FCC Puts NCVEC Petition up for Comment

[K2PG]

The FCC has assigned an RM number, RM-10787, to the Petition for Rulemaking recently filed by the National Council of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (NCVEC). Comments from the general public may now be submitted to the FCC via its Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at the ECFS page (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). Click on the "Submit Comments" link in the menu on the upper right, enter "RM-10787" in the PROCEEDING window, and scroll down to "CO" (for COmment) in the DOCUMENT TYPE window. Fill in your name (with callsign, if you like) and address. Then type your comments in the window provided or upload them from a Microsoft Word file. When you are finished, click on SUBMIT.

Whether you support retention of the code test requirement or elimination of that requirement (as proposed in RM-10787), avoid emotionalism, stick to the facts that will support your position, and be sure to proofread your comments before submitting them. Comments replete with spelling and grammatical errors make you appear as an ignorant bumpkin and they make a very poor impression to our government regulators. Don't rely on "spell checkers" alone. Use a dictionary and thesaurus if you are unsure of the proper spelling or usage of a word. Errors such as using "loose" when you mean "lose" or "your" when you mean to write "you're" will not be picked up by "spell checkers", as all of these are valid words in the English language.

By the way, there is no such thing as a "CW test". Element 1 tests for proficiency in receiving the International Morse Code at 5 words (25 characters) per minute. "CW" means "continuous wave" and refers to a type of emission. If you refer to Element 1 in your comments, refer to it as "the code test" or the "Morse proficiency examination".

Don't be afraid to quote documents from the FCC or from the administrations of countries that have rendered decisions on this matter and be sure to use footnotes. They will give you authenticity.

[w3fhw]

I Can't locate the "Submit Comments" link on the ECFS page!!! There is a "Submit a Filing" link. Could you clear this up for me?

[N0MLR]

W3FHW use the Post Filing command on the FCC web Site.

I have posted my Comments and am glad it is going before the FCC. It is way past time for this to happen.
Many thanks to the VEC group for initiating the Petition.

As an Operator who has no use what so ever for the CW mode I can assure everyone when it is dropped I will be happy to stay on the Voice/Digital frequencies. CW is great for those who want to use it and by all means let them. But dont look for me there. I will never be a CW operator.
Thanks again VEC team. you have done a great service to ham radio in filling your petition for the matter to be heard.

Greg Dunn / N0MLR

[ae4fa]

How do you find out when the FCC posts something like this? According to the ARRL site, there are at least five other petitions - and I'd like to read them. I've seen two, but not the other four or more . . .

hey uhh k2pg what the heck there is nothing on the fcc web site about this what 4 handle cup u been drinking outa i want some.u better go check again i was just on the fcc web site and nothing was mentioned of this?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?

[n3ntn]

Just click on this link http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ . #On the right side of the page pick "search for filed comments." #Put RM-10787 as the search criteria under preceeding. #There you have it..

Dave
N3NTN

[N9LVS]

the exact url to give comments are is http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi the RM number is RM-10787

I think the morse code has had its time and place but that time and place have long since past. If the listen the the cw band now a day over half of the people are using a computer to generate the code and I would guess about that many are doing the same to receive the code. CW in my expectation is bound to go the way of HF-AM while its HF AM is still used and will always be around but Its by no means will be what is was in years past

[n7wsb]

Done and done. even though I use code all the time myself I see zero reason to test people on a mode of operation that is being used less and less.

On a side note I think its funny that all the no-code techs on here found the online comment filing system with no troubles. Maybe there is such a thing as a generation gap.

[K2PG]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w1mer @ Aug. 27 2003,21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hey uhh k2pg what the heck there is nothing on the fcc web site about this what 4 handle cup u been drinking outa #i want some.u better go check again i was just on the fcc web site and nothing was mentioned of this?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Go back to my posting and click on the link for the ECFS page on the FCC Web site. In the menu to the right of the screen, click on SEARCH FOR FILED COMMENTS. In the PROCEEDING window, type RM-10787. In the DOCUMENT TYPE window, scroll down until you reach PU and select that. PU is "Petition for rUlemaking. Then click on SEARCH. You will see the petition for rulemaking listed as such. To read it, click on the link in the listing. You will need the Adobe Acrobat reader (available free of charge) in order to see the document, as it is a .pdf file.

[K2PG]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w3fhw @ Aug. 27 2003,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I Can't locate the "Submit Comments" link on the ECFS page!!! There is a "Submit a Filing" link. Could you clear this up for me?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Use the "Submit a Filing" link. That will take you to the form for submitting your comments on this procedure. When you are finished filling out the form, you may upload your comments from a Word document or you may a brief comment in the window provided. Then click on the button at the bottom of the page to submit your comments.

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Comments replete with spelling and grammatical errors make you appear as an ignorant bumpkin and they make a very poor impression to our government regulators. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In other words, for the CBer's out there, "take a 10-shut up and let the attorneys do the talking - break-break!"

I just couldn't resist!

Dave KG6JTB

[n5ebw]

Thanks for the link, they will definitely hear from me.

[K0HB]

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10787
Amateur Service Rules to eliminate )
Morse code testing. )


To: The Commission

PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB



OVERVIEW

These comments are submitted in response to the petition of
NCVEC which requests elimination of test Element 1 (Morse Code)
from the Amateur Radio service rules.

I. Discussion:

The instant petition requests the elimination of Element 1
(5WPM Morse code test) from the required test for General
and/or Extra Class licenses in the Amateur Radio service.

I find no persuasive argument for continuation of this test,
and support the petition to discontinue testing new applicants
with Element 1.

I am concerned, however, that other elements of the qualification
tests are not adequate to ensure a high level of expertise in
new applicants to the Amateur Radio service, and propose changes
in the licensing structure to ensure that all 5 points of
CFR 47 paragraph 97.1 (Basis and Purpose) are reasonably addressed
in the qualification process.

II Proposal:

I propose that no new applicants be accepted for the current
license classes and that after some reasonable grace period, no
upgrades be available in the current licensing structure.

A. New License Classes:

I propose that new license applications be available
in two classes, namely "Class B" and "Class A".

The "Class B" license would have an entry-level test (basic
regulations, safety, operating procedures, basic DC and AC
electronics). This class would have full frequency and
mode privileges, power limited to 50W output. The license
would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable.
holders of this license would be required to have 2 years
experience as a licensee ("time in grade") before being
eligible to upgrade to "Class A".


The "Class A" license test would be of a difficulty level
similar to the current Extra class test, and would have
full privileges at power levels up to 1500W, equivalent to
current Extra Class license holders. This license
would be issued permanently without requirement for
renewal.

B. Status of current licensees.

Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would
retain their current operating privileges.

Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class
licensees could up grade to "Class A" at any time.

Respectfully submitted,

H. Hans Brakob, K0HB

[KE4GKA]

I went to FCC, WTB, and did a search for RM-10787. Allso did a search under NCVEC and "morse proficiency" with no hits.

What is the degree of confidence on this post?

Ed
Fayettevikke, NC

[K0HB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4GKA @ Aug. 29 2003,08:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I went to FCC, WTB, and did a search for RM-10787. #Allso did a search under NCVEC and "morse proficiency" with no hits.

What is the degree of confidence on this post?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
100% confidence. I have downloaded a complete copy of RM-10787 from the FCC web site, and responded.

73, de Hans, K0HB

[KE4GKA]

Hans (K0HB):

Great NEWS, can you please help me to download a copy of RM-10787 from the FCC site........

Best of numbers "old man"......

ED
KE4GKA

[wb2tqc]

My Comments are Filed. Thanks for the link and the heads up.

John WB2TQC FISTS #8690

[w0dz]

I too posted a comment. I won't bore you with the entire text, but here are the salient parts:

While I support the intent of this proposed rulemaking, there are three ramifications that must also be addressed. Until they are, I cannot support this particular petition as it stands.

1. Tech access to HF. This is a good thing, but the petition does not go far enough...I believe they, and Novices, should be given a 25 KHz section of the upper end of the currently unused Novice CW sub-bands in which they could use phone...This would give the new HF-users some valuable experience at HF operating that they will actually use and an incentive to upgrade so they could use the whole band.

2. License exams. Element 1 has long been regarded as a filter that has helped keep the amateur service from degenerating into the mess that has befallen the Citizen’s Band...If that test is eliminated, the other exams should be made harder to compensate. In particular, knowledge of digital communications (including knowledge of Morse characters) should be added to the written tests for all classes of license.

3. Existing Techs should not be given privileges that they did not have to earn. If Techs are given Novice privileges without having to take a test that everyone else had to take, some amateurs who think the newcomers got undeserved “amnesty” will treat them poorly. To prevent this, they should have to take a “replacement Element 1” exam, which would be a written test on digital modes, the questions for which would be added to the pool for all other new licensees. This would really help keep some misguided amateurs from treating the newcomers badly, while adding needed difficulty to the tests.

I personally prefer CW to all other modes. Anybody can talk, but few can show off a true skill. Unfortunately, though, I have to agree that many who would have made great hams were locked out unnecessarily because of inability to learn Morse code. I therefore support the elimination of the code requirement, but ONLY if the other safeguards to the amateur service noted above are put in place at the same time.

Also done and done. I use code myself. However, as trustee for an elementary school radio club, my experience tells me that most students would be interested in upgrading from Technician if there were no morse requirement. I see dropping the morse proficiency requirement as an incentive for them to upgrade and, thereby, deepening their interest and activity in the amateur service.

Bob Schroeder, W8CRO
(KK8STA is the school club call)

[KD5WBJ]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kk8sta @ Aug. 29 2003,12http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also done and done. I use code myself. However, as trustee for an elementary school radio club, my experience tells me that most students would be interested in upgrading from Technician if there were no morse requirement. I see dropping the morse proficiency requirement as an incentive for them to upgrade and, thereby, deepening their interest and activity in the amateur service.

Bob Schroeder, W8CRO
(KK8STA is the school club call)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
While you're at it,I bet most of your students would like a diploma without going through the trouble of finishing high school.
I think we should maybe just print out high school diplomas at the same time we do the birth certificate.
Mike

[KG4TPO]

Looking over the coments posted so far on the FCC website, I was pleasantly suprised to see several Extra's and Advanced holders, with positive comments on the removal of element 1

Once we get this issue out the way, we can all fight against the BPL issue.....

Paul - KG4TPO

[KA7FPM]

I support the continuation of the requirement for Amateur operators to demonstrate Morse code proficiency in order to obtain increased operating privileges, for the following reasons:

1. High Availability of Emergency Communications Capability. #The Amateur service has a vested interest in developing and maintaining a pool of competent Morse code operators to ensure its relevance as an emergency communications service. #While modern digital modes are available and effective during routine operation, each of them with the exception of Morse code requires the use of computer technology and software. #In an extended emergency situation where commercial power is not available, it could become very difficult to supply a computer and monitor with the required power needed to use these technology-dependent digital modes. #In contrast, by operating QRP (low power) using Morse code, an Amateur station could remain on the air almost indefinitely.

2. Continuation of Incentive-Based Granting of Privileges. #Part 97.1 establishes the fundamental purposes of the Amateur Radio Service, and calls for the “continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art”. #The current incentive-based system, which grants greater privileges based on increased demonstrated knowledge and skill levels, appropriately supports this fundamental purpose. #While individual amateurs may not have a particular interest in routinely operating using Morse code, they nevertheless have an obligation to become familiar with all aspects of the radio art. #Supporting this argument is the fact that while few amateurs actually use the digital modes, the written examination elements currently test operating knowledge of many digital modes. #The current method of testing for basic (5 wpm) knowledge of Morse code is a reasonable way to accomplish the goal of encouraging amateurs to increase their knowledge and skills in all aspects of the radio art.

[ae4fa]

NCVEC’s petition (which the ARRL rep abstained from voting on because the Directors have not yet set policy) ain’t the only action in town. The FCC has also posted five other petitions. See:

RM-10781 petition

RM-10782 petition

RM-10783 petition

RM-10784 petition

RM-10785 petition

The FCC is looking for comments on these, as well.

And there are two more that have been filed, but not yet set for comments – one from NCI and one from a couple of OPs.

[ae4fa]

Well, apparently my attempt to post links failed. They are available on the ARRL site.

[N1RWC]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I just posted my response, one thing to remember is write down your confirmation #.

my # was 2003829961171

It is important to know as you can refer back to this number when filing further comments.

73 Matt N1RWC
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KD5WBJ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1RWC @ Aug. 29 2003,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I just posted my response, one thing to remember is write down your confirmation #.

my # was 2003829961171

It is important to know as you can refer back to this number when filing further comments.

73 Matt N1RWC
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
GEEZ!!!
Just imagine,another no-code tech waiting with baited breath.
Please,all you no-coders remember my callsign.
Please do not try to communicate with me on HF.
THANKS!!!
Mike

[K0HB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Aug. 28 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On a side note I think its funny that all the no-code techs on here found the online comment filing system with no troubles. Maybe there is such a thing as a generation gap.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Troll attempt!

The Armenian judges gave it a 9.8 on the Olympic Troll-O-Meter, but they were over-ruled by the umpires in instant replay, who award it a 2.6.

The Armenian judges lodged a formal protest!

It was sufficiently trollish, of course, but way too obvious. It was poorly written, poorly executed, and was so incredibly lame as to lack the true drawing power of a really masterful troll. Maybe as high as a 2.9 for the sheer stupidity of the premise, but a 9.8? Never!

The Armenian judges tear their hair out, throw their balalaikas down in dismay, and perform the traditional Armenian Dismay Chant! They demand a recount!

73, Hans, K0HB
Lord High Keeper of the Troll-O-Meter

[wd4gun]

JUST REMOVE THE DAMN ( cw) REQUIREMENT AND LETS ALL JUST GET ALONG,AND OH -BY THE WAY, I MONITOR ALL CW FREQS.DAILY AND GUESS WHAT ? THERE NEVER SEEMS TO BE ANYONE THERE ! OR AM I ON THE WRONG FREQS. CAUSE I CAN'T FIND ALL YOU GUYS THAT SEEM TO SAY YOU'RE THERE, BUT AS TO THE QUARMING AND ALL THE VULGAR TALK THAT SEEMS TO BE ON THE BANDS NOW -I THINK SOME OF THE 11 METER GROUP WOULD PROBABLY IMPROVE THE BANDS.AND FOR THOSE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ON 11 METERS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THERE IS MORE INTELLIGENT CONVERSATIONS GOING ON THERE THAN MOST OF THE AMATEUR BANDS ! SO WHATS THE PROBLEM HERE ARRL IS GONNA GIVE IN BECAUSE THEY WANT THE MONEY FROM THE NEWCOMERS THAT WILL JOIN THEIR CLUB AND READ THAT STUPID MAGAZINE, they just want to make it look like they don't so they can keep all you cw minded folks, is this two face or what, well thats my 2 cent worth, and nuttin but the truth, 73's

[N1RWC]

GEEZ!!!
Just imagine,another no-code tech waiting with baited breath.
Please,all you no-coders remember my callsign.
Please do not try to communicate with me on HF.
THANKS!!!
Mike

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'll remember your callsign alright. So how many IQ points did you give up by posting that comment?

Any takers?

[N1XHF]

Well now that it is up for comment it's just about done. Question is now what are tech's going to have for HF privileges? I just hope the FCC has some kind of sanity and makes the testing just a little bit harder. I never have supported code but the testing is a joke!

Remember don't blame morse code requirement being dropped as the dumbing down of Ham radio, blame GORDON WEST!!!!!!

[N1XHF]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5WBJ @ Aug. 29 2003,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GEEZ!!!
Just imagine,another no-code tech waiting with baited breath.
Please,all you no-coders remember my callsign.
Please do not try to communicate with me on HF.
THANKS!!!
Mike[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Don't worry Mike, Like km5fl if heard on HF I don't think you and your Texas entourage would have many new hams lined up wanting to talk to you after the many degrading comments you folks have posted. Besides don't you have some CW bands to be keying on? Why are you on here?

Remember don't blame the removal of CW for the dumbing down of Ham radio blame GORDON WEST and his 20 page condensed (memorize the question pools) manual!

[N8UZE]

The code itself keeps no one out of ham radio. Anyone can pass the current 5wpm test. Here are the main problems with achieving the ability to pass it.

1. Unrealistic expectations of time to learn it. "Gee I studied for a whole week and can't get it." Well it takes an average of 30 hours study and practice to get to 5wpm.
2. Incorrect training methods. Too many are trying to use the gimmicks to speed the process. It doesn't work. Others are trying to use very old fashioned methods such as memorizing dots and dashes instead of learning it aurally as a reflex. Memorizing doesn't work.
3. Poor practice schedules. It needs daily or near daily practice in the beginning or one tends to loose what they have learned. "I've practiced off and on for two years." Well Off and on doesn't get the job done
4. Internal resistance. "I don't want to do it".

If these elements are addressed, then a person can pass the 5wpm with absolutely no talent. All they need is the commitment to learn it.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Aug. 28 2003,23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Comments replete with spelling and grammatical errors make you appear as an ignorant bumpkin and they make a very poor impression to our government regulators. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In other words, for the CBer's out there, "take a 10-shut up and let the attorneys do the talking - break-break!"

I just couldn't resist!

Dave KG6JTB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Its either CBers or CB'ers good buddy. You are using the possesive form here.
KC7JTY

[K6UEY]

N8UZE,
The reasons you posted are all very true, however I do disagree with your opening statement that the required #CW testing acts as a filter prohibiting some from Ham Radio.As it has been stated time and again in previous postings the ability to copy code is a skill as the learning of another language is. It takes some discipline and dedicated study to learn the skill. Those who are not willing to put forth this effort and want another GOV. freebie are not going to contribute any thing worth while to Ham radio in the future. So this filtration of those who can't qualify is indeed in the best interest of all concerned. Ham Radio is not for everyone, it's tradition has been to generate a fraternal group who's major interest is in the pride of accomplishment toward the furthering of the Art of Radio Communication, and that sense of pride should not be diluted #by those who show no dedication or discipline toward the goals of Ham Radio.
ENJOY!! Life and Ham Radio are Learning experiences....73, # ORV
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Aug. 30 2003,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N8UZE,
The reasons you posted are all very true, however I do disagree with your opening statement that the required #CW testing acts as a filter prohibiting some from Ham Radio.As it has been stated time and again in previous postings the ability to copy code is a skill as the learning of another language is. It takes some discipline and dedicated study to learn the skill. Those who are not willing to put forth this effort and want another GOV. freebie are not going to contribute any thing worth while to Ham radio in the future. So this filtration of those who can't qualify is indeed in the best interest of all concerned. Ham Radio is not for everyone, it's tradition has been to generate a fraternal group who's major interest is in the pride of accomplishment toward the furthering of the Art of Radio Communication, and that sense of pride should not be diluted #by those who show no dedication or discipline toward the goals of Ham Radio.
ENJOY!! Life and Ham Radio are Learning experiences....73, # ORV
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I did not and never have said that CW acts as a filter. You are confusing me with someone else.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It takes some discipline and dedicated study to learn the skill. Those who are not willing to put forth this effort and want another GOV. freebie are not going to contribute any thing worth while to Ham radio in the future.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

so, basically, you're saying that all those ARES people with Tech licenses aren't contributing anything worth while; and should be denied access to HF because they are useless.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
So this filtration of those who can't qualify is indeed in the best interest of all concerned.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It is interesting to observe that this argument is made time and again, but no one has ever demonstrated that the CW test even acts as a filter.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Ham Radio is not for everyone, it's tradition has been to generate a fraternal group who's major interest is in the pride of accomplishment toward the furthering of the Art of Radio Communication, and that sense of pride should not be diluted #by those who show no dedication or discipline toward the goals of Ham Radio.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The fraternal group argument is one for doing away with the code requirement, since the majority of the fraternity has already long since abandoned the code requirement.

[W9JCM]

Comments posted in Favor of keeping the code. Pass the word.

[N0TTW]

My station ID is N0TTW. I filed the FCC to lower the requirement of CW a year before the actual filing that provides the 5 WPM requirement.

I will say this, I have been a participant to an emergency of an Advance class operator that was involved in an accident. If I didn't know CW at all, this person would have been dead.

This person's vehicle had rolled in a snow storm (Blizzard for you thoses who've never seen snow) and his antenna was busted. He keyed morse code (CW) on his FM rig for help. Now most would have thought of anything of this, but I was monitoring 146.52 and noticed a break in my squelch that sounded like morse. When I went to SSB, it was morse. He couldn't hit the repeater with his voice, a repeater that so many people take for granted. He could hear me me via voice, but he couldn't respond as it would caused his radio to distort badly.

I won't go into details except this, if I didn't know code, I would have never heard him or his attempt. His radio was incapable of voice and he definately didn't have a computer to hook to it. He was saved because of CW and lives happily now. ALL BECAUSE OF MORSE CODE, what a surprise.

It is the lazy people who are UNWILLING to learn morse code (CW). And they are the ones who are supporting to drop the REQUIREMENT. Gordon West is in it for the money, plain and simple. He runs a school (and publishes books) that provide him with income, that's the only reason he supports it.

Removing the code will eliminate those who truly want to better themselves. Reducing Amateur Radio to nothing more than CB. I've heard it in many major cities when it comes to 2M. It sounds like a CB radio on that band (and some 70cm bands).

When it comes to the code, I will be filing in support of it, even though I was one of the pioneers to lowering it. But I will make a comment at the same time that the written test needs to be changed, if the code is still dropped. If that happens, I want every amateur radio operator to know Ohm's Law, FCC Regulation, Antenna Theory and other formats BY HEART!! I don't want to be involved with a service AND a hobby that doesn't test the fortitude of a person.

If the FCC does drop the code, then I'll hope they choose no multiple choice question for the eams. That's right, fill in the blanks, you have to have know the theory. All this technology can easily be taken from you at anytime. Via lack of power, hardware failure and such. The code needs to STAY!

The code provides a pool of credible people that can work under any major emergency. It provides a safety net for those who have nothing left in some type of an emergency.

So all you LAZY NAY SAYERS to the code, I'll fight you to the bitter end on this issue!!

For those who think I'm a BACKWOODS HICK, I have 3 degrees. Industrial Electronics, Psychology and Teaching. I've served this country in the military (Army) and have traveled the globe. And I'm only 38 y/o!!

When you make comments from now on, mention your experiences in life.

Chris N0TTW

[W6PEA]

Sure I would like to see the code requirement removed. #But if it is remvoed than why did I study to get my Tech. Lic. ?

I have an Uncle that has been a Ham for #many years Since 1932 according to him he's a General he's been after me for years to get my ticket so #in 2000 I did.

When I was a kid he taught me code, but from what I do for a living I can't hardly hear and can not hear #a lot of sounds
( I know people will say that'sa cop out) but I have a legitamate disability, but come hell or high water i will continue to try and get my code ticket, #I will try to do it before my Uncle passes away he's 90 almost 91 years young.
His call sign is wa6utr
For his birthday last March I gave him a Icom ht t7h he listens to it, but he says he has no use for it because of the foul language on 2m and 70cm in the are he lives in. I know he can still send cw at 13wpm and faster but he claims to have trouble because of arthritis.

73's de w6pea

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5WBJ @ Aug. 29 2003,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GEEZ!!!
Just imagine,another no-code tech waiting with baited breath.
Please,all you no-coders remember my callsign.
Please do not try to communicate with me on HF.
THANKS!!!
Mike[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

"Geez" - mellow out.

I read all the the comments that are publically availble so far,

A) most all of them are advanced/extra or general - only a few are technician...

B) they all support the removal of the code requirement in one way or another.

Anyhow I have better things to remember http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This person's vehicle had rolled in a snow storm (Blizzard for you thoses who've never seen snow) and his antenna was busted.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

A wonderful CW story, the moral of which should be that the guy would have been better off spending time learning how to drive in snow than practicing Morse Code.

It's funny, you know; the number of these annecedotal stories that can be summed up as "man saved from own mistake by counting on rare skill."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It is the lazy people who are UNWILLING to learn morse code (CW). And they are the ones who are supporting to drop the REQUIREMENT.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I can copy morse code at 20 wpm. I am supporting dropping the requirement. #NCVEC's members have all passed the Morse test. #NCVEC is supporting dropping the code. #Lazy? #Are you really calling VEs lazy, because they don't support testing cw any more?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Removing the code will eliminate those who truly want to better themselves. Reducing Amateur Radio to nothing more than CB. I've heard it in many major cities when it comes to 2M. It sounds like a CB radio on that band (and some 70cm bands).
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So all those ARES volunteers who only hold a tech ticket but who woul like HF priviliges to extend their EMCOMM ability don't want to better themselves?

(For what it's worth, 80m is a lot worse than 2m around here.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I want every amateur radio operator to know Ohm's Law, FCC Regulation, Antenna Theory and other formats BY HEART!! I don't want to be involved with a service AND a hobby that doesn't test the fortitude of a person.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So if i asked you, right now, to quote 97.1(e) to me, you could do it without looking?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
If the FCC does drop the code, then I'll hope they choose no multiple choice question for the exams. That's right, fill in the blanks, you have to have know the theory.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

People who study such things routinely discover that multiple guess tests are no harder than essay tests.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The code provides a pool of credible people that can work under any major emergency. It provides a safety net for those who have nothing left in some type of an emergency.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Did you know that ARES is composed mostly of people who hold tech tickets?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When you make comments from now on, mention your experiences in life.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Why? Wisdom comes from what we make of our experience, not the experience itself. #Arguments for or against a thesis should be able to stand on their own merits, not the credentials of those making them.

[kd4mxe]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1RWC @ Aug. 29 2003,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GEEZ!!!
Just imagine,another no-code tech waiting with baited breath.
Please,all you no-coders remember my callsign.
Please do not try to communicate with me on HF.
THANKS!!!
Mike

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'll remember your callsign alright. So how many IQ points did you give up by posting that comment?

Any takers?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
you have that right n1wrc , but i cant understand who would want to talk to you anyway, kiss it big boy, 73s

[n8zux]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5WBJ @ Aug. 29 2003,21:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1RWC @ Aug. 29 2003,16http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I just posted my response, one thing to remember is write down your confirmation #.

my # was 2003829961171

It is important to know as you can refer back to this number when filing further comments.

73 Matt N1RWC
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
GEEZ!!!
Just imagine,another no-code tech waiting with baited breath.
Please,all you no-coders remember my callsign.
Please do not try to communicate with me on HF.
THANKS!!!
Mike[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Well I did the code passed my General and now on to Extra and I posted an opposition to the No Code RM document while the rest of the No Coders are busy posting their comments.

Say No coders why don't you just take the time and buy a CD player order the CW disk DE ARRL and just Do It !!! as well download the Koch Method at G4FON's web site ?

thats my opinion like it or not !! at least in September I'll be taking my Extra Test afterwards I'll be back to post my passing !! not 2 brag but you guys are still in techland on 2 Meters . just think on what you are missing out on HF !!

So what are you guys waiting for !?

[n8zux]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Aug. 31 2003,17:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This person's vehicle had rolled in a snow storm (Blizzard for you thoses who've never seen snow) and his antenna was busted.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

A wonderful CW story, the moral of which should be that the guy would have been better off spending time learning how to drive in snow than practicing Morse Code.

It's funny, you know; the number of these annecedotal stories that can be summed up as "man saved from own mistake by counting on rare skill."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It is the lazy people who are UNWILLING to learn morse code (CW). And they are the ones who are supporting to drop the REQUIREMENT.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I can copy morse code at 20 wpm. I am supporting dropping the requirement. #NCVEC's members have all passed the Morse test. #NCVEC is supporting dropping the code. #Lazy? #Are you really calling VEs lazy, because they don't support testing cw any more?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Removing the code will eliminate those who truly want to better themselves. Reducing Amateur Radio to nothing more than CB. I've heard it in many major cities when it comes to 2M. It sounds like a CB radio on that band (and some 70cm bands).
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So all those ARES volunteers who only hold a tech ticket but who woul like HF priviliges to extend their EMCOMM ability don't want to better themselves?

(For what it's worth, 80m is a lot worse than 2m around here.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I want every amateur radio operator to know Ohm's Law, FCC Regulation, Antenna Theory and other formats BY HEART!! I don't want to be involved with a service AND a hobby that doesn't test the fortitude of a person.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So if i asked you, right now, to quote 97.1(e) to me, you could do it without looking?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
If the FCC does drop the code, then I'll hope they choose no multiple choice question for the exams. That's right, fill in the blanks, you have to have know the theory.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

People who study such things routinely discover that multiple guess tests are no harder than essay tests.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The code provides a pool of credible people that can work under any major emergency. It provides a safety net for those who have nothing left in some type of an emergency.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Did you know that ARES is composed mostly of people who hold tech tickets?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When you make comments from now on, mention your experiences in life.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Why? Wisdom comes from what we make of our experience, not the experience itself. #Arguments for or against a thesis should be able to stand on their own merits, not the credentials of those making them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can say the ARES group I belonged to in Michigan has Extras, Advances, Generals as well Techs & No Code Techs and I will be Extra soon and back to ARES / RACES sometime in the future.

I look at the training possibilities for these newbies, and I was once a DEC and was asked to be a EC as well.

maybe your state has alot of techs but why not be the leader to these people to train them. By the way me General anyway I also held a 3rd. Class Radiotelephone Operators License now RP ( thinking on GROL after Extra ) I look at opportunity ... 73

[n8zux]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8UZE @ Aug. 30 2003,17:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The code itself keeps no one out of ham radio. #Anyone can pass the current 5wpm test. #Here are the main problems with achieving the ability to pass it.

1. #Unrealistic expectations of time to learn it. #"Gee I studied for a whole week and can't get it." #Well it takes an average of 30 hours study and practice to get to 5wpm.
2. #Incorrect training methods. #Too many are trying to use the gimmicks to speed the process. #It doesn't work. #Others are trying to use very old fashioned methods such as memorizing dots and dashes instead of learning it aurally as a reflex. #Memorizing doesn't work.
3. #Poor practice schedules. #It needs daily or near daily practice in the beginning or one tends to loose what they have learned. "I've practiced off and on for two years." #Well Off and on doesn't get the job done
4. #Internal resistance. "I don't want to do it".

If these elements are addressed, then a person can pass the 5wpm with absolutely no talent. #All they need is the commitment to learn it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'll tell you what I did to pratice Morse Code the job I have allows me a 30 minute break to read the book, and pratice the code by listening and using a keyer, walked in on June 7th. this year and walked out as a General, same thing for my Extra, read the book, took sample exams on this web site. I call it disiplined study and that is my reward ! same thing if you play a Piano, play Golf, or Bowling, pratice, pratice, pratice.

Life is no bowl of cherries use it or lose it !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n8zux]

I oppose the removal Period !

And soon 2 B Extra since I am a General.

after that G.R.O.L. I was a Third Class R.T. w/ Element 9 Broadcast Endorsement, thats when the Feild Offices did the exams.

I was handed my first books for Amateur Radio by my dad for Christmas. I will soon Fufill my Goal.

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

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Aug. 31 2003,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is the lazy people who are UNWILLING to learn morse code (CW). And they are the ones who are supporting to drop the REQUIREMENT. Gordon West is in it for the money, plain and simple. He runs a school (and publishes books) that provide him with income, that's the only reason he supports it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you look up my call I'm an Amateur Extra - I did take the time to learn morse code, I use it and I even have a key/keyer by my radio.

I don't support cw testing because. I think if we wanted people to use it we would train them or they would train themselves and use it. We don't need a government requirement for this! I don't want to force something on someone who will never use it. Far to many hams (even the ones who took the time to learn 13 or 22 wpm) learn it and toss the key never to return.

Also its only useful in emergencies if and only if a ham is going to be the one helping you out. Why? Because no government agencies use it anymore. I used to live on a coastal town and I had several friends who worked for the USCG - they used to (probably still do, but I'm not 100% postive) have a listening station there where they monitored among other forms of communications CW. They quit monitoring CW in the early 90's, not because of lack of proficiency (I mean the USCG can train just about anyone to do this), but because no-one used any of the maritime cw distress channels.

[AE6IP]

By the way, if you want to comment on RM-10787 and you use Microsoft Word, you can use
RM-10787-template.doc (http://www.fogey.com/RM-10787-template.doc)

replace the template stuff with the appropriate data, type in your comment, and submit it through
the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs)

[N8UZE]

To: W6PEA

My ex had severe hearing problems. #He had 70% hearing loss in both ears and constant ringing of the ears courtesy of the Vietcong explosives. #However he passed the code. #He was able to do so by adjusting the pitch to something different than the ringing and cranking the volume WAY UP. #Generally he used headphones to block out any extraneous noise. #However on those rare occasions that he did not use the headphones, I had to leave the room due to the volume.

If you need accomodations such as a different pitch or non-Farnsworth setups or headphones and so on, contact your VE team well in advance to set up such accomodations. #Any team worth its salt will be happy to help you if you give them time to get the necessary materials.

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Aug. 31 2003,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This person's vehicle had rolled in a snow storm (Blizzard for you thoses who've never seen snow) and his antenna was busted.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

A wonderful CW story, the moral of which should be that the guy would have been better off spending time learning how to drive in snow than practicing Morse Code.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Even the most expert and highly trained of drivers can make mistakes.

In addition you do not know the complete story around the case. So have insufficient data to comment on what the driver needed or should have done.

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8UZE @ Aug. 31 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In addition you do not know the complete story around the case. #So have insufficient data to comment on what the driver needed or should have done.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Does anyone? I've read it like 20 times in various books and magazines but most are lacking details like who actually rolled the car, and the people who actually rescued him.

Also what I want to know the story of the ham who rolled his car while driving in a billzard uphill on his way to somewhere and broke his wrist to the point where he couldn't move it and send code at all and died of frostbite because he couldn't talk either to call for help, and plus it wouldn't have mattered because his antenna was broken because when the car rolled it was flung into the bushes through forces he couldn't control and his wrist was broken to match the antenna to something else anyhow. I'm sure its happened somewhere http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

I could always tell about my own stories about being trapped on the side of a road. Once was along the Oregon Coast where I broke a clutch part (I can't remember which...) I actually found help rather quickly on a local 2 meter repeater. The other time was 50 miles east of Boise Idaho where because of a freak timing error in the engine spit a cylinder head - in that case yet again a 2 meter repeater saved me - I had to make 4 calls for an operator to help with an "emergency situation", but eventually someone answered.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8UZE @ Aug. 31 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Aug. 31 2003,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This person's vehicle had rolled in a snow storm (Blizzard for you thoses who've never seen snow) and his antenna was busted.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

A wonderful CW story, the moral of which should be that the guy would have been better off spending time learning how to drive in snow than practicing Morse Code.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Even the most expert and highly trained of drivers can make mistakes.

In addition you do not know the complete story around the case. #So have insufficient data to comment on what the driver needed or should have done.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And people without a clue drive in snow country all their lives without ever rolling into a ditch.

Funny ole thing, life.

You're not seriously arguing that a person who drives in snow country would be better off spending time learning morse on the remote chance that they'd end up in a ditch, close enough to another ham to QRP morse, but toasted enough that they can't hit the repeater; rather than spending the same time learning how to do a better job as a driver, are you?

I've run into a lot of stories like this one -- happens when you do search and rescue -- and I've yet to encounter one where better preparation for doing the task at hand made less sense than preparation for failure.

But you're right; we don't know the details. We don't even know if the guy was at any real risk. The highway patrol might have been the next thing down the road; or more likely, since it was a blizzard, the county snow plow.

[w0tdh]

Well, being considered a Bumkin or worse really does not bother me. #What does bother me is someone not filing a response. It is also most aggravating to see seasoned Hams proficient in Morse going along with ridding ourselves of the most basic building block / corner stone of our Hobby................having said that with extreme passion http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, here is my response to Rm-10781, RM-10782, RM-10783, RM-10784, RM-10785, es RM-10787;

Your Confirmation Number is: '200391483186 ' #
Date Received: Sep 1 2003 #
Docket: RM-10787


The Amateur Radio Service was founded upon several basic principals;

Proficiency in skills to Communicate and to use those skills for Public Service when needed.

Amateurs have been required by the FCC to complete a testing procedure to insure they are proficient in these skills. Basic skills that are vital in handling Emergency Traffic when a disaster strikes. One of the Most Basic Skills required of an Amateur is that he / she be able to communicate via Morse Code. Simply being able to pick up a microphone and speak is not a skilled event. For those who can not or mostly WILL NOT become proficient in Morse Code there is the Citizen Band area of the Spectrum where they may communicate to their hearts content. #The Amateur Radio Service was not intended for the Masses. #It is a Skilled Pool of Operators that can and have been called upon to provide Communications when Disaster struck.

My “Elmer” W9TDH - George Marts age now 86, was called upon during WWII after being Drafted, to provide the US Army with his skills as a Communicator. Having already been tested by the FCC and issued the Call Sign of W9TDH prior to the War, George Marts was called upon to use his High Speed Code and Operating skills aboard a Troop Ship as “Sparks” in the South Pacific. The Navy was so short of trained radio operators that orders were cut to provide trained , proficient radio operators to ships that needed them.
I would consider that W9TDH was an invaluable asset. One of many Hams that utilized #their Amateur Radio skills during that crisis where called upon.

Many disasters have occurred both Natural and Man made. #Amateur Radio Operators have been there to assist in providing Communications when “All other forms of Communications “ had failed.

I am very sincere when I say; “It requires a Skilled Dedicated Group of proficient Radio Operators to be of assistance in time of a Disaster or Emergency”.

An Amateur Radio License that does not include a Code Proficiency Test should be considered as an “Entry Level Only” license issued to give a time period for the Operator to become more proficient in Amateur Radio Skills and nothing more.

Lowering the standards to give those who have not shown proficiency in Morse Code, FULL HF Privileges is not the way to go. #A Tech Plus who has demonstrated Code proficiency should have HF privileges. Again, the Amateur Radio Service is not intended for the Masses. If someone just wants to Talk over HF there is the Citizen Band area of the Spectrum.

Please do not eliminate the Code Proficiency requirement from the test procedure to become a licensed Amateur Radio Operator with full privilege to the HF areas.

These are my thoughts in response to those who have filed under RM 10781, RM 10782,
RM 10783, RM 10784, RM 10784, RM 10785 and RM 10787.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
End of msg.

So, like it or lump it those are my thoughts es I might add , very passionate ones http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Tom - K0PJG

Real Radios "GLOW" in the Dark

[N0TTW]

AE6IP Quoted:
A wonderful CW story, the moral of which should be that the guy would have been better off spending time learning how to drive in snow than practicing Morse Code.

It's funny, you know; the number of these annecedotal stories that can be summed up as "man saved from own mistake by counting on rare skill."
=======

To start, my story on the driver that flipped his car was an example of how this mode is able to be more reliable than modes like PSK. PSK requires a computer, something he didn't have under the circumstance, but wouldn't work well anyways because his radio was FM only. You of all people should know that FM is very inefficient when it comes to power anyways.

Yes there have been many stories out there and I'm one that experienced it. Your downplaying of the story just shows your inability to justify why the the code is obsolete, when in reality it is a viable form of communication still.

AE6IP Quoted:
I can copy morse code at 20 wpm. I am supporting dropping the requirement. #NCVEC's members have all passed the Morse test. #NCVEC is supporting dropping the code. #Lazy? #Are you really calling VEs lazy, because they don't support testing cw any more?
===========

Actually, if a VE supports the petition the way it's worded, YES I'm calling them lazy. The petition states, in it's own words:

"The administration of a CW examination imposes an unnecessary burden on the VE teams who must prepare and administer the examination. It requires extensive preparation and special equipment to prepare and administer properly.

Isn't that what a VE is supposed to do? Prepare and administer the tests required? If not, then that person shouldn't be a VE. Sounds more like, "I don't want to do this because it's too much work, let's reduce our responsibilty and work."

I will say I'm glad you know code too, especially at 20 WPM. So if you work 40 meters by the way, how come I don't hear you on there? I would love to improve my code so I can identify some of the beacons I hear on 6 and 2 meters.

Oh wait, there shouldn't be CW on those bands. Why should there be CW on those beacons, no one can't understand what they say anyways because CODE is a obsolete. Hmmm... makes you wonder why certain people can't learn code, when there is so much of it on those bands.

AE6IP Quoted:
So all those ARES volunteers who only hold a tech ticket but who woul like HF priviliges to extend their EMCOMM ability don't want to better themselves?
===============

Nope, never said that. There are many ways to better one's self. In this service and hobby of ours, learning the code DOES better one's self and operating ability. Learning the code requires discipline, attention to detail, fortitude and concentration. These things are what many of today's young kids (and a few adults) need to learn. #Participating in ARES provides selfless service to the public without reward, except to themselves.

In todays society, many kids (and some adults) are taught that they deserve a lot of things without working for them. I'm not going to allow this service to become a handout to that group. Handouts are for less fortunate people, this service is for highly dedicated and skilled people. It took me 3 trys to pass the 5 WPM, 12 tries to pass the 13 WPM (but I screwed up the written test, damn it #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) So I know people can learn the code, IF THEY WANTED TOO!! If my 10 y/o daughter and a 53 y/o friend can learn it, so can the rest of those people out there.

AE6IP Quoted:
So if i asked you, right now, to quote 97.1(e) to me, you could do it without looking?
===========

I knew I would get this type of question. To honestly answer, NO. I do know what 97.1 represents, but I would have to look up paragraph (e) to know what it says.

I at least know where to look if someone asked me a question on things like, What are the requirements to have a beacon station or Where can I use CW. I can tell you that many operators of all classes don't know the answer to these questions and many have to read the regs in until they came across it. I made it a point to know WHERE to look those answers up. How many operators today can find that info quickly. YEA, I'm a dedicated operator!!

I also know that many operators (mostly Technicians) can't even build a simple power supply. Why? Because the spent more time MEMORIZING the answers to the test, rather than learning theory. Many I talk to will tell me, after I tried to explain how to build one, they memorized the test to pass. They never thought they would needed to know how a PS works the way it does.

I don't want this hobby to become an "appliance using" hobby. I want top quality people, just like you, to become proficient in this service. I want those in this hobby to be able to design a Quad Beam, build that power supply, understand why we have the doppler effect with satellites. But if this person doesn't have a basic understanding, they WILL be lost. I think that is the REAL problem we have today.

(This a comment on "fill in the blanks" test I made)
AE6IP Quoted:
People who study such things routinely discover that multiple guess tests are no harder than essay tests.
===========

In all the college training I had, I have YET to see a question pool. If VE's had the flexibility to make their own questions, we'd still see the same drop out rate today if we didn't have the code. No one is really learning anything with todays question pools. If there were test given in college this way, then everyone would have a degree in something.

AE6IP Quoted:
Did you know that ARES is composed mostly of people who hold tech tickets?
==========

And how many would be able to use morse code when power limitations were applied? #Not many on your end! Sounds like trouble on your end because of no flexibility. Sounds like you need to work out that problem.

(My comment on telling me what your experience is)
AE6IP Quoted:
Why? Wisdom comes from what we make of our experience, not the experience itself. #Arguments for or against a thesis should be able to stand on their own merits, not the credentials of those making them.
==================

In society today, credentials matter as well.

My argument

When the No-Code Technician came out, I was happy to see it as it would bring more people in this great hobby. Unfortunately in some major cities, it has turned ugly. But for the most part it did work. However, those in the Technician ranks wanted more privileges. So they worked at getting the FCC to listen. As time has gone on, I see more people unwilling to go out of their way to go above the rest in the last 10 years. Now, at this time, a sacred privilege is trying to be stripped away by those very same people. Unwilling to commit themselves to such a simple task. What a shame.

One thing is for certain, if the code is banished, there is no sense in given the written test. It would be next on the chopping block.

For those who remembered when 11-meters was an amateur band, I can now understand what you went through.

Nothing is for free. Many died for freedom, to travel to the moon or to play the music they wrote. It take sacrifice to want something. Unfortunately, there are people that have no will to learn something different, that want change. It is a sad, sad day in this time.

Let's not change the way Amateur Radio is represented. Let's welcome those who truly want to learn and reject those who want a handout. Knowledge is power.

Chris N0TTW

[W6PEA]

I just posted my comment to the FCC. My confirmation Number is '200391883914'

[K4RLC]

-Added my comment, which is opposition to RM-10787.
This is like voting is the national elections, only abt 33% of potential voters actually vote. Don't let amateur radio,or
our country be ruled by a minority.
73 de K4RLC Bob

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Sep. 01 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To start, my story on the driver that flipped his car was an example of how this mode is able to be more reliable than modes like PSK. PSK requires a computer, something he didn't have under the circumstance, but wouldn't work well anyways because his radio was FM only. You of all people should know that FM is very inefficient when it comes to power anyways.

Yes there have been many stories out there and I'm one that experienced it. Your downplaying of the story just shows your inability to justify why the the code is obsolete, when in reality it is a viable form of communication still.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I still want you to elaborate on this one - personally I think its something that the ARRL or some author made up, just like an urban legend.

FM vs CW power wise - actually CW tends to use far more power than any other mode at the same power levels (say 5 watts cw vs 5 watts fm for example). Most people can talk far faster than 200 words per minute - even "slow" people can talk at 100 words per minute (Abraham Lincoln was a very slow talker actually). Even if CW uses less actual power, your still going to use more power in the end because it will take longer to send the actual message - this is doubly true if your rolled over in the car, dying of the cold, and probably not able to move as much anymore anyhow. This is just something I've noticed.

On the arguement that code is obsolete - I actually made a good point in the fact that the USCG no longer uses it (more for its lack of use on the martime bands more than anything). When I was a kid many towing companies like Sause Brothers ( http://www.sause.com/ ) used to use morse code - they quit using it in the early 90's simply because it was an inefficent method to send messages quickly, for businesses there are data modes out there that can deliver fleet information far quicker.

Also one of the petitions (I think it was nci's) made the point that in an emergency you better hope that the guy who recieves your message is a ham because no other government agency uses it anymore (especially the people doing the rescuing). Sure there are groups in the military that are trained in it, but it is not the prefered mode of communication in the armed services.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AE6IP Quoted:
A wonderful CW story, the moral of which should be that the guy would have been better off spending time learning how to drive in snow than practicing Morse Code.

It's funny, you know; the number of these annecedotal stories that can be summed up as "man saved from own mistake by counting on rare skill."
=======
Your downplaying of the story just shows your inability to justify why the the code is obsolete, when in reality it is a viable form of communication still.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Um, no, it shows that your story doesn't prove what you claim it proves. #Anyway, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think code is obsolete. I think that element 1 is a waste of time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Actually, if a VE supports the petition the way it's worded, YES I'm calling them lazy. The petition states, in it's own words:

"The administration of a CW examination imposes an unnecessary burden on the VE teams who must prepare and administer the examination. It requires extensive preparation and special equipment to prepare and administer properly.

Isn't that what a VE is supposed to do? Prepare and administer the tests required? If not, then that person shouldn't be a VE. Sounds more like, "I don't want to do this because it's too much work, let's reduce our responsibilty and work."
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I said I supported the petition; not that I agree with all the arguments. #That one's lame. Do you, by the way, volunteer in any way? Are you a VE or in ARES?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Oh wait, there shouldn't be CW on those bands. Why should there be CW on those beacons, no one can't understand what they say anyways because CODE is a obsolete. Hmmm... makes you wonder why certain people can't learn code, when there is so much of it on those bands.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You're still after the wrong tree. #Even in my comment on the NC-VEC petition I argued that the code subbands should be preserved.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Nope, never said that. There are many ways to better one's self. In this service and hobby of ours, learning the code DOES better one's self and operating ability. Learning the code requires discipline, attention to detail, fortitude and concentration. These things are what many of today's young kids (and a few adults) need to learn. #Participating in ARES provides selfless service to the public without reward, except to themselves.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You seem to have missed the point of the ARES reference. Sure, code is one way to better oneself in the hobby, but it's not the only one, and it's not one that should be forced on people who'd rather do it in other ways.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
AE6IP Quoted:
So if i asked you, right now, to quote 97.1(e) to me, you could do it without looking?
===========

I knew I would get this type of question. To honestly answer, NO. I do know what 97.1 represents, but I would have to look up paragraph (e) to know what it says.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So you're setting higher standards for others than you can meet yourself?

You should look 97.1(e) up, by the way, I didn't pick it at random.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I also know that many operators (mostly Technicians) can't even build a simple power supply.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So? #We've already agreed that there's more than one way to participate in the hobby. Why should the ARES technicians who only want to provide service have to double up as electronics techs, when there are plenty of people around who can do that but aren't interested in the service aspect of the hobby?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I don't want this hobby to become an "appliance using" hobby.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I've got some bad news for you. It's been an "appliance using" hobby for a long time. Most hams, most of the time, only learn enough electronics to allow them to get to the part of the hobby they are interested in. #in earlier days the equipment was less reliable so they had to know more. Now they don't.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I want top quality people, just like you, to become proficient in this service. I want those in this hobby to be able to design a Quad Beam, build that power supply, understand why we have the doppler effect with satellites. But if this person doesn't have a basic understanding, they WILL be lost. I think that is the REAL problem we have today.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

and yet, there's almost no need for any of that knowledge among those who serve in ARES. It's a big diverse hobby. There's no way everyone can know all of it. #(Can you, for instance, do the relativistic correction math for calculating positions from gps satellites?)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
(This a comment on "fill in the blanks" test I made)
AE6IP Quoted:
People who study such things routinely discover that multiple guess tests are no harder than essay tests.
===========

In all the college training I had, I have YET to see a question pool.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You're conflating two issues. #You talked about the type of test, and it doesn't matter if it's an essay or multiple choice test. #The question pool is a different issue.

I don't know when #you did your degree, but there was a time, when it was common for professors to draw all of their exam questions directly from the questions they had assigned as homework.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
If VE's had the flexibility to make their own questions, we'd still see the same drop out rate today if we didn't have the code. No one is really learning anything with todays question pools. If there were test given in college this way, then everyone would have a degree in something.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If the code is the separator and no one learns anything, than why don't all the generals upgrade to extra when they pass the code and general?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
And how many would be able to use morse code when power limitations were applied? #Not many on your end! Sounds like trouble on your end because of no flexibility. Sounds like you need to work out that problem.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, it sounds like no one needs morse in practice in EMCOMM. #Here's a challenge I've offered several times and no one has taken me up on: #Find me any communications emergency in the United States in the last 50 years in which HF was required to communicate out of the emergency area but the only mode that would propagate was A1A. #(Morse/CW)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
AE6IP Quoted:
Why? Wisdom comes from what we make of our experience, not the experience itself. #Arguments for or against a thesis should be able to stand on their own merits, not the credentials of those making them.
==================

In society today, credentials matter as well.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Not to anyone with wisdom. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

If you can't analyse an argument yourself, than you shouldn't be forming opinions on the subject. If you can, then you don't need to know anything about the person presenting it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When the No-Code Technician came out, I was happy to see it as it would bring more people in this great hobby. Unfortunately in some major cities, it has turned ugly. But for the most part it did work. However, those in the Technician ranks wanted more privileges. So they worked at getting the FCC to listen. As time has gone on, I see more people unwilling to go out of their way to go above the rest in the last 10 years. Now, at this time, a sacred privilege is trying to be stripped away by those very same people. Unwilling to commit themselves to such a simple task. What a shame.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

sacred privilege? #Perhaps you need to rethink your sense of proportion on this. #It's a hobby, not a religon.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
One thing is for certain, if the code is banished, there is no sense in given the written test. It would be next on the chopping block.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Another red herring. There is no slippery slope here. There is simply an out-of-date testing requirement that needs to be removed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
For those who remembered when 11-meters was an amateur band, I can now understand what you went through.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah. The mean old FCC took a small fraction of spectrum away from a bunch of hobbiest and handed it to 10 million plus people. #How terribly selfish of the FCC to want the public spectrum used by 10 million people rather than by a handful of hobbiests.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Nothing is for free.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

How much are you paying for the air you breath these days?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It take sacrifice to want something.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Not always, no. Actually, not often.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Let's not change the way Amateur Radio is represented. Let's welcome those who truly want to learn and reject those who want a handout. Knowledge is power.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

See, there you go again. You've written off all those ARES volunteers that want to do real emergency communications and not be bothered with CW because it has nothing to do with they way they really communicate. You've written off all those EE types who'd like to tinker with transceivers and antennas but are interested in digital modes, not CW. #And all because of some romantic idea about sacred traditions.

You should look at the hobby the way it really is. #Starting with the purpose. #Morse code isn't mentioned anywhere in the purpose statement in the regs.

[N0TTW]

N7WSB quoted:
FM vs CW power wise - actually CW tends to use far more power than any other mode at the same power levels (say 5 watts cw vs 5 watts fm for example). Most people can talk far faster than 200 words per minute - even "slow" people can talk at 100 words per minute (Abraham Lincoln was a very slow talker actually). Even if CW uses less actual power, your still going to use more power in the end because it will take longer to send the actual message
=============

Again, let's get the facts straight on this one. Efficient mode means to send information with as little power needed. When it comes to signal to noise ratio, CW will beat any other mode because of it's simplicity. I only need 1 watt of power for CW in comparison to 5 watts FM to get my signal through the noise, to a station at the same distance from me.

When it comes to CW, fully spelled out words are hardly used. 3-letter abbrievated words are more common on CW, making more efficient use of time. People have been using this same type of format on the internet when using IMs or IRC. I never could understand why.

Basically it comes down to DUTY CYCLE. FM 100%, CW 35% on average. Let's see, that makes my power consumption less than 50 % over FM. That means my batteries will last longer than the FM operators.

Again, it is so easy to dismiss CW because it requires dedication and concentration. Being a safe driver requires the basically the same thing, but we all see it. Drivers not concentrating as the use their cell/wireless phones. Drivers ignoring the laws when it comes to speed, right-of-way and such.

Some things are not for everyone. Not everyone can be an Astronaut or a pilot. Should we "DUMB DOWN" the requirements for those so ALL people can be something they can't? It's the same thing that's happening to Amateur Radio now. Next thing that will happen is the tests will be too hard to memorize, so the same group that doesn't want the code will try and make them easier too. I'll bet my lunch money on that one.

Chris N0TTW

[kb9num]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sacred privilege? Perhaps you need to rethink your sense of proportion on this. It's a hobby, not a religon.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

AE6IP, I think that is where you are making a false assumption. To this point your logic has been impecable, and your arguements compelling. The CW/no CW issue is, for some folks on both sides of the issue, religon, and therefore non-debatable.

This was pointed out in one of the many previous threads on this seemingly endless topic, and at that point the light bulb came on for me. Now I just jump in when I can't stand the lack of civility any longer. Reaction to this issue causes me to have concern for the future of our hobby far more than the eventual decision. It hurts me deeply to see how rude and unkind a minority of this community can be. I had always thought more of Hams. And the worst behavior comes from those who speak for keeping traditions alive. Go figure.

You are quite carefully and thoughtfully responding and posting, but your post's impact will be secondary. Know that you will not persuade any of those who's minds are made up.

Best 73,

KB9NUM

[N5RLR]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1RWC @ Aug. 29 2003,16http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='color:green'>...my confirmation [number] was 2003829961171.

It is important to know as you can refer back to this number when filing further comments...</span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5WBJ @ Aug. 29 2003,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='color:red'>GEEZ!!!
Just imagine,another no-code tech waiting with baited breath.
Please,all you no-coders remember my callsign.
Please do not try to communicate with me on HF.
THANKS!!!</span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
<span style='color:blue'>Thought I'd chime in again on this topic, as nauseated as I am by it...

It is exactly this sort of hostility and elitism that has caused a great many hams that I have known over the past thirteen years, to leave the hobby. #And, it's one of the reasons that I've not made a serious investment in HF Amateur Radio equipment.

We're screwing ourselves, guys. #One operator at a time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif</span>

[N5RLR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0HB @ Aug. 29 2003,20http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='color:green'>...It was sufficiently trollish, of course, but way too obvious. It was poorly written, poorly executed, and was so incredibly lame as to lack the true drawing power of a really masterful troll. #Maybe as high as a 2.9 for the sheer stupidity of the premise, but a 9.8? #Never! #

The Armenian judges tear their hair out, throw their balalaikas down in dismay, and perform the traditional Armenian Dismay Chant! #They demand a recount!

73, Hans, K0HB
Lord High Keeper of the Troll-O-Meter</span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

<span style='color:blue'>Hans, I'm glad to see that someone can keep a sense of humor in the midst of this hogwash! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif</span>

[N0TTW]

To AE6IP

First off, it looks like we will be on opposite sides on this issue. All I hear is ARES, ARES.... when are you going to look beyond ARES? I have the wisdom to look at all areas of this hobby.... I see the code needs to stay.

But I'll answer your questions on being a VE or if I participate in ARES. Yes, I participate in ARES and SKYWARN in my area. We have a diverse group of operators. Been doing it since I got my first license. Participating in things like this doesn't give a reason to lower the standards of Amateur Radio.

I'm not a VE and won't be after the ARRL and the NCVEC decided they should soak someone twice on the fee. I have operated class room style training for new operators, all the way up to General class theory. I was only a Tech+ then to boot.

Not everyone can learn 5 WPM code. But I'll help those, who want to learn it so they can upgrade. But those who want the EASY WAY OUT, I will still help them as well. To better themselves in other ways. But not by DUMBING DOWN this service.

I personally would like to see the Technician license given the same privileges as the old Tech+/Novice. A way to give Technicians a taste of HF.

As you quoted that this hobby is diverse and that there's no way everyone will know it all is very true. So if someone can't learn the most simplest version of code, it wasn't meant to be.

As for you wanting for me to read 97.1(e), maybe you should read the whole part because there is more than what you want me too read. 97.1© even states:

97.1© Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.

This whole section (97.1) makes your arguements moot. As you are against the very same section that you quote. How the minority like to twist the laws to fit their own agenda.

Chris N0TTW

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
First off, it looks like we will be on opposite sides on this issue. All I hear is ARES, ARES.... when are you going to look beyond ARES? I have the wisdom to look at all areas of this hobby.... I see the code needs to stay.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I bring up ARES because it is a clear example of the ways in which the hobby can be rewarding entirely without cw, and often by someone who is "just an appliance operator."

If you see why code needs to stay, why don't you offer some legitimate reason for keeping it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
But I'll answer your questions on being a VE or if I participate in ARES. Yes, I participate in ARES and SKYWARN in my area. We have a diverse group of operators. Been doing it since I got my first license. Participating in things like this doesn't give a reason to lower the standards of Amateur Radio.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You've made no case that removing the CW requirement reduces any standard.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As you quoted that this hobby is diverse and that there's no way everyone will know it all is very true. So if someone can't learn the most simplest version of code, it wasn't meant to be.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That does not follow. You've established no reason why someone should learn code if they're never going to use it. #And the only reason left for using code -- albeit a good one -- is because it is enjoyable.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
97.1C Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.

This whole section (97.1) makes your arguements moot. As you are against the very same section that you quote. How the minority like to twist the laws to fit their own agenda.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

97.1C doesn't mention Morse code at all. it mentions advancing skills. There are many communication and technical skills in amateur radio, and #no hobbiest is expected to master all of them.

There is no case for giving Morse code pride of place. It is no longer more important than other modes, and hasn't been for years.

[N0TTW]

AE6IP quoted:
If you see why code needs to stay, why don't you offer some legitimate reason for keeping it?

Ok, here's one, what of the operators that can only use CW because they are unable to use any other mode? I'm talking of those who are physically challenged. The pool of CW operators will become thinned out in time and only those people will be left. Most that support dropping the code, don't plan on learning it. This leaves this group with a limitted amount of individuals to talk too in the future.

And if it's such an outdated mode, why is it used by these same individuals in the real world? To communicate with computers, equipment and such.

And since you like to bring up 97.1(e), what about the operator that lives in a poor country that can't afford a $500 HF rig? Most have to build their own equipment.

So how about we just add to 97.1(e) that this doesn't include CW operators overseas while we are at it.

But your right, 97.1 © doesn't mention CW per se... but it does say skill.

I've made my case!

These amateur test were supposed to be designed to show that an individual has advanced in their skills. Removing the code is a dumbing down one of the skills requirement. The written tests are lacking already.

Like I said, all I hear from the NO to the code group is "It's to hard and unfair, make it easier for people to pass.".

It's your turn now, make a case that there is no memorization of the written tests, so that we CAN drop the code. That most individuals will learn the basics when they come to this hobby.

Because honestly, the question pool is easy to figure out once you sit down and look at them. Too many reworded questions on the same subject to start.

So maybe we really need to rework the whole test. Not just the code part.

Chris N0TTW

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AE6IP quoted:
If you see why code needs to stay, why don't you offer some legitimate reason for keeping it?

Ok, here's one, what of the operators that can only use CW because they are unable to use any other mode? I'm talking of those who are physically challenged. The pool of CW operators will become thinned out in time and only those people will be left. Most that support dropping the code, don't plan on learning it. This leaves this group with a limitted amount of individuals to talk too in the future.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You're confusing reasons to use code with reasons to test for code.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
And if it's such an outdated mode, why is it used by these same individuals in the real world? To communicate with computers, equipment and such.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This isn't an argument for testing, and I've already agreed that the mode is usable.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
And since you like to bring up 97.1(e), what about the operator that lives in a poor country that can't afford a $500 HF rig? Most have to build their own equipment.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Um, we're talking about the testing requirement in the United States.

Your last two arguments make it seem that you believe that if the testing requirement goes away code will die out. Surely you can't believe that of a mode you find so valuable?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I've made my case!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What case? You haven't offered a single argument in favor of code testing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
These amateur test were supposed to be designed to show that an individual has advanced in their skills.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's right, and the FCC has already concluded that the tests should be design by NC-VEC through the QPC. #And the NC-VEC says that code isn't a proficiency needing testing any more.

The purpose of the tests is to measure proficiency in the skills for the priviliges the user intends to use.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Removing the code is a dumbing down one of the skills requirement. The written tests are lacking already.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Have you contributed questions to the pool review?


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Like I said, all I hear from the NO to the code group is "It's to hard and unfair, make it easier for people to pass.".
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Really? You're not listening very carefully then. Read my response to the FISTS filing once the filing has an RM number.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It's your turn now, make a case that there is no memorization of the written tests, so that we CAN drop the code. That most individuals will learn the basics when they come to this hobby.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, you're conflating two separate issues. #The code test does nothing to show that people have done anything but studied enough code to pass it. #If #you don't think the written elements do a good job, then get involved in updating the question pool. NC-VEC's QPC solicits questions from all amateurs every time it reviews a pool.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Because honestly, the question pool is easy to figure out once you sit down and look at them. Too many reworded questions on the same subject to start.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Don't tell me, tell the QPC

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
So maybe we really need to rework the whole test. Not just the code part.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe. But that's a different topic, and there's already a process in place for it.

If you're serious about revamping the pool, then contribute questions to the review.

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Sep. 01 2003,16:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Basically it comes down to DUTY CYCLE. FM 100%, CW 35% on average. Let's see, that makes my power consumption less than 50 % over FM. That means my batteries will last longer than the FM operators.

Some things are not for everyone. Not everyone can be an Astronaut or a pilot. Should we "DUMB DOWN" the requirements for those so ALL people can be something they can't? It's the same thing that's happening to Amateur Radio now. Next thing that will happen is the tests will be too hard to memorize, so the same group that doesn't want the code will try and make them easier too. I'll bet my lunch money on that one.

Chris N0TTW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I assumed that you were talking about the same actual power, not gain. I know for a fact that at the same power level the mode CW drives the finals much harder than voice. Define duty cycle? If I turn the rf power knob all the way right on my Icom 730 and start operating morse code I've noticed that there's a steady 100 watts forward on the watt meter - even with an audio processor it rarely does this in any voice mode.

Its not like I give a rip - I usually operate around 25-100 watts most of the time anyhow and power isn't much of an issue... Its just that I noticed in my own operating that it takes longer to send cw, psk31, rtty etc messages than it does to speak them. I am fully aware of the language used on CW - reminds me of working at Quest/USWest actually http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif (things like rn a/c rb, pls chk dsl rt cnt)

Also I've been on IRC since the early 90's and even have an IRC server of my own and actually I've rarely seen people use abreviations to the sheer extent they are used on cw - and mind you thats nothing they teach you on any tape or cd.

[WA9SVD]

N7WSB:

A slight clarification about powe and duty cycle.. (I'm not sure about your mention of "gain." If you turn the power all the way up on your rig (as you indicated) and operate CW it will indicate a nominal 100 W. If you then change to FM voice, (as was mentioned in the previous post) your radio will also be putting out 100 W., continuous, WHETHER OR NOT there is any voice modulation. THAT'S 100% duty cycle; same applies to RTTY in many radios. (So there will be a higher demand on the final amplifier of your transceiver than with CW.) Of course, with SSB, the actual amount of power will vary with modulation. No audio, no (actually, very very little) power out. So the SSB audio mode will put less stress on your transceiver.

[K6UEY]

On SSB when there is no audio there is no power out if the rig is operating properly,on SSB "no ticky no washy "but then again you would have to have learned some of that technical stuff that the newbies refuse to learn to know that. Rather than spending all that time being a "GOOD OPERATOR" maybe a little time finding out what a "GOOD OPERATOR" does and should know might be in order.
ENJOY!! You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time, but some try like hell to do it . # # 73, # ORV
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Sep. 06 2003,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ENJOY!! You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time, but some try like hell to do it . # # 73, # ORV
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Orv #You omitted: But some people can BE a fool all of the time!
This about no one in particular. Just an observation.
#-FZ

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Sep. 01 2003,19:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not everyone can learn 5 WPM code. But I'll help those, who want to learn it so they can upgrade. But those who want the EASY WAY OUT, I will still help them as well. To better themselves in other ways. But not by DUMBING DOWN this service.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Whether or not you believe in keeping code testing, please don't fall for the nonsense that "some people cannot learn 5wpm code".

Inability to learn basic code stems from the following items only:

1) Improper training and practice methods.
2) Unrealistic expectations of time required to learn. I get really annoyed at those people who say it only takes a week or two as they are setting normal people up for failure due to engendering an unrealistic expectation in the learner.
3) Instructors/elmers who don't believe in the code and who themselves believe that "some people can't learn code". Why does one teacher have 100% pass rate and another a 30% failure rate? It's not a student inability but a teacher inability.
4) Subconscious or conscious resistance to learning the code.

Address these four issues and anyone can learn the code at this very basic level.

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Sep. 01 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That does not follow. You've established no reason why someone should learn code if they're never going to use it. #And the only reason left for using code -- albeit a good one -- is because it is enjoyable.

There is no case for giving Morse code pride of place. It is no longer more important than other modes, and hasn't been for years.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Morse code is one of those items in life that needs to be experienced before passing judgement as to whether you will like it or use it. I've known many ops who swore they were never going to use it and became avid users of the mode once they learned it. I've known many ops who were on fire with zeal for it when studying but in the end did not use it. It goes both ways. However both these types of people made that "decision" if you will after they had some knowledge of it.

Morse code is unique among modes. Other modes simply require setting up the hardware and trying it out to determine if you like it. You can't do that with Morse (yes there's hardware and software to do it but that's not the same). However to determine if you like Morse, you have to try it and to try it, you need to have a basic skill level.

I'll hang in there with anyone sending slow code just as hams did with me.

You cannot determine if you like a cake by reading the ingredients. You've got to mix it up, bake it, and eat it.

As to why we should have testing, there are just too many people under the mistaken impression that it's hard and won't try it on their own. This impression is unfortunately fostered by those that had difficulties brought on by the four factors I listed in a previous post.

Until you have basic code, you can't use it and thus don't have that choice. Due to misconceptions, they may choose to never even try to learn basic code or may fail due to misconceptions. But once a person has been required to break the initial resistance by taking a test in it, they have a much