hopping on the CW segments. That's usually the case. Of course if you never bother to venture down to the CW segments or don't really understand the code, you won't be able to see that many times there are indeed more CW than phone ops.

Quote[/b] ]
Which mode has the more complicated transmitters and receivers?

I use the same rig for SSB/CW. #Many others do. #

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure there must be no correlation there.

Of course not.

[KI4NGN]

I venture all over the bands sir. I have had times when the phone segments are packed and barely hear a whisper on the code segments. So what? I may not understand many CW QSOs because they are too fast for me, but that doesn't mean that I don't hear them! So I do disagree, I believe there are far more phone operators than CW.

You're right, you use the same rig. I meant to say which is using the more complicate mode of communications. The more complicated the method, the more potential for signal problems was all that I was driving at.

Mike

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Sep. 27 2006,10:06)]I venture all over the bands sir. I have had times when the phone segments are packed and barely hear a whisper on the code segments. So what? I may not understand many CW QSOs because they are too fast for me, but that doesn't mean that I don't hear them! So I do disagree, I believe there are far more phone operators than CW.
You're tripping all over yourself here.

Including NCT's on VHF/UHF, yes of course there are more phone ops. Regarding the violations, who's getting cited more? I can't remember the last time I saw someone getting cited for a violation on CW. This has nothing to do with the numbers.

Quote[/b] ]You're right, you use the same rig. I meant to say which is using the more complicate mode of communications. The more complicated the method, the more potential for signal problems was all that I was driving at.

Mike

What does a more complicated method of communication have to do with saying the "F" word or causing intentional interference? Absolutely nothing!

[ky5u]

Another effort by jty, and ep to get a thread shut down. Perhaps the Moderators are catching on. Might as well just lock this one down, Tom. It's headed for the bottom too.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 27 2006,14:16)]Another effort by jty, and ep to get a thread shut down. #Perhaps the Moderators are catching on. #Might as well just lock this one down, Tom. #It's headed for the bottom too.
As is any thread on code, or any thread remotely related to code.

Glad to see Tom is clamping down on this beaten horse again.

[n2nh]

What if somebody posts a joke and there isn't a code debate??

OTOH, my ex-XYL grew up in England where her Uncle taught his whole family the code. Said it was the handiest thing he ever learned and that when he was growing up, it was taught to every student in grade school. Aparently, Uncle was a sparks on a bomber during the war. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kg4kww]

Code is dead, I just got the call to pick up the remains. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kf4lne]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 27 2006,12:46)]Code is dead, I just got the call to pick up the remains. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
We faked that death, thought maybe NCI would step up and take credit for it so our CW wielding snipers could have a clearer shot http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ai4ep]

missed !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc7jty]

I don't think they will ever test for Morse to operate a computer. Not even if you have your own web site or are a big shot in the business.
That's why the internet is blowing ham radio away. Into oblivion:
1 : the fact or condition of forgetting or having
forgotten; especially : the condition of
being oblivious
2 : the condition or state of being forgotten or
unknown

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 27 2006,09:38)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Sep. 27 2006,10:06)]I venture all over the bands sir. I have had times when the phone segments are packed and barely hear a whisper on the code segments. So what? I may not understand many CW QSOs because they are too fast for me, but that doesn't mean that I don't hear them! So I do disagree, I believe there are far more phone operators than CW.
You're tripping all over yourself here.

Including NCT's on VHF/UHF, yes of course there are more phone ops. #Regarding the violations, who's getting cited more? #I can't remember the last time I saw someone getting cited for a violation on CW. #This has nothing to do with the numbers.

Quote[/b] ]You're right, you use the same rig. I meant to say which is using the more complicate mode of communications. The more complicated the method, the more potential for signal problems was all that I was driving at.

Mike

What does a more complicated method of communication have to do with saying the "F" word or causing intentional interference? #Absolutely nothing!
I was responding to the splatter and other types of bad signals that you referenced, not the content.

And the fact of far more phone ops than CW ops is the reason that I was saying that there are far more violations for phone ops. That is the correlation and where the numbers certainly do come into play.

I'm not tripping over myself, you have a set opinion and therefore I must be wrong.

On the one hand you discount all of the VHF/UHF phone ops, then on the other hand exclaim that all of the violations are phone ops.

All I am trying to get across is that by the numbers it would be expected that there are more violations by phone ops than CW ops.

Maybe all of the lids and ops who don't know how to tune their stations are all phone ops. So what? That's no different than it was 30-40 years ago.

Mike

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Sep. 27 2006,12:21)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 27 2006,14:16)]Another effort by jty, and ep to get a thread shut down. Perhaps the Moderators are catching on. Might as well just lock this one down, Tom. It's headed for the bottom too.
As is any thread on code, or any thread remotely related to code.

Glad to see Tom is clamping down on this beaten horse again.
Just stop beating it! LOL!!

[ky5u]

The relevence or logic of every no code "point" has been torn to shreads over the past 3 years exposing the movement for what it is... changing the rules so the unmotivated can qualify.

If the FCC is going to act without the benefit of logical reason to remove the test, then get 'er done! Soon every HF band will be a 350kHz wide data signal with one shmuck downloading "Miss October" pics anyway. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 28 2006,07:27)]The relevence or logic of every no code "point" has been torn to shreads over the past 3 years exposing the movement for what it is... changing the rules so the unmotivated can qualify.

If the FCC is going to act without the benefit of logical reason to remove the test, then get 'er done! #Soon every HF band will be a 350kHz wide data signal with one shmuck downloading "Miss October" pics anyway. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
I have the opinion that the requirement is no longer has the relevance that it once did and should be done away with.

Given that I passed my code test 38 years ago, and the fact that I don't know a single non-code op (that I know of), I can say that my opinion has nothing to do with a lack of motivation.

Apparently the FCC and most of the communications regulatory bodies around the world agree with that opinion.

Yep, it has been beat to death many times so I won't expound on the basis and foundation for my opinion. There's nothing that you or anyone else can say that will change my mind, just as there is no argument that will change yours. Given the fact that I have nothing to gain by removing the code requirement, I am an example of a flaw with your supposed "exposure of the 'movement' for what it is".

I can also say that I don't like to hear anyone whine about having to learn code. The requirements now are that an NCT needs it to advance. Period.

I have no problem with any op who decides to wait for the requirement to go away; that's their decision, and they should not be looked down upon for it. I just don't want to hear them whine. As a side note from the threads that I have read in the last six months, it seems the number of posts that whine about NCTs far, far out number those by NCTs whining about code.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[kc7jty]

Rejoice Charlie for 5 wpm is still the law of the land.

[w8znx]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Sep. 27 2006,00:17)]Code sucks!
such a mind!

strong logic
validity of thought
sound reasoning

have i seen the same thoughts
spray painted on freeway overpass

or was it
in magic marker on the D train to Brooklyn

was that also your work

Mac

[ky5u]

I cannot help but read
yet when Mac posts my
reading loses speed
and other things in pain say I
my reading may not be as fast
yet causes in me a gentle cry
for reading them gives me gas.

Can he not a sentance make?
Must he string his words in prose?
The antacid tablets I must take
to dodge the contents within enclosed
my stomach churns in loud protest
as I unfurl the garden hose,
my cat has dibs on chunks...I wash away the rest. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[K7JEM]

I just skip over his posts
make no sense to me
even Charlie has
easier tripe to read

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Sep. 28 2006,01:29)]I don't think they will ever test for Morse to operate a computer. Not even if you have your own web site or are a big shot in the business.
That's why the internet is blowing ham radio away. Into oblivion:
1 : the fact or condition of forgetting or having
forgotten; especially : the condition of
being oblivious
2 : the condition or state of being forgotten or
unknown
Wrong.

The internet is blowing away ham radio because it is uncensored, allows commercial content including pornography and doesn't require much technical skills to use.

And frankly people who want all of the above in ham radio don't belong in ham radio. They can keep their internet.

[N2RJ]

oh come on now
don't pick on
poor mac

he's probably using
a typewriter or an old
commodore 64
or maybe a handheld
computer that runs
palm os

if you get over the
fact that he
carriage returns every
few freaking words
his posts make a lot
of sense


Ry

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (w8znx @ Sep. 27 2006,11:44)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Sep. 27 2006,00:17)]Code sucks!
such a mind!

strong logic
validity of thought
sound reasoning

have i seen the same thoughts
spray painted on freeway overpass

or was it
in magic marker on the D train to Brooklyn

was that also your work

Mac
For many of us (I would venture the majority) the explative is 100% accurate.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 27 2006,19:47)]#They can keep their internet.
"I see you are on good terms with your tailor Archibald" quote from the movie Rob Roy.
You seem to be operating it quite regularly.

[kb2vxa]

CW is like asperin, it'll fix a headache but not the tumor that's causing it.
Forrest Gump

[W0UZR]

~~~We gotta #GO #THROUGH #THIS #AGAIN !!!!!!!!??~~~

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 28 2006,09:27)]The relevence or logic of every no code "point" has been torn to shreads over the past 3 years exposing the movement for what it is... changing the rules so the unmotivated can qualify.
That is exactly right.

Of course there are non believers, but one only has to look at NCI's rejoicing of effective dumbing down of the license requirements. For them, it goes way beyond the code. From what I see, they want the Amateur Radio service to simply not have much of a technical or other test at all.

One question I've never gotten a straight answer on - what is so difficult about 5WPM farnsworth code? Why is this an insurmountable barrier for some?

I already know the answer - you can't memorize it like the open book question pools.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Sep. 28 2006,21:58)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 27 2006,19:47)] They can keep their internet.
"I see you are on good terms with your tailor Archibald" quote from the movie Rob Roy.
You seem to be operating it quite regularly.
Absolutely. I love the internet. But the difference between me and them is that for me it is no replacement for ham radio. If I want to browse pr0n, discuss politics, or bash NCT's I do it online. No shame in that at all.

BUt when I feel like working "off the grid" and maybe also mobile in a remoteish location, I have to use my ham radios. Can't use the internet for that.

Also, my job deals with the internet and related technology almost 100% of the time.

What's your excuse?

[kf4lne]

I say let the no coders have access to the first 10kc of each HF band with only CW privilages in that part of the band! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Also, MH: Do you bash your NCT after browsing pr0n?

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 28 2006,20:46)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 28 2006,09:27)]The relevence or logic of every no code "point" has been torn to shreads over the past 3 years exposing the movement for what it is... changing the rules so the unmotivated can qualify.
That is exactly right.

Of course there are non believers, but one only has to look at NCI's rejoicing of effective dumbing down of the license requirements. For them, it goes way beyond the code. From what I see, they want the Amateur Radio service to simply not have much of a technical or other test at all.

One question I've never gotten a straight answer on - what is so difficult about 5WPM farnsworth code? Why is this an insurmountable barrier for some?

I already know the answer - you can't memorize it like the open book question pools.
If I were to say that you had to eat a big bowl of menudo, in 5 minutes, in order to qualify for a ham test, undoubtably many people would do it, simply because they want the license. Other people might not want to do it, but buckle down and do it anyway. A few people are going to say "no way" and just walk away. Others are going to question the menudo eating requirement, and wonder why it is there anyway.

It's not a question of the test being easy, hard, or anything in between. It is simply a question of relevance. The code has become irrelevant in today's society. No-one, other that hams, care about the code. Not because the code is bad or good, simply because it no longer has relevance. It matters not if the test is easy. If it is indeed easy, then that is just more reason to dump the test. Why test someone on something so easy?

The truth is that it is easy for some, but not for others. Just as eating menudo may be a pleasure for some, it will be a punishment for others. Just because I happen to enjoy a big bowl doesn't mean others do. I can't force them to like it, although many will enjoy it once they try it. In similiar fashion, code doesn't need to be forced on anyone in today's world. We don't live in 1927 any more.

Joe

[kf4lne]

Quote[/b] ]Others are going to question the menudo eating requirement, and wonder why it is there anyway.

Because its a cure for a hangover and nobody can copy code well while hung over http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 27 2006,22:02)]Joe
I'm not crazy about menudo but I could eat it if there was some reward. Now chiles rellenos......

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (kf4lne @ Sep. 28 2006,22:52)]Also, MH: Do you bash your NCT after browsing pr0n?
LOL!

No comment.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 28 2006,23:02)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 28 2006,20:46)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 28 2006,09:27)]The relevence or logic of every no code "point" has been torn to shreads over the past 3 years exposing the movement for what it is... changing the rules so the unmotivated can qualify.
That is exactly right.

Of course there are non believers, but one only has to look at NCI's rejoicing of effective dumbing down of the license requirements. For them, it goes way beyond the code. From what I see, they want the Amateur Radio service to simply not have much of a technical or other test at all.

One question I've never gotten a straight answer on - what is so difficult about 5WPM farnsworth code? Why is this an insurmountable barrier for some?

I already know the answer - you can't memorize it like the open book question pools.
If I were to say that you had to eat a big bowl of menudo, in 5 minutes, in order to qualify for a ham test, undoubtably many people would do it, simply because they want the license. Other people might not want to do it, but buckle down and do it anyway. A few people are going to say "no way" and just walk away. Others are going to question the menudo eating requirement, and wonder why it is there anyway.

It's not a question of the test being easy, hard, or anything in between. It is simply a question of relevance. The code has become irrelevant in today's society. No-one, other that hams, care about the code. Not because the code is bad or good, simply because it no longer has relevance. It matters not if the test is easy. If it is indeed easy, then that is just more reason to dump the test. Why test someone on something so easy?

The truth is that it is easy for some, but not for others. Just as eating menudo may be a pleasure for some, it will be a punishment for others. Just because I happen to enjoy a big bowl doesn't mean others do. I can't force them to like it, although many will enjoy it once they try it. In similiar fashion, code doesn't need to be forced on anyone in today's world. We don't live in 1927 any more.

Joe
Well if you want something badly enough, you'll do whatever it takes to get it.

And right now the requirement for HF privileges in the USA is morse code plus at least element 1.

The point isn't whether or not it is relevant. That is a phoney excuse from those who want the easy way out. And since you mentioned that no one cared about code except amateur radio the code is entirely relevant in amateur radio.

I agree fully with getting rid of the code, but I would like to see the written test actually prove to be a challenge. That means no open question pools with answers.

NCI says that the code "serves as an advancement barrier for many other qualified individuals." Well if those other qualified individuals really badly wanted HF, they'd learn 5WPM.

Really now, I learned 13WPM and it's not that hard. But it takes a bit of dedication, and this is one test you cannot just cram for. I used to hate the code a lot before and said the same things that many people here have been saying - it's outdated, that it makes no sense etc. But once I got into it I realized how silly I was. The code was EASY. I picked it up really quick because I put quite a bit of effort into it.

I didn't even need to learn the code initially. I could have operated full privileges with a no code license (Trinidad and Tobago had ignored the ITU ruling and granted full privileges to no code hams long before WRC03). BUt I chose to get a license with code. It shows that I respected the traditions of the hobby and also that I was seriously committed to it, and that I had respect for all modes. And it just turned out that I ended up enjoying operating CW as well.

[ky5u]

And I believe it is more about what people are made of these days. Years ago nobody would question a requirement, they'd just meet it or do something else. Today there is a feeling of entitlement and less emphasis on character building.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 29 2006,05:09)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 28 2006,23:02)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 28 2006,20:46)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 28 2006,09:27)]The relevence or logic of every no code "point" has been torn to shreads over the past 3 years exposing the movement for what it is... changing the rules so the unmotivated can qualify.
That is exactly right.

Of course there are non believers, but one only has to look at NCI's rejoicing of effective dumbing down of the license requirements. For them, it goes way beyond the code. From what I see, they want the Amateur Radio service to simply not have much of a technical or other test at all.

One question I've never gotten a straight answer on - what is so difficult about 5WPM farnsworth code? Why is this an insurmountable barrier for some?

I already know the answer - you can't memorize it like the open book question pools.
If I were to say that you had to eat a big bowl of menudo, in 5 minutes, in order to qualify for a ham test, undoubtably many people would do it, simply because they want the license. Other people might not want to do it, but buckle down and do it anyway. A few people are going to say "no way" and just walk away. Others are going to question the menudo eating requirement, and wonder why it is there anyway.

It's not a question of the test being easy, hard, or anything in between. It is simply a question of relevance. The code has become irrelevant in today's society. No-one, other that hams, care about the code. Not because the code is bad or good, simply because it no longer has relevance. It matters not if the test is easy. If it is indeed easy, then that is just more reason to dump the test. Why test someone on something so easy?

The truth is that it is easy for some, but not for others. Just as eating menudo may be a pleasure for some, it will be a punishment for others. Just because I happen to enjoy a big bowl doesn't mean others do. I can't force them to like it, although many will enjoy it once they try it. In similiar fashion, code doesn't need to be forced on anyone in today's world. We don't live in 1927 any more.

Joe
Well if you want something badly enough, you'll do whatever it takes to get it.

And right now the requirement for HF privileges in the USA is morse code plus at least element 1.

The point isn't whether or not it is relevant. That is a phoney excuse from those who want the easy way out. And since you mentioned that no one cared about code except amateur radio the code is entirely relevant in amateur radio.

I agree fully with getting rid of the code, but I would like to see the written test actually prove to be a challenge. That means no open question pools with answers.

NCI says that the code "serves as an advancement barrier for many other qualified individuals." Well if those other qualified individuals really badly wanted HF, they'd learn 5WPM.

Really now, I learned 13WPM and it's not that hard. But it takes a bit of dedication, and this is one test you cannot just cram for. I used to hate the code a lot before and said the same things that many people here have been saying - it's outdated, that it makes no sense etc. But once I got into it I realized how silly I was. The code was EASY. I picked it up really quick because I put quite a bit of effort into it.

I didn't even need to learn the code initially. I could have operated full privileges with a no code license (Trinidad and Tobago had ignored the ITU ruling and granted full privileges to no code hams long before WRC03). BUt I chose to get a license with code. It shows that I respected the traditions of the hobby and also that I was seriously committed to it, and that I had respect for all modes. And it just turned out that I ended up enjoying operating CW as well.
Well, good for you!

The relevance issue is important, since if it is not relevant, or at least in the way it is tested now, then why test for it? A ham can be perfectly content and a good ham without knowing a lick of code, that is a non-debateable issue since it is just plain true.

I understand that the code test is required now for advancement to HF. This is also not a debateable issue. It is true. But the question is "why should it be required". There needs to be more of an answer than "tradition", or "I did it so anyone can".

If no-one questioned anything, everything would remain status quoe. If we oppose change simply because something has always been a certain way, then we have our heads in the sand, and we would still be walking, since the horse never would have been tried as a mod of transportation.

There is nothing wrong with wanting change when the time comes. In 1927, the code test rule was probably a good thing. In 1980, it had become less relevant, and today it is totally irrelevant.

The FCC will drop the code test in their due time, until then people wanting access to HF will need to learn the code. I think everyone will agree with this. If people want to wait, that is their choice, and doesn't reflect badly on them as a person. It's just a decision they make as to when they want to upgrade, now or later.

Joe

[ai4ep]

YO -- Yes, it does take a lot of CHARACTER to pass the morse code test. It shows the CLASS of the operator, as not to be left behind on some fun, merely because of stubbornness / self pity and ignorance .

Those folks who , through their raising, find the test to be a challenge of their character and their CLASS of individuality go ahead and pass it ( even after multiple tries ) to SHOW that they theirselves have the abilities to get past small obstacles to achieve what they really want ---in this case HF privileges.

These kind of folks do not try to take the "easy button " road through life ( waiting for loopholes or rules to be changed ), they dive right in and practice, and learn, and achieve the goal that is there, and been passed before , and will be passed tomorrow by folks who think like they do "not to let little bumps in the road " slow them down while traveling and learning through life.

Those achievers are the future of amateur radio...folks who ARE willing to actually DO things. Sure there are slow setbacks, but their CHARACTER and CLASS does not let it slow them down from being all that is possible from them. They have goals to achieve and the ambition and PRIDE to get there. Those folks are the future of amateur radio.

This is one reason I wouls suppose an idea of allowing folks who pass the TECHNICIAN class a " 10 year license "...either upgrade or lose your license. No exceptions, no excuses. No grandfathering in because of your last name either. Also, when you lose at the end of those 10 years, you can not re-apply, or attempt to take another amateur radio related test....ever again. Great idea.

[K7JEM]

Robert-

That is a very stupid idea. A person lets his tech license lapse and he can never take a ham radio test again? But if he is a general, he is a "good ole boy" for life? Do you think these things through or just post whatever comes to your mind?

When people post such stupid things, it makes all of their posts suspect. A non-renewable ham license serves no purpose at all. If the people aren't using their license, then they aren't bothering anyone, so it doesn't matter. If they are using their license, then it is silly to force them to upgrade for priviledges they don't want or need. I can't think of any other endeavor in life that has such a stipulation. Can you think of a few examples in other fields?

Joe

[ai4ep]

K7JEM --well, your avatar speaks for you very well.

Simple, effective, to the point....and took up a lot less space.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 29 2006,11:16)]When people post such stupid things, it makes all of their posts suspect.
EP's posts have been that way since the beginning. You're just realizing this now? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Sep. 29 2006,11:53)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 29 2006,11:16)]When people post such stupid things, it makes all of their posts suspect.
EP's posts have been that way since the beginning. You're just realizing this now? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I guess I just don't pay much attention to them most of the time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 29 2006,14:57)]Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Sep. 29 2006,11:53)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 29 2006,11:16)]When people post such stupid things, it makes all of their posts suspect.
EP's posts have been that way since the beginning. You're just realizing this now? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I guess I just don't pay much attention to them most of the time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
That's as it should be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif too slow to read the original post # # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ky5u]

Real Hams....dead from the neck down, but real hams...

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 29 2006,15:34)]Real Hams....dead from the neck down, but real hams...
By the way, did you know that NCI's webpage has immortalized you?

It's almost as if you're one of their sworn enemies. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W0LC]

I wouldn't worry about Code...BPL will wipe everything out..

[W0LC]

Complaining about learning the code..man...ain't that concept dead yet?

Dead Yet? (http://www.thesoundarchive.com/montypython/dead.wav)

[ai4ep]

...yep, using CW to talk on the HF bands #to another post person using their computer to look at this site right now....gee / wonder what is getting said ? #(oops)

No internet connections, no telephone lines, no microphones...just 2 simple morse code keys.

So simple , yet so effective.

and less than 10 watts each, complete with ID every 10 minutes.

got to go, radio is waiting....

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Sep. 29 2006,14:58)]yep, using CW to talk on the HF bands to another post person using their computer to look at this site right now....gee / wonder what is getting said ?
You are about the only person that does a hell of a lot of talking and don't say anything.

And I bet you can time out an HF radio.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[ai4ep]

...I spelled a word wrong, so I deleted the whole message.

That IS ok, to do that, aint it ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W0UZR]

Did it begin with an "S" or an "F" ?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif can I ask the audience or buy a vowel ?

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 27 2006,11:46)]Code is dead, I just got the call to pick up the remains. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Code sure is active and making a lot of noise for being dead. If you have this same problem with other of your clients you might think about postponing the prep work for awhile.

[VE7NOT]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 29 2006,05:09)]It is simply a question of relevance. The code has become irrelevant in today's society. No-one, other that hams, care about the code. Not because the code is bad or good, simply because it no longer has relevance.
Then why do the number stations use it? The aviation beacons, swedish telegraph, police repeaters, the navy..... i could go on. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Sep. 30 2006,20:26)]Quote[/b] (posted by K7JEM not by AB2MH!!!! @ Sep. 29 2006,05:09)]It is simply a question of relevance. The code has become irrelevant in today's society. No-one, other that hams, care about the code. Not because the code is bad or good, simply because it no longer has relevance.
Then why do the number stations use it? The aviation beacons, swedish telegraph, police repeaters, the navy..... i could go on. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Hello..... please quote properly. I did not say that!

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Sep. 30 2006,18:26)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 29 2006,05:09)]It is simply a question of relevance. The code has become irrelevant in today's society. No-one, other that hams, care about the code. Not because the code is bad or good, simply because it no longer has relevance.
Then why do the number stations use it? The aviation beacons, swedish telegraph, police repeaters, the navy..... i could go on. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yeah, thats a lot of stuff.

Police repeaters and beacons use it for ID only, and it is not sent by hand in these cases, but by machine.

The relevance, or lack thereof, stems from the fact that you won't usually find two operators sending code to each other, by hand, except on ham radio- where it is common. Every other instance in the world of manual telegraphy is pretty much gone.

The Navy? Come on. Don't know anything about Swedish Telegraph, but that must be a joke, like grasping for straws. "Well, we need to keep the code test going here in the USA because Swedish Telegraph uses it."

The "number" stations? They could just as easily use any other form of modulation, and many of them use voice. Again the "number" stations have no relevance to the general populace, and their use of any mode is not relevant to ham radio, or the ham radio test.

Joe

[ai4ep]

...well..whether by machine or by hand, C W is still important. IF it were so bad, why wasnt it eliminated days / weeks / months / years / decades ago ?

[ai4ep]

If some folks would / mentally could practice learning CW as much as they make worthless posts AGAINST it, they would already have learned it and COULD be using it " on-the-air ".


But, as you can see...it is easier just to gripe.

[N2RJ]

LIke I've said, the issue isn't code. Code is a smokescreen. The issue is that people don't see the need in taking a test which takes some effort to pass.

The written elements are super easy because you can just memorize/drill the question pools and pass.

If you look at NCI's "news" on their webpage, they rejoice when requirements (not just code) are dumbed down. THey also oppose any proposals to make the written test harder.

The whiners are claiming that they do not want to invest a lot of time and energy for a "hobby."

Well if that's the case, FRS, GMRS, CB or 11 meter freebanding is waiting for them.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 01 2006,05:49)]LIke I've said, the issue isn't code. Code is a smokescreen. The issue is that people don't see the need in taking a test which takes some effort to pass.

The written elements are super easy because you can just memorize/drill the question pools and pass.

If you look at NCI's "news" on their webpage, they rejoice when requirements (not just code) are dumbed down. THey also oppose any proposals to make the written test harder.

The whiners are claiming that they do not want to invest a lot of time and energy for a "hobby."

Well if that's the case, FRS, GMRS, CB or 11 meter freebanding is waiting for them.
I can't find a "news" link on the NCI website.

Perhaps you can point it out, and also where they "rejoice" when other requirements are "dumbed down". I can't seem to find that either.

Please post a link, or at least where you see this occuring. If you don't, I will assume you misspoke, since I can't find it anywhere.

Link to NCI webpage (http://www.nocode.org/)

Maybe others can search the "bogeyman" website and see if they can come up with what he is talking about.

Joe

[W0UZR]

Fricken no DELETE BUTTON !

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 01 2006,06:49)]LIke I've said, the issue isn't code. #Code is a smokescreen. #The issue is that people don't see the need in taking a test which takes some effort to pass.

The written elements are super easy because you can just memorize/drill the question pools and pass. #

If you look at NCI's "news" on their webpage, they rejoice when requirements (not just code) are dumbed down. #THey also oppose any proposals to make the written test harder.

The whiners are claiming that they do not want to invest a lot of time and energy for a "hobby."

Well if that's the case, FRS, GMRS, CB or 11 meter freebanding is waiting for them.
I've been raised to do what it takes and not complain. A real man just does what is required. Does what it takes.

If I whined like some of these people, my dad would have kicked my @$$ from one end of the town and back to the other.

They don't want to learn the code because it is not real easy, and takes some effort. They want everything handed to them. They want things,,,


<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:purple'>THE EASY WAY</span></span>

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,08:44)]Maybe others can search the "bogeyman" website and see if they can come up with what he is talking about.
I would, but to look through something created by people that want's things the easy way would be a complete waste of time for me.
It's way more fruitful for me to look in a web site that belongs to people that don't want things the easy way.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Oct. 01 2006,07:55)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,08:44)]Maybe others can search the "bogeyman" website and see if they can come up with what he is talking about.
I would, but to look through something created by people that want's things the easy way would be a complete waste of time for me.
It's way more fruitful for me to look in a web site that belongs to people that don't want things the easy way.
Well, a person made a statement attributing certain things to the NCI. If they are true, someone should be able to back it up. If it isn't backed up, I will assume it is untrue, and something "made up" by the individual with the hope of discrediting NCI.

NCI has done many things "the hard way". We are now on the verge of seeing the code test eliminated in the USA, partially because of the action of NCI. It would be easy to sit back and complain, but they filed petitions, mobilized their members, and it looks like they are going to get what they have sought. This is not the easy path. They have worked much harder at their goals than most people that petition the FCC for changes.

Apparently, the FCC agrees with NCI, at least on most of their issues. They, (NCI) have had well thought out plans, and well thought out arguements. Some of the opposing petitions actually sought to increase code test requirements. While this may be a dream of the petitioners, it had no chance of actually flying, and just made those petitioners look foolish. The NCI proposed something that the FCC said they were actually considering- that is the complete removal of amateur code test requirements.

As far as I can find, NCI has never addressed the issue of the written tests, please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Joe

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Oct. 01 2006,07:48)]I've been raised to do what it takes and not complain. A real man just does what is required. Does what it takes.
Soon, the requirement for the code will be gone, and your complaining will stop, since these new people will now be "doing what's required."

Or will you continue to complain and moan about the issue? That is the problem here, the biggest complainers and moaners are the people who want to retain the code test, not those seeking to eliminate it.

I just sit back and smile. There will be a load of "non complainers" p*$$ing their pants when the FCC finally issues their rulemaking, and their complaining will not cease at that time.

Joe

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,09:17)]NCI has done many things "the hard way". We are now on the verge of seeing the code test eliminated in the USA, partially because of the action of NCI. It would be easy to sit back and complain, but they filed petitions, mobilized their members, and it looks like they are going to get what they have sought. This is not the easy path.
And if they put in one fourth as much effort to just do what it takes and learn the code, they would have upgraded long ago.

And I have no admiration for people that "Work" for the ruination of Amateur Radio.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Oct. 01 2006,08:30)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,09:17)]NCI has done many things "the hard way". We are now on the verge of seeing the code test eliminated in the USA, partially because of the action of NCI. It would be easy to sit back and complain, but they filed petitions, mobilized their members, and it looks like they are going to get what they have sought. This is not the easy path.
And if they put in one fourth as much effort to just do what it takes and learn the code, they would have upgraded long ago.

And I have no admiration for people that "Work" for the ruination of Amateur Radio.
Me either.

NCI is working for the betterment of ham radio. You don't have to believe it, but many people do.

The ruination of HR will come about due to oldtimers, not the new influx, this is very clear to me.

Joe

[W0UZR]

CB doesn't have code requirements. How about all you go there? And have you listened on that lately? #You people are going to turn ham radio to be just like that.

Because when you get the code eliminated, then you will be working on getting rid of the written test. Some of you are already talking about that, and the code isn't gone yet.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Oct. 01 2006,08:49)]CB doesn't have code requirements. How about all you go there? And have you listened on that lately? You people are going to turn ham radio to be just like that.

Because when you get the code eliminated, then you will be working on getting rid of the written test. Some of you are already talking about that, and the code isn't gone yet.
You make assumptions not based on fact. Lots of things don't have a code test, and they are fine. The FCC has already determined that a code test is not needed in order for someone to be a good operator, the code test is irrelevant to a person's qualities.

Why are the code test and the written intertwined in your brain? They are two separate things. There probably are people seeking to eliminate the written, but that's not going to happen. The code test, however, will be going away shortly. There is no petition pending to remove the written test, and if there were, it would not see the light of day, due to opposition.

VHF and UHF have no code requirement. If your CB analogy is to be believed, then these bands should have become like CB, starting 16 years ago. There are problems on these bands, but no different than they were back in the 70's and 80's, when everyone had a code test. If anything, the bands are better now than back then, and less used. This doesn't have anything to do with the code test, or lack of same.

Joe

[ai4ep]

K7JEM #-- what about learning morse code is so hard for you to get done ?

Is it the speed of the code, is it the tone ( frequency...treble / bass )..is it the volume of the audio ?

When I mess with CW, I turn the audio down to where you can just hear it good in a quiet room ( or wearing headphones, the old style that covers the entire ear )...then and only then can I hear and identify the characters of CW well. #If the audio is turned up to what most folks would listen to their local radio station, or voices on ssb on HF, it would be too LOUD, and ...for me...the characters would mesh together and not be as easily understood.

So, if those reading this have the time to try this idea... turn the audio down when listening to CW, and let me know if you can copy it better than before. #

No I aint trying to intimidate you K7JEM, or any one else...just supplying ideas that may help YOU, or any one else to copy C W better, and enjoy it more.

===================
Now, if removing CW from the requirement for getting an amateur license on HF was / is such a great, fine / fantastic idea...why aint it been done already ?

Why wasnt it done back in 1991 when the "N C T " license first came out, or even earlier in time ? #IMHO I would guess that folks are lazier now than 15 years ago, in so many different ways ( most not even related to radio ) . Look at the art of cooking...microwave ovens have eliminated a lot of stove top cooking efforts, remote controls on tv sets eliminated the need to get out of the chair to change channels, antenna rotors have eliminated the need to walk out outside and "armstrong " turn your beam antenna on a push - up pole in the desired direction...the " auto reverse " controls on your cassette tape system eliminates you having to eject and turn over the cassette in your player ...automatic antenna tuners on your HF rig on your amateur radio eliminate you from having to use the knobs to "manually tune " your tuner to your rig / antenna.....we all have just gotten lazy ( to one extreme or another )..we used to use dictionaries / encyclopedias to look up how to spell words / look up important stuff , now we just use the computer.

OK, enuf of that lousy L word...now we go to another L word --- learn. Part of being an amateur radio operator is the constant LEARNING from day - to - day about things to do with radios / antennas / etc. #If you do not wish to LEARN, then go back to CB / freeband / or try frs .

~~ I know this post is kind of long for those of you with short attention spans, and I hate that I have problably confused you...but just go slow ( like you usually do ) and maybe you can read all of this today...if not...have some one read it TO you.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #Tell ya what, I will just post the rest of this later so you wont get stressed out #and your feeble mind wont start hurting. #I can help by doing you that much of a favor, even though yoou aint got an IQ high enuf to say "" THANK YOU ep "" . http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K7JEM]

I passed my code test in 1974, and have not used the code, or felt any need to improve my proficiency since then.

The point is not about learning the code, the point is about the lack of relevance of the code test to being a ham operator.

If the ham test required an individual to jump out of a 4th story window, undoubtably many would do it, since it is a requirement. Others would question why the requirement exists.

Why wasn't the code test eliminated totally in 1991? Because of the treaty, which required code testing for HF access. That treaty has been changed, and with it, many countries have dropped the code as an HF requirement. The USA will follow suit, soon, but the wheels of govt in our country grind slowly. Canada eliminated the requirement over a year ago, virtually overnight. Our govt doesn't roll so quickly.

Joe

[ai4ep]

k7jem --- ok, thanks for the information.

In spite of us disagreeing on this minor topic, I WILL talk to you on the HF bands if & when the rules change...I aint quite THAT narrow - minded !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 01 2006,10:49)]K7JEM #-- what about learning morse code is so hard for you to get done ?

Is it the speed of the code, is it the tone ( frequency...treble / bass )..is it the volume of the audio ?

When I mess with CW, I turn the audio down to where you can just hear it good in a quiet room ( or wearing headphones, the old style that covers the entire ear )...then and only then can I hear and identify the characters of CW well. #If the audio is turned up to what most folks would listen to their local radio station, or voices on ssb on HF, it would be too LOUD, and ...for me...the characters would mesh together and not be as easily understood.

So, if those reading this have the time to try this idea... turn the audio down when listening to CW, and let me know if you can copy it better than before. #

No I aint trying to intimidate you K7JEM, or any one else...just supplying ideas that may help YOU, or any one else to copy C W better, and enjoy it more.

===================
Now, if removing CW from the requirement for getting an amateur license on HF was / is such a great, fine / fantastic idea...why aint it been done already ?

Why wasnt it done back in 1991 when the "N C T " license first came out, or even earlier in time ? #IMHO I would guess that folks are lazier now than 15 years ago, in so many different ways ( most not even related to radio ) . Look at the art of cooking...microwave ovens have eliminated a lot of stove top cooking efforts, remote controls on tv sets eliminated the need to get out of the chair to change channels, antenna rotors have eliminated the need to walk out outside and "armstrong " turn your beam antenna on a push - up pole in the desired direction...the " auto reverse " controls on your cassette tape system eliminates you having to eject and turn over the cassette in your player ...automatic antenna tuners on your HF rig on your amateur radio eliminate you from having to use the knobs to "manually tune " your tuner to your rig / antenna.....we all have just gotten lazy ( to one extreme or another )..we used to use dictionaries / encyclopedias to look up how to spell words / look up important stuff , now we just use the computer.

OK, enuf of that lousy L word...now we go to another L word --- learn. Part of being an amateur radio operator is the constant LEARNING from day - to - day about things to do with radios / antennas / etc. #If you do not wish to LEARN, then go back to CB / freeband / or try frs .

~~ I know this post is kind of long for those of you with short attention spans, and I hate that I have problably confused you...but just go slow ( like you usually do ) and maybe you can read all of this today...if not...have some one read it TO you.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #Tell ya what, I will just post the rest of this later so you wont get stressed out #and your feeble mind wont start hurting. #I can help by doing you that much of a favor, even though yoou aint got an IQ high enuf to say #"" THANK YOU ep "" #. # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I take back the,,,

"You do a h@@@ of a lot of talking and don't say anything"


remark



Thank you,,,,

WELL SAID !!

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 01 2006,10:33)]k7jem --- ok, thanks for the information.

In spite of us disagreeing on this minor topic, I WILL talk to you on the HF bands if & when the rules change...I aint quite THAT narrow - minded !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
You don't have to wait for the rules to change to talk to me on HF, I just don't do CW.

Joe

[ai4ep]

( blush ) ...I thought you were a N C T.

I apologize.

==================

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,09:44)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 01 2006,05:49)]LIke I've said, the issue isn't code. Code is a smokescreen. The issue is that people don't see the need in taking a test which takes some effort to pass.

The written elements are super easy because you can just memorize/drill the question pools and pass.

If you look at NCI's "news" on their webpage, they rejoice when requirements (not just code) are dumbed down. THey also oppose any proposals to make the written test harder.

The whiners are claiming that they do not want to invest a lot of time and energy for a "hobby."

Well if that's the case, FRS, GMRS, CB or 11 meter freebanding is waiting for them.
I can't find a "news" link on the NCI website.

Perhaps you can point it out, and also where they "rejoice" when other requirements are "dumbed down". I can't seem to find that either.

Please post a link, or at least where you see this occuring. If you don't, I will assume you misspoke, since I can't find it anywhere.

Link to NCI webpage (http://www.nocode.org/)

Maybe others can search the "bogeyman" website and see if they can come up with what he is talking about.

Joe
Sure. I see you didn't link to the news page.

No problem, I am happy to do that for you:

http://www.nocode.org/articles.html

Quote[/b] ]US Technician Plus operators now have vastly greater privileges as visitors in many foreign countries than they do at home in the US!!!
The FCC has finalized reciprocal licensing participation in CEPT and the ARRL has begun issuing IARPs (International Amateur Radio Permits ... both CEPT reciprocal operation and IARPs grant holders of US Technician Plus and higher licenses FULL amateur privileges, INCLUDING HF while visiting in CEPT and CITEL signatory countries!!! Sadly, holders of US Technician licenses gain only VHF privileges in CEPT/IARP countries and Novices gain no privileges at all, since there is no comparable CEPT/IARP license class. For details on CEPT reciprocal operating and the FCC's Public Notice (in English, German, and French ... a copy of which must be in your possession, along with proof of US Citizenship and your FCC Amateur Radio License, in order to exercise these new privileges in CEPT countries) is available for download or printing by clicking here. Information on getting an IARP is available here.

[wb7de]

Maybe they should go back to requiring CB licenses, with no test, issue callsigns, increase the maximum allowed power to 100 watts and let those who don't want to take a test go at it.

[K7JEM]

Where is the rejoicing at "dumbed down" requirements? Where is the opposition to making the written tests harder?

All I see is an article about tech+ and technician priviledges when in foreign countries. AFAIK, everything printed there is true, and there is no reference to any "dumbed down" tests, or any reference to them opposing any written test changes. This is just pointing out the irony of a tech+ operator having much more priviledge in another country than in his own.

This doesn't match in any way, shape or form the derogatory comments that you have posted (blatant lies) about NCI. Just because you don't like their policies doesn't mean you can misrepresent (lie about) their intentions, and not have someone call you on it.

Maybe in your mind, this proves your baseless allegation, and I'm sure many more of your ilk will agree with you, but it doesn't make it true.

When a person lies about the intention of the opposition, it just shows that they are on weak ground. I don't need to tell lies about the "pro code test movement", since they are very transparent people, and it is easy to see what their arguements are based on.

Please don't tell any more lies about NCI. We all know you consider it the bogeyman, but really if they are so pathetic, why worry about them.

The truth will shine through, and lies will be exposed.

Joe

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (ke7iou @ Oct. 01 2006,14:53)]Maybe they should go back to requiring CB licenses, with no test, issue callsigns, increase the maximum allowed power to 100 watts and let those who don't want to take a test go at it.
Who has advocated not taking a test for a ham license?

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:03)]Where is the rejoicing at "dumbed down" requirements? Where is the opposition to making the written tests harder?
The same article I posted. This is English, not code, surely you can read, can you?!?!?

Allowing full privileges on HF for technicians is de-facto dumbing down. They love this stuff. They also have highlited several proposals that increase the difficulty of amateur testing on their news page, from the comments to the FCC NPRM. How much more plain can it get?

Quote[/b] ]All I see is an article about tech+ and technician priviledges when in foreign countries. AFAIK, everything printed there is true, and there is no reference to any "dumbed down" tests, or any reference to them opposing any written test changes. This is just pointing out the irony of a tech+ operator having much more priviledge in another country than in his own.

Well then, you are blind, perhaps on purpose, or just playing blind to let the "facts" fit your agenda.

Quote[/b] ]This doesn't match in any way, shape or form the derogatory comments that you have posted (blatant lies) about NCI.

Like what? I only state the facts. NCI is in favor of dumbing down the license requirements. That is not a lie! That is fact! That is the sole reason they exist. Furthermore, the no code/reduced code proposals that they urge their members to oppose are all of those that would either not give significant privileges to NCT's or those that would strengthen testing for some license classes.

Quote[/b] ] Just because you don't like their policies doesn't mean you can misrepresent (lie about) their intentions, and not have someone call you on it.

And that I don't. You are seeing something which doesn't exist, and using this imaginary thing to prop up your weak argument.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe in your mind, this proves your baseless allegation, and I'm sure many more of your ilk will agree with you, but it doesn't make it true.

Baseless only because you refuse to admit to the facts staring you straight in the face? Please.

Quote[/b] ]When a person lies about the intention of the opposition, it just shows that they are on weak ground.

Well thanks for just admitting you are on weak ground.

Quote[/b] ]I don't need to tell lies about the "pro code test movement", since they are very transparent people, and it is easy to see what their arguements are based on.

Of course not, because you've told enough already.

Quote[/b] ]Please don't tell any more lies about NCI.

Never have, never will.

Quote[/b] ] We all know you consider it the bogeyman, but really if they are so pathetic, why worry about them.

The bogeyman? No way. The organization that wants to bring into the hobby as many people as possible with as minimal testing as possible? Absolutely!

Quote[/b] ]The truth will shine through, and lies will be exposed.

Joe

Well at least there's one thing we agree on.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:04)]Quote[/b] (ke7iou @ Oct. 01 2006,14:53)]Maybe they should go back to requiring CB licenses, with no test, issue callsigns, increase the maximum allowed power to 100 watts and let those who don't want to take a test go at it.
Who has advocated not taking a test for a ham license?
Absolutely no one, but NCI gives the impression that a NCT license should be sufficient for full privileges. Their rejoicing over the fact that some countries give Tech+ from the US full privileges and their lamenting that NCT's are not given full privileges is evidence of that.

Of course you will tell me I'm lying, because the facts don't fit your agenda.

[K7JEM]

Your quote:

"THey also oppose any proposals to make the written test harder."

I still haven't seen anything that remotely resembles this remark.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 01 2006,15:35)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:04)]Quote[/b] (ke7iou @ Oct. 01 2006,14:53)]Maybe they should go back to requiring CB licenses, with no test, issue callsigns, increase the maximum allowed power to 100 watts and let those who don't want to take a test go at it.
Who has advocated not taking a test for a ham license?
Absolutely no one, but NCI gives the impression that a NCT license should be sufficient for full privileges. Their rejoicing over the fact that some countries give Tech+ from the US full privileges and their lamenting that NCT's are not given full privileges is evidence of that.

Of course you will tell me I'm lying, because the facts don't fit your agenda.
Again, I will ask you where the NCI says that a NCT should be good for full priviledges? They are talking about techs with code, you know, the guys that have already passed the code test.

Again where are the written test proposals that NCI opposes?

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:35)]Your quote:

"THey also oppose any proposals to make the written test harder."

I still haven't seen anything that remotely resembles this remark.
Here are some of the things they oppose, clearly listed on the news section of their website:

Quote[/b] ]A petition by Robert G. Rightsell, AE4FA and Harry A.M. Kholer, N0PU,
designated RM-10807, would continue Morse testing but give applicants up
to 24 points of exam credit according to their success on Element 1. The
final exam score would be the sum of earned Element 1 points and the
written test score for a possible total of 100 points. Their petition also
calls on the FCC to consolidate the Novice and Technician and the Advanced
and Amateur Extra licenses, boost the number and range of written test
questions and give new Technicians CW and data privileges.

Yet another:

Quote[/b] ]Joseph Speroni, AH0A, seeks to have the FCC delete Element 1 for
applicants who want to operate phone on HF but retain Element 1 at 5 WPM
for applicants who want to operate CW. Designated RM-10808, his petition
would restructure the Amateur Radio testing regime to require specific
knowledge of "RTTY, data, image, spread spectrum, pulse/test, RACES/ARES and space communications only for those wishing to operate these modes."

NCI's comments:Quote[/b] ] Under Speroni's plan, applicants would be under no obligation to pass mode-specific examination elements for mode privileges they don't wish to
operate. (NCI editor's note: This is perhaps the most confusing and convoluted petition of all ... with a requirement to pass a plethora of mode-specific tests before one could operate anything but "phone" and even tests to participate in RACES/ARES communications, this petition, if adopted would make testing extremely complicated and burdensome, both for applicants and VEs, would inhibit our ability to experiment with new modes, and would have a very negative effect on RACES/ARES operator availability.)

Another one they oppose:

Quote[/b] ]The Puerto Rico Amateur Radio League (PRARL) asks the FCC to delete
Element 1 for Technician and General classes but to increase the rigor of
the written elements for those two license classes. The PRARL would keep the 5 WPM Morse exam for Extra applicants. The PRARL also would eliminate same-session retesting and require 30 days between retakes. The petition is designated RM-10809.

And just in case you want to say, "well they never told anyone to oppose anything..." here is a direct quote from their website:

Quote[/b] ]NCI comments/recommendations: NCI recommends that members oppose all of the above petitions. An e-mail bulletin will be sent to members in good standing with instructions on how to use the FCC ECFS to file your comments. (You have kept your e-mail address updated with us, haven't you? If you have changed your e-mail address and haven't notified NCI, use this link to send an update with Callsign/NCI member number and your current e-mail address.)

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:39)][quote=AB2MH,Oct. 01 2006,15:35]
Again, I will ask you where the NCI says that a NCT should be good for full priviledges? They are talking about techs with code, you know, the guys that have already passed the code test.
They endorse (and seem quite jubilant about it too) Tech+ getting full privileges here:

Quote[/b] ]both CEPT reciprocal operation and IARPs grant holders of US Technician Plus and higher licenses FULL amateur privileges, INCLUDING HF while visiting in CEPT and CITEL signatory countries!!!

And lament the fact that US NCT's do not get full privileges in other countries:

Quote[/b] ] Sadly, holders of US Technician licenses gain only VHF privileges in CEPT/IARP countries and Novices gain no privileges at all, since there is no comparable CEPT/IARP license class.

I will also add that wireless licensing in some IARP countries is a complete joke. Some of them will accept all sorts of phoney documentation as qualification for an amateur license, and some have been known to issue licenses to their friends under the table. It is no surprise that some of them give full privileges to US technicians.

Quote[/b] ]Again where are the written test proposals that NCI opposes?

See post above.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 01 2006,15:39)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:35)]Your quote:

"THey also oppose any proposals to make the written test harder."

I still haven't seen anything that remotely resembles this remark.
Here are some of the things they oppose, clearly listed on the news section of their website:

Quote[/b] ]A petition by Robert G. Rightsell, AE4FA and Harry A.M. Kholer, N0PU,
designated RM-10807, would continue Morse testing but give applicants up
to 24 points of exam credit according to their success on Element 1. The
final exam score would be the sum of earned Element 1 points and the
written test score for a possible total of 100 points. Their petition also
calls on the FCC to consolidate the Novice and Technician and the Advanced
and Amateur Extra licenses, boost the number and range of written test
questions and give new Technicians CW and data privileges.

Yet another:

Quote[/b] ]Joseph Speroni, AH0A, seeks to have the FCC delete Element 1 for
applicants who want to operate phone on HF but retain Element 1 at 5 WPM
for applicants who want to operate CW. Designated RM-10808, his petition
would restructure the Amateur Radio testing regime to require specific
knowledge of "RTTY, data, image, spread spectrum, pulse/test, RACES/ARES and space communications only for those wishing to operate these modes."

NCI's comments:Quote[/b] ] Under Speroni's plan, applicants would be under no obligation to pass mode-specific examination elements for mode privileges they don't wish to
operate. (NCI editor's note: This is perhaps the most confusing and convoluted petition of all ... with a requirement to pass a plethora of mode-specific tests before one could operate anything but "phone" and even tests to participate in RACES/ARES communications, this petition, if adopted would make testing extremely complicated and burdensome, both for applicants and VEs, would inhibit our ability to experiment with new modes, and would have a very negative effect on RACES/ARES operator availability.)

Another one they oppose:

Quote[/b] ]The Puerto Rico Amateur Radio League (PRARL) asks the FCC to delete
Element 1 for Technician and General classes but to increase the rigor of
the written elements for those two license classes. The PRARL would keep the 5 WPM Morse exam for Extra applicants. The PRARL also would eliminate same-session retesting and require 30 days between retakes. The petition is designated RM-10809.

And just in case you want to say, "well they never told anyone to oppose anything..." here is a direct quote from their website:

Quote[/b] ]NCI comments/recommendations: NCI recommends that members oppose all of the above petitions. An e-mail bulletin will be sent to members in good standing with instructions on how to use the FCC ECFS to file your comments. (You have kept your e-mail address updated with us, haven't you? If you have changed your e-mail address and haven't notified NCI, use this link to send an update with Callsign/NCI member number and your current e-mail address.)
NCI will oppose any petition that retains MC as a requirement. Period. The fact that some of these petitions seek to change the written pool is inconsequential.

1."A petition by Robert G. Rightsell, AE4FA and Harry A.M. Kholer, N0PU,
designated RM-10807, would continue Morse testing "

2."NCI editor's note: This is perhaps the most confusing and convoluted petition of all ... with a requirement to pass a plethora of mode-specific tests before one could operate anything but "phone" and even tests to participate in RACES/ARES communications, this petition, if adopted would make testing extremely complicated and burdensome, both for applicants and VEs, would inhibit our ability to experiment with new modes, and would have a very negative effect on RACES/ARES operator availability.

3."The PRARL would keep the 5 WPM Morse exam for Extra applicants."

4. "NCI comments/recommendations: NCI recommends that members oppose all of the above petitions. "

Absolutely! The NCI opposes continuing code tests for any class of license. Since all of these proposals seek to retain the code test, in some form or another, they will be opposed to them. But it has nothing to do with the written part of the test, only the code.

Joe

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:48)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 01 2006,15:39)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:35)]Your quote:

"THey also oppose any proposals to make the written test harder."

I still haven't seen anything that remotely resembles this remark.
Here are some of the things they oppose, clearly listed on the news section of their website:

Quote[/b] ]A petition by Robert G. Rightsell, AE4FA and Harry A.M. Kholer, N0PU,
designated RM-10807, would continue Morse testing but give applicants up
to 24 points of exam credit according to their success on Element 1. The
final exam score would be the sum of earned Element 1 points and the
written test score for a possible total of 100 points. Their petition also
calls on the FCC to consolidate the Novice and Technician and the Advanced
and Amateur Extra licenses, boost the number and range of written test
questions and give new Technicians CW and data privileges.

Yet another:

Quote[/b] ]Joseph Speroni, AH0A, seeks to have the FCC delete Element 1 for
applicants who want to operate phone on HF but retain Element 1 at 5 WPM
for applicants who want to operate CW. Designated RM-10808, his petition
would restructure the Amateur Radio testing regime to require specific
knowledge of "RTTY, data, image, spread spectrum, pulse/test, RACES/ARES and space communications only for those wishing to operate these modes."

NCI's comments:Quote[/b] ] Under Speroni's plan, applicants would be under no obligation to pass mode-specific examination elements for mode privileges they don't wish to
operate. (NCI editor's note: This is perhaps the most confusing and convoluted petition of all ... with a requirement to pass a plethora of mode-specific tests before one could operate anything but "phone" and even tests to participate in RACES/ARES communications, this petition, if adopted would make testing extremely complicated and burdensome, both for applicants and VEs, would inhibit our ability to experiment with new modes, and would have a very negative effect on RACES/ARES operator availability.)

Another one they oppose:

Quote[/b] ]The Puerto Rico Amateur Radio League (PRARL) asks the FCC to delete
Element 1 for Technician and General classes but to increase the rigor of
the written elements for those two license classes. The PRARL would keep the 5 WPM Morse exam for Extra applicants. The PRARL also would eliminate same-session retesting and require 30 days between retakes. The petition is designated RM-10809.

And just in case you want to say, "well they never told anyone to oppose anything..." here is a direct quote from their website:

Quote[/b] ]NCI comments/recommendations: NCI recommends that members oppose all of the above petitions. An e-mail bulletin will be sent to members in good standing with instructions on how to use the FCC ECFS to file your comments. (You have kept your e-mail address updated with us, haven't you? If you have changed your e-mail address and haven't notified NCI, use this link to send an update with Callsign/NCI member number and your current e-mail address.)
NCI will oppose any petition that retains MC as a requirement. Period. The fact that some of these petitions seek to change the written pool is inconsequential.

1."A petition by Robert G. Rightsell, AE4FA and Harry A.M. Kholer, N0PU,
designated RM-10807, would continue Morse testing "

2."NCI editor's note: This is perhaps the most confusing and convoluted petition of all ... with a requirement to pass a plethora of mode-specific tests before one could operate anything but "phone" and even tests to participate in RACES/ARES communications, this petition, if adopted would make testing extremely complicated and burdensome, both for applicants and VEs, would inhibit our ability to experiment with new modes, and would have a very negative effect on RACES/ARES operator availability.

3."The PRARL would keep the 5 WPM Morse exam for Extra applicants."

4. "NCI comments/recommendations: NCI recommends that members oppose all of the above petitions. "

Absolutely! The NCI opposes continuing code tests for any class of license. Since all of these proposals seek to retain the code test, in some form or another, they will be opposed to them. But it has nothing to do with the written part of the test, only the code.

Joe
Again, read the articles.

NCI clearly highlighted in red the part about increasing the rigor of the written examinations.

They are beating around the bush here - code is their major beef, but they want to simply drop the code without increasing the difficulty of the written elements, or making the written elements such that it is not a trivial matter of drilling the question pools.

The current amateur tests as they are were designed to be of a certain difficulty with a code test. Removing the code test means that it is now much easier to obtain a license. This should not be the case.

If the reason to remove code was that it was outdated, they would update the tests so that it takes into account more modern modes. Clearly they oppose this too. So one can only come to the conclusion that they just want the morse dropped in exchange for NOTHING, and by extension, the reason that the morse should be dropped is to make the licensing requirements easier.

As for the PRARL proposal, General licensees have plenty of HF. If they want the "extra" license they should learn the code, or take a harder test. Much of the "extra" privileges granted by an Extra license are in the CW and data subbands. It stands to reason therefore that if you're giving additional CW and data privileges that licensees should be tested on them. (And yes, I have NO problem with bringing back 20wpm extra testing. Bring it on, baby!)

Look at it this way - NCI is akin to a pressure group that wants to end a seemingly useless subject like P.E. from the high school curriculum. P.E. has absolutely nothing to do with academics, and failing a student from P.E. and keeping him/her back because he/she doesn't want to make the effort to pass the class is an "advancement barrier." Substitute morse for P.E. in the ham radio community.

But the fact remains that sports and physical activity can only do good. Many of our kids are way too fat and spend too much time in front of the computer/game/TV and not enough time outside. As such society in general has to pay for high healthcare costs when they're faced with obesity related medical problems later on.

I hate using analogies, btw.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Methinks you folks have already confused about half of us, and those of us that DO understand still have questions.

eeeeyep.

[K7JEM]

I think it's a far stretch from being happy that other countries grant technicians full privileges, to "rejoicing when requirements are dumbed down".

I think we just look at the situation differently, and will never agree on this issue.

In any case, soon it will be the new requirement, and we can all quit argueing about it. It will be the new requirement, those that don't like it can stay on CW (which is probably where they are anyway), or go away.

Joe

[N5PVL]

I heard they were thinking of going for "Dumb Down International" but a focus group at the UN was already using that name and threatened to sue.

It's always fun to listen to someone get all puffed up with thier intellectual superiority while they explain why learning something rather easy and trivial that thousands already know is too much to ask of them.

I get a giggle out of hearing a fellow who won't bother to learn - talking about how dumb the ones who did go through the learning process are.

The funny part of all this is how they get all puffed up with false dignity while airing the dirty laundry of thier own shortcomings.

Then to top it all off, thier friends at "No Spelling International" won't deliver those sandwich boards signs they keep promising. - It seems nobody there can ( or will ) spell the words "I'm too dumb" or "I'm a lazy bum" for the signs.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif Oh! The humanity!

[K7JEM]

Well, they soon will be laughing all the way to the VE session!

If you guys are so dad gum opposed to the NPRM, then make a counter-proposal. One idiotic group actually proposed to increase the code speed back to pre-2000 levels!

I bet that got a chuckle at the FCC!

Joe

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,17:57)]I think it's a far stretch from being happy that other countries grant technicians full privileges, to "rejoicing when requirements are dumbed down".
Not a far stretch at all. The only difference between a reciprocal license and a home license is the country you're operating from.

Quote[/b] ]
I think we just look at the situation differently, and will never agree on this issue.

In any case, soon it will be the new requirement, and we can all quit argueing about it. It will be the new requirement, those that don't like it can stay on CW (which is probably where they are anyway), or go away.

Joe

WEll yes of course we look at it differently. BUt I do find it ironic that you're an old timer and I'm only 10 years in the hobby, licensed at age 18. No one forced me into the code, in fact my former home country's license already granted FULL privileges with a codeless license. The 13WPM test was optional and I took it anyway because I wanted to.

I also operate both CW and fone, and do see the differences between them both. The 30m band is absolute heaven - no overdriven (non) linears splattering all over and cw/data only. 20m fone has/had the likes of K1MAN and VE7KFM, as well as that whole group there on 275, as well as the folks on 75/80m fone. None of that I've seen on CW, except the occasional person who decides to send too fast. I've seen the other side, and yes, the grass is greener.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,18:01)]Well, they soon will be laughing all the way to the VE session!

If you guys are so dad gum opposed to the NPRM, then make a counter-proposal. One idiotic group actually proposed to increase the code speed back to pre-2000 levels!

I bet that got a chuckle at the FCC!

Joe
Not such a bad idea.

I don't think the FCC is laughing really. They don't handle amateur testing, it's all in the hands of the VEC's.

Speaking of which, VE sessions have been notably sparse these days, maybe everybody is holding on to their element 3 CSCEs and waiting.

It is amazing that so many people would rather wait and wait and wait instead of just buckling down and learning the code.

[K7JEM]

Some people have no use for the code. You hit the nail on the head when you said that you learned the code because you wanted too. That is as it should be. Many people don't want to learn the code, however. Those that want to learn will still be able to, just not forced to.

The FCC was laughing at the proposal to increase the code tests. That proposal goes to the FCC, not the VEC.

Joe

[ai4ep]

wouldnt it be a strange coincidence for it to occur on the tenth month, fourth day of that month ?

10 - 4 ??

This coming Wednesday ....!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K7JEM]

Isn't it ironic, don't you think? A little too ironic, yeah, I really do think.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 01 2006,18:22)]wouldnt it be a strange coincidence for it to occur on the tenth month, fourth day of that month ?

10 - 4 ??

This coming Wednesday ....!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
You know something I don't? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


If they do change the rules on 10-4, that would be pretty funny!

On a more serious note, how long did they take last time to change the rules?

[ai4ep]

The last major rule change I know of involving the FCC & AMATEUR RADIO was --- when the " 13 - 20 wpm cw requirement was dropped "...but if some one knows of a more recent one, tell me & the rest of us.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 01 2006,18:43)]Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 01 2006,18:22)]wouldnt it be a strange coincidence for it to occur on the tenth month, fourth day of that month ?

10 - 4 ??

This coming Wednesday ....!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
You know something I don't? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


If they do change the rules on 10-4, that would be pretty funny!

On a more serious note, how long did they take last time to change the rules?
The NPRM for the restructuring was issued 8-8-1998, and the Report and order issued 12-30-99, so about 1.5 years. The actual rule change took place on 4-15-2000.

Of course, that was 6 years ago, so its anyone's guess today. Could be this week, or next year. It has been about 1 year and 3 months now.

Joe

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 01 2006,20:56)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 01 2006,18:43)]Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 01 2006,18:22)]wouldnt it be a strange coincidence for it to occur on the tenth month, fourth day of that month ?

10 - 4 ??

This coming Wednesday ....!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
You know something I don't? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


If they do change the rules on 10-4, that would be pretty funny!

On a more serious note, how long did they take last time to change the rules?
The NPRM for the restructuring was issued 8-8-1998, and the Report and order issued 12-30-99, so about 1.5 years. The actual rule change took place on 4-15-2000.

Of course, that was 6 years ago, so its anyone's guess today. Could be this week, or next year. It has been about 1 year and 3 months now.

Joe
So I guess we're right on schedule for 10-4-06? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ky5u]

Mr. Sophisticated.....

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 02 2006,10:39)]Mr. Sophisticated.....
BAAHAHAHAHA !!

Where do you get this stuff?
pm me if you don't want to say here

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Oct. 02 2006,10:25)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 02 2006,10:39)]Mr. Sophisticated.....

# # pm me if you don't want to say here
w0uzr-BAAHAHAHAHA !!

Where do you get this stuff?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------steve do you still have the net on thursday? 73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[texham]

Down with the code requirement.

If the FCC wants to keep the code requirement only for communications on those portions of the frequencies that are designated for CW only, that seems logical. But if one is only interested in phone, the CW requirement is rather absurd.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (texham @ Oct. 05 2006,15:19)]Down with the code requirement.

If the FCC wants to keep the code requirement only for communications on those portions of the frequencies that are designated for CW only, that seems logical. But if one is only interested in phone, the CW requirement is rather absurd.
And maybe if one is only interested in appliance operating, might as well remove the technical parts of the test too.

That's pretty much where it's headed. Let's hear the avid anti-coders when that one comes to pass.

[KI4PEQ]

Before anyone looks up my call, I will state right here that I am a Technician class amateur.

I will also state that I think the NCI proposals are all wet. CW is a skill that every amateur should learn and master. In between each crisis du jour I have experienced since I got my ticket, I have been studying the code. I will get it done, maybe later than I want to, but I will get it done.

I also support a moderate increase in the difficulty of the examinations for the Technician class. I think that more theory should have been on the test that I took. I studied for two months thinking there would be theory, and found only two questions!

But for those General, Advanced, and Extra amateurs who would like to see a return to the "good old days" of exams administered by a grumpy civil servant, with questions that required answers such as drawing a Colpitts oscillator from memory, that would be turning back the clock far too much. But learning RF safety, some questions as to how to fabricate your own antenna and select the proper feedline, THOSE are the things I would like to see in the Technician question pool.

I would hate to see amateur radio degenerate to the level of CB or GMRS. But keep the entry level license ENTRY level. Those Techs who seek more privileges should have to put in extra effort to learn another operating mode and further their knowledge of the radio and electronic disciplines.

[w3sy]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 24 2006,14:19)]Thanks Charlie, I needed that. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

One thing in th FISTS response to the FCC NPRM was that most of the violation letters have to do with voice modes. #I wonder why?

I don't believe that morse alone will make an effective filter, but the evidence is overwhelming.

Even in the amateur service, consider this -

Which band has the most courteous operators?

Which has the worst?

Who gets cited for more violations? The phone folks or the CW folks?

Whose signals are usually dirtier and splatter more?
I'd never shove code down anyone's throat, but as a contester, I'll tell you that I have been heckled and QRM'ed in almost every SSB contest I've been in -- but never in a CW contest.

Draw your own conclusions. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[w3sy]

Quote[/b] (texham @ Oct. 04 2006,15:19)]Down with the code requirement.

If the FCC wants to keep the code requirement only for communications on those portions of the frequencies that are designated for CW only, that seems logical. #But if one is only interested in phone, the CW requirement is rather absurd.
Gee, that stale argument has been around since the 1960's. (Hell, maybe longer!) What else ya got?

Testing is not based on what *YOU* like, or what *YOU* may or may not use; it's based on what skills the FCC thinks you should have. As of this writing, they think you should have code skills. Why? I guess they figure you just might NEED to use code one day in a pinch, and they'd hate to have you not know how.

When they no longer care about you having that skill, the requirement will be dropped.

Izzat pretty clear?

[texham]

Use code in a pinch? Please, give me some examples of real life instances where code has saved the day where voice comms failed. I'd be very interested in this.

I'm in agreement with K7JEM on this. I do believe the code requirement will eventually fall away. At least in my suggestion code testing would still be required to operate on certain frequencies of the bands.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (w3sy @ Oct. 05 2006,15:34)]Quote[/b] (texham @ Oct. 04 2006,15:19)]Down with the code requirement.

If the FCC wants to keep the code requirement only for communications on those portions of the frequencies that are designated for CW only, that seems logical. But if one is only interested in phone, the CW requirement is rather absurd.
Gee, that stale argument has been around since the 1960's. (Hell, maybe longer!) What else ya got?

Testing is not based on what *YOU* like, or what *YOU* may or may not use; it's based on what skills the FCC thinks you should have. As of this writing, they think you should have code skills. Why? I guess they figure you just might NEED to use code one day in a pinch, and they'd hate to have you not know how.

When they no longer care about you having that skill, the requirement will be dropped.

Izzat pretty clear?
The FCC has clearly stated that the code test is there to comply with international treaty. Now that the treaty has been changed, there is no valid reason to keep the test, from their perspective. They have heard all the pro-code test arguements, and do not buy them.

That is the reason the code test will go away.

Joe

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 05 2006,20:18)]Quote[/b] (w3sy @ Oct. 05 2006,15:34)]Quote[/b] (texham @ Oct. 04 2006,15:19)]Down with the code requirement.

If the FCC wants to keep the code requirement only for communications on those portions of the frequencies that are designated for CW only, that seems logical. But if one is only interested in phone, the CW requirement is rather absurd.
Gee, that stale argument has been around since the 1960's. (Hell, maybe longer!) What else ya got?

Testing is not based on what *YOU* like, or what *YOU* may or may not use; it's based on what skills the FCC thinks you should have. As of this writing, they think you should have code skills. Why? I guess they figure you just might NEED to use code one day in a pinch, and they'd hate to have you not know how.

When they no longer care about you having that skill, the requirement will be dropped.

Izzat pretty clear?
The FCC has clearly stated that the code test is there to comply with international treaty. Now that the treaty has been changed, there is no valid reason to keep the test, from their perspective. They have heard all the pro-code test arguements, and do not buy them.

That is the reason the code test will go away.

Joe
What's funny is that the NCT whiners here on QRZ are blaming the ARRL for keeping the requirement and accusing them of manipulating the FCC.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,18:32)]What's funny is that the NCT whiners here on QRZ are blaming the ARRL for keeping the requirement and accusing them of manipulating the FCC.
That may be true, but what I see is the "pro-code" camp still arguing the failed party line. If the FCC has already dismissed the arguement, why keep making it? Come up with something new, thats what it will take.

Maybe "Many hams will kill themselves when this change is adopted" or "Code prevents BO". At least these would be new.

Joe