Morse is History

[K2WH]

Anybody notice the bulk of no-code supporters here are no code techs.

Figures.

K2WH

[Simtechiii]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 01 2003,03:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (m3stt @ Aug. 31 2003,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is the FT 1000 MP not single band HF? What about the 870 ? I would put my 930s against any set, CW or SSB!

I think multi mode sets are like Trapped Yagis. A compromise. You loose somewhere along the line. Multi mode, for the bargain hunter![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Say what? Obviously doesn't know anything about the newer HF rigs.
Exactly who is M3STT and why does the call not show up in any database I have tried?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
She claims to be a 13-year old girl. Funny how I can't locate her call on the buck.com site. And you're right - she obviously knows nothing of modern rigs, spouting such uneducated nonsensical drivel. Obviously, if she was a ham, she'd know that multi-band HF rigs perform extremely well. Besides, how may hams can afford to buy a single radio for each band?

73,

Steven / KG6JEV/4

[Simtechiii]

Finally, a petetion that makes sense. READ THIS:

ftp://ftp.qsl.net/pub/n1ea/FIST_FCC_Petition_8-30-303.pdf ("")

73,

Steven / KG6JEV/4

[wa2glr]

A CW requirement is not needed as a "filter" as much as it is as a "funnel".

Our HF allocations are a limited resource and there would be much congestion if the gates were thrown wide open. #Imagine the National Parks without an admission fee!

It's not that we want to keep people out...but we want to keep people out.

Tony
KB2JS

[N9SWA]

Replying to w6mku sounds like you may have an antenna problem. When I scan thru the HF bands I hear all kinds of morse, goto 30m someday take a listen. When I get on HF I try to make atleast 1 morse contact each and everytime I'm on. Is morse dead? I dont think so, Should people be required pass the morse in-order to upgrade to General & above? Yes why not. I'm a VE & I do see changes in the test's which is good but somethings should stay the same the morse test is one of them. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4WHJ @ Sep. 01 2003,07:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HELLO,THIS IS KG4WHJ-MIKE,BEEN IN LOVE WITH HAM RADIO SENICE 1974,KNOW THE THEORY! BUT AM TONE DEFF,I ALSO BELEIVE ASKQ6XA-BONNIE! I THINK THE ENTERANCE TEST TO GAIN USE OF HF SHOULD BE BROKEN UP INTO 25 MULTIPLE& 10 WRITTEN,TEST TO COVER TECH AND GEN QUESTIONS ? 73's Have a Great Labor Day, #[B] http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Tone deaf is irrelevant to learning code. You only have to distinguish between off vs on and long vs short. You do not have to differentiate tones. It is much easier than learning to talk. Failing to pass the code is a result of incorrect study methods and/or insufficient practice.

[n0crs]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Why are people so ready and eager to throw things away ? Morse code, A-M, tubes, are all part of ham radio. People enjoy doing these things. Isn't this hobby supposed to be enjoyable ? Or are we all supposed to be public slaves with our walkathons and HTs, all the time ? That's what it's really about isn't it ? If anything should be history, it should be repeaters and these cell phones everyone is carrying around. Talk about spectrum waste .
A-M, tubes and morse code forever and ever ! Amen .
Oh, BTW, if we do eliminate code, please do us cw buddies the favor and quit using Q signals and 73 on voice .

[kg4ywf]

Just heard an interesting story from a friend who just returned from Afghanistan:

Seems a young man who'd worked as an apprentice at a radio station that'd been closed down by the Taliban was encouraged by the local vilagers to re-open the radio station and let the world know what was going on and provide some entertainment.

As the engineers were killed by the Taliban, the young man was the only choice, at least in the villagers minds.

The young man took on the challenge and proceeded to electrocute himself and burn up the radio equipment!

A lack of knowledge, or knowledge untested, can be a dangerous thing.

Or, could it be natural selection?

I am a "new" ham and worked my way through the elements in a relatively short period of time. Am I a genius? Not hardly, just a regular guy who wanted to learn a fascinating hobby and skill. I didn't study the pools, but instead, tapped into the brains and experience of some of those "bitter old men" I've read about in these forums, and they motivated me to do better and try harder. It wasn't easy, but it also wasn't impossible.

Thanks for these forums. What fantastic entertainment and insight! Its like the Florida election process, California power utilities and governors, MacNeil-Lehrer, and South Park rolled into one venue!

As for the code, well the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the code will go whichever way it will.

The best thing about it is; the no-codes will always know they just couldn't measure up breeding a generation of hams in therapy!

I can see a whole new nickname evolving from all this, just as "ham" evolved....."no-code".

Live with it.

73, and keep it coming!

Grant, AA4VB

[kg4ywf]

Just heard an interesting story from a friend who just returned from Afghanistan:

Seems a young man who'd worked as an apprentice at a radio station that'd been closed down by the Taliban was encouraged by the local vilagers to re-open the radio station and let the world know what was going on and provide some entertainment.

As the engineers were killed by the Taliban, the young man was the only choice, at least in the villagers minds.

The young man took on the challenge and proceeded to electrocute himself and burn up the radio equipment!

A lack of knowledge, or knowledge untested, can be a dangerous thing.

Or, could it be natural selection?

I am a "new" ham and worked my way through the elements in a relatively short period of time. #Am I a genius? #Not hardly, just a regular guy who wanted to learn a fascinating hobby and skill. #I didn't study the pools, but instead, tapped into the brains and experience of some of those "bitter old men" I've read about in these forums, and they motivated me to do better and try harder. #It wasn't easy, but it also wasn't impossible.

Thanks for these forums. #What fantastic entertainment and insight! #Its like the Florida election process, California power utilities and governors, MacNeil-Lehrer, and South Park rolled into one venue!

As for the code, well the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the code will go whichever way it will.

The best thing about it is; the no-codes will always know they just couldn't measure up breeding a generation of hams in therapy!

I can see a whole new nickname evolving from all this, just as "ham" evolved....."no-code".

Live with it.

73, and keep it coming!

Grant, AA4VB

[K4RLC]

I am a neuropsychologist who works with person with brain injury (from head injuries, strokes, etc). One of the rehabilitation techniques I do is have folks learn not only the theory of ham radio, but cw.
-If my brain injured patients can learn cw, then 99% of the general population can learn cw.Most of the problem in not learning is motivation.
-Learning cw provides the self-discipline needed to become good operators. This self-discipline is needed for emergency operations, especially ARES.
-For those who don't want to learn cw, there are other radio services that don't require cw. And there are ham radio frequencies that don't require cw, either.
73 de K4RLC Bob

[m3stt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Simtechiii @ Sep. 01 2003,06<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 01 2003,03:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (m3stt @ Aug. 31 2003,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is the FT 1000 MP not single band HF? What about the 870 ? I would put my 930s against any set, CW or SSB!

I think multi mode sets are like Trapped Yagis. A compromise. You loose somewhere along the line. Multi mode, for the bargain hunter![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Say what? Obviously doesn't know anything about the newer HF rigs.
Exactly who is M3STT and why does the call not show up in any database I have tried?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
She claims to be a 13-year old girl. Funny how I can't locate her call on the buck.com site. And you're right - she obviously knows nothing of modern rigs, spouting such uneducated nonsensical drivel. Obviously, if she was a ham, she'd know that multi-band HF rigs perform extremely well. Besides, how may hams can afford to buy a single radio for each band?

73,

Steven / KG6JEV/4[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We do not have to give our address or any other info if we do not want. When we send off for our licence we have a box to tick to state we do not want our info in publishing. Our system is not like yours in the USA and think is a good idea. #I am 13 years old and was 12 when first licenced, going by past events in the news I think it a good idea I can keep my personal address safe from adults who like to prey children.

I was licenced in 2002 as a foundation. See my validation document. I choose not to make my info public for personal safety and my parents would not have it anyother way.

http://www.uk7777.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DSC00359.JPG

As for multi mode sets. Well I have never used one that has been any good on UHF/VHF against a dedicated set for UHF/VHF. Take the ts2000. adjacent channel rejection is very bad and we live near the city surrounded by repeaters that become unworkable with the 2000. Not so with the 241E or the 1500M I have. IC 746 was even worse and did not reflect the same signal as my other sets. I have a 706 for when we go on holiday or days out with my parents. Good for mobile but falls far short of anyother set I have had when in the home. Ft100d? I asked my dad to send it back it was a toy. I have owned many sets, all purchased with my money my grandmother left me.
I did not spout off as you said. It was an amateur opinion based on a few sets I have owned and just because they are affordable than purchasing a dedicated set does not make them any better! Cheep.

I was trying to say the 1000mp was not a multi mode as in HF/UHF/VHF we all know it cover upto 30mhz dont we?

You can also visit my site, not yet finished and has a long way to go but I do have exams to study for and time is spent on school work most of the time. My Webpage (http://www.uk7777.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk)

Thats who M3STT is, hope this satisfies the detectives amongst you!

[K6UEY]

Attention #NO -CODERS, you have been hi-jacked by a 13 year old girl....... # # HIHI
Jolly Good Job Missy, keep up the good work !!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif # # # # 73, & 88, # # ORV

[wb8rkq]

to be or not to be is the question i vote to be --... ...--

[wa3mej]

I agree that we are at the crossroads between the past and the future. But hasn't it always been so? #Morse is not hard, it is simply a matter of applying yourself and someone showing you the correct way to learn it.

Disagree? #Well I am living proof of this. See I learned morse as a youngster I was all of 15. But I kept hitting plateaus and the ONLY thing that broke though this barrier was a little hard work and lots and lots of practice.

This isn't rocket science here people. Over the years (some 35 + years to be exact) I have taught others and ohhh yes I have a high speed CW cert from the U.S. Navy too. #I got there by NOT saying ohhhh its too hard and it takes too much time. I got there by working my butt off and trying harder. I also had some help however. Two gents sent never ending practice for me, see we didnt have computers back then to help us. These two gents WA3BGT Charlie and K3YBN Bill were the ones that pressed on when I wanted to give up.

Its time to stop giving into the people that want instant gratification and keep a tradition alive that is still a lot of fun. While it is true that some of the reason is now past for justfying morse, it is still used and a good dicipline. If you don't think dicipline is needed you have only to go into our schools and see the ill mannered bratts that we raise today.

Now I do not operate CW as much as I once did and my speed is a little rusty but I do still know how. And if we ever need it then I will use it.

Consider one other point. #I know some of you will scoff at this though. If we ever have a global nuclear war, communications as we know it will be touch to come by. The EMP pulse from a nuclear blast will kill most of the solid state receivers, transmitters, VCRs etc that we have. There is nothing easier to build and operate than a CW transmitter.

Something else to consider. Until recently there was nothing that could compete with CW and a trained operator in the amateur community. This has been supplanted now by some of the weak signal modes like PSK31 and the like but we may still need CW some day. Who will be there to use it if not the hams??

As always, comments welcome

Jim wa3mej@wa3mej.mailcity.com

[wb8rkq]

it doesnt mater what we agree with you will never get everybody to agree with 1 thing we are all different and think different thats the bottom line all you can do is vote and let the highest vote win thats the american way we can set out her and bang away at each other but nothing will change why doesnt someone take a vote on this like qrz the canada people did and the vote was like 63 percent was to keep code so why dont we do the same and get over all of this ha --... ...--

I remember growing up in Montana as a youngster and listening to my father translate code while listening to the radio. He had been a radioman during WWII and quite good. It truly was an artform. Despite the fond memories I believe its time to drop the code requirement. In the face of the other digital modes it really is sort of a dinosaur. The only analogy that made sense to me is that it's like requiring people to know how to saddle a horse before they can get a driver's license.

Doug Hormann

[w5ux]

There seems to be some debate about psk-31 and cw. #Debates are won by the best speaker. #Why not run a test. #cw versus psk-31 over the polar route. #Psk is locked in at about 42 wpm and has to run full duty cycle where cw can run more power and slow down to about ten wpm to get out a narrower signal. #Maybe ARRL #would do this for us on a slow day.
Bob w5ux

[W5ROB]

Great! We are getting a lot of comments to keep CW alive. I also vote YES to keep it there and going.

I started out in my military career copying morse code and eventually became a ham. Most of my amateur radio
work is with CW, today. I had always wanted to become
an amateur radio op and when I finally got the chance to pursue that dream, I proudly took to tests and got my
ticket.

Now, there seems to be a drive on to kill the part of a great hobby and service to the community that is dear to a lot of us. What really gets me is the cold way that
some of the supposedly more "brainy" hams are wanting to sweep under the carpet a part of Americana that deserves to stay.

Let's leave the code requirement in amateur radio. We can still advance in other areas and improve on commun-
ications, but let's not bury something that is important and loved by so many.
Thanks and 73's to all.

[ei5ja]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Aug. 27 2003,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lost: 30% Of All Highly Qualified Operators[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't know how this could happen.
I taught Elementary Radio which included morse proficiency at 16 wpm to classes ranging in numbers from
18 to 25, from all walks of life (Sorry, no engineers in there) for nigh on 20 years. 100% of them passed the cw first time. Now I won't say it was an easy passage. At times some of my students were in such despair of ever learning the code they were prepared to quit the whole course. I used take them to one side and have a chat with them encouraging them to stick with it, that it would come. You see, I asked them how much of the code they knew, letter by letter. They found that they knew more than they thought they knew and continued, to pass the course and become some of the best Radio Techs I have known.
These would have been lost to us but for the small bit of encouragement and reignited self belief. Maybe the 'Profesors' among the 30% 'failures' thought that they were above this sort of thing. # It's up to you to see that they don't get away.

73 and good luck, you put up a good argument but I want the code to stay for reasons outlined in my other posts.

73 Ed # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

PS Your web site is superb.

[M3RAL]

Great article. #My question has always been why some elements of the Amateur Radio fraternity insist that we continue to test an individuals CW proficiency in order that they can access the HF bands? #After all, CW is just another mode of operation, right? We don't appear to have a similar degree of insistance that we test an individuals proficiency in touch-typing speed for the digimodes do we? #Or perhaps we are saying that we should?

If we follow the argument for a continuence of Morse testing (what ever that may now mean in a growing list of countries throughout the world who have taken the decision to abolish formal testing of Morse as a requirement to access the HF bands), then surely a similar logic applies for the other modes of operation that are EQUALLY applicable in the modern world of Amateur Radio.

As a former UK B Class Full Licensee (i.e. no code), I am currently studying the Morse Code and hope to become a proficient user of the CW mode on whatever band I choose, LF, HF, VHF or UHF. I am learning Morse for my own enjoyment now, not simply to pass a test in order that I have a "bit of paper" that says I can access the HF bands (not that this is the case any longer in the UK I have to add). #

We need to keep the whole CW debate in perspective and understand that CW is a mode amongst other modes in today's world of Amateur Radio. #Morse Code will never die. #It will live happily alongside the other modes of operation, and be there for people to learn and enjoy should they wish to as part of the wider hobby.

73,

Rick M1RAL

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ei5ja @ Sep. 01 2003,15:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Aug. 27 2003,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lost: 30% Of All Highly Qualified Operators[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't know how this could happen.
I taught Elementary Radio which included morse proficiency at 16 wpm to classes ranging in numbers from
18 to 25, from all walks of life (Sorry, no engineers in there) for nigh on 20 years. 100% of them passed the cw first time. Now I won't say it was an easy passage. At times some of my students were in such despair of ever learning the code they were prepared to quit the whole course. I used take them to one side and have a chat with them encouraging them to stick with it, that it would come. You see, I asked them how much of the code they knew, letter by letter. They found that they knew more than they thought they knew and continued, to pass the course and become some of the best Radio Techs I have known.
These would have been lost to us but for the small bit of encouragement and reignited self belief. Maybe the 'Profesors' among the 30% 'failures' thought that they were above this sort of thing. # It's up to you to see that they don't get away.

73 and good luck, you put up a good argument but I want the code to stay for reasons outlined in my other posts.

73 Ed # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

PS Your web site is superb.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is exactly the point that I have been trying to make. With the proper training and encouragement, anyone can pass a basic code test.

I congratulate you on being a fine and caring instructor.

Of course, it is very difficult to motivate students to study something when the instructor does not believe in it. Students of any age will easily sense that the teacher is uninterested in the subject. When 30% of the students fail, there is either a teaching problem or a motivational problem or both.

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (M3RAL @ Sep. 01 2003,15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Great article. #My question has always been why some elements of the Amateur Radio fraternity INSIST that we continue to test an individuals CW proficiency in order that they can access the HF bands? #After all, CW is just another mode of operation, right? We don't test an individuals proficiency in touch-typing speed for the digimodes do we? #Or perhaps we should?

If we follow the argument for a continuance of Morse testing then surely a similar logic applies for the other digital modes of operation that are EQUALLY applicable in the modern world of Amateur Radio.

Incidentally, I am currently studying the Morse Code and hope to become a proficient user of the mode on what ever band I choose. I am learning Morse for my own enjoyment, not simply to pass a test in order that I have a "bit of paper" that says I can access the HF bands (not that this is the case any longer in the UK I have to add). #

We need to keep the whole CW debate in perspective and accept that CW is a mode amongst modes in today's world of Amateur Radio.

73,

Rick M1RAL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The code/CW is quite different from all the other digital modes. It must be experienced to properly evaluate it. And to adequately experience its use, one must know it.

You can read the ingredients in a cake mix and measure the nutritional content, but you won't know how the cake tastes until you prepare it, cook it and eat it.

I do think the other digital modes could be covered a bit more on the tests. The tests would have to be longer to accomodate this without compromising the other material that needs to be included.

[WA7KKP]

Mores code will NEVER go away, as it is the simplest way to impart 'intellegence' upon a continuous wave transmission. You can't make a SSB/PSK31/etc. transmitter with just one transistor. One transistor (or tube) can be keyed with Morse and be heard around the world.

As far as a 'filter' for undesirables, I've seen many Extra Class ops who took the 20wpm test and still prove to be lids on the air. Morse code doesn't filter anything out, no more than a screen door filters the air passing through it.

What I have seen though is a reluctance of electronics experimenters who 'just don't wanna learn code.' As I have said many times before, you've got to 'wanna' and then the code is no big thing. And now with the threshold at 5 wpm, I can't see but a handful of people who CAN'T learn that.

And Morse is a common language among all the world's hams, who probably don't speak English well enough to be confident on the air. But they can hammer out a signal report and their QTH with a good fist.

Even though I'm a 'no-code' Extra, I still enjoyed CW operation on the HF bands (as a Novice) far more than any of the 'phone' or exotic modes. Morse is a learned skill that is appreciated by many hams out there. Doesn't take much skill to squeeze the mic button, or hook up a computer to do the work for you.

Gary Hildebrand WA7KKP

[G0MZS]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ei5ja @ Sep. 01 2003,13:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Aug. 27 2003,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lost: 30% Of All Highly Qualified Operators[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't know how this could happen.
I taught Elementary Radio which included morse proficiency at 16 wpm to classes ranging in numbers from
18 to 25, from all walks of life (Sorry, no engineers in there) for nigh on 20 years. 100% of them passed the cw first time. Now I won't say it was an easy passage. At times some of my students were in such despair of ever learning the code they were prepared to quit the whole course. I used take them to one side and have a chat with them encouraging them to stick with it, that it would come. You see, I asked them how much of the code they knew, letter by letter. They found that they knew more than they thought they knew and continued, to pass the course and become some of the best Radio Techs I have known.
These would have been lost to us but for the small bit of encouragement and reignited self belief. Maybe the 'Profesors' among the 30% 'failures' thought that they were above this sort of thing. # It's up to you to see that they don't get away.

73 and good luck, you put up a good argument but I want the code to stay for reasons outlined in my other posts.

73 Ed # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

PS Your web site is superb.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not even one failed? In the last 20 years you say not one failed and they all passed first time? Come on, that is alittle hard to swallow. You must be the only one in the history of Morse training to have achieved this claim. Some pass rate over 20 years!

73s

[w8lm]

Here is a copy to my recient filed comments to proposed rule making to the FCC...

I recomment you make your comments known to the FCC...

To the FCC:

I wish to make comment on the proposed Rulemaking 10781, 10782, 10783, 10784, 10785, 10787 and any other new RM-'s
that wish to modify/eliminate Morse Code Requirements in Amateur Radio currently in front of the COMMISSION.

As an Amateur Radio operator of over 35 years, I believe Morse code should remain is some manner or another.
Especially in regard to AMATEUR EXTRA classification, because ADDITIONAL CW sub-bands are granted to those
posessing an AMATEUR EXTRA classification.

There is no reason to exclude morse code all together because it exists and will continue to exist as the simplest
form of radio communications. An alternative recognition of morse code could be tested for. Written questions
for instance,

As an example: "What is DI-DAH-DIT?"
or "The letter 'B' in morse code is...."
and "Morse Code is a combination of and Dahs"

That way beacons or identifiers could be recorded and decyphered at leisure.

I am in favor that TECHNICIAN be summarily granted MORSE CODE priviledges on 80-40-15 and 10 meters to practice.
Currently neither the FCC or other Amateurs have no way of telling the HF morse user in the old novice sub-bands
has proper credientials to operate there. Further, current TECHNICIAN Morse privileges on 6 and 2 meters are
rarely used. HF morse is a great place to learn, as I did in 1965.

NO ADDITIONAL VOICE priviledges should EVER be granted to TECHNICIAN class as it is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE
to the primary reason to even have a license structure.

Submitted this date, 1st of September 2003,

Lawrence Macionski
Amateur Extra W8LM
Life Member, American Radio Relay League

[k3jdp]

I think the move to eliminate the code requirement is going to prove to be disastrous. Just because a bunch of lazy techs don't want to study. I believe the elimination of the code requirement will send amateur radio down the road to the gutter right along side of cb.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA7KKP @ Sep. 01 2003,14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mores code will NEVER go away, as it is the simplest way to impart 'intellegence' upon a continuous wave transmission. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

By 'intelligence' I assume you mean information. Morse is not the simplest way to encode information onto a CW transmission. #on/off is simpler than short/long/space.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't make a SSB/PSK31/etc. transmitter with just one transistor.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Than what isthis? (http://www.geocities.com/tomzi.geo/1-transistor/1-transistor.htm)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
And Morse is a common language among all the world's hams, who probably don't speak English well enough to be confident on the air. #But they can hammer out a signal report and their QTH with a good fist.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It's not a language, it's a means of encoding an alphabet. #What is the prosign for "What did you have for dinner?" anyway?

[M3RAL]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4iqb @ Sep. 01 2003,15<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the move to eliminate the code requirement is going to prove to be disastrous. Just because a bunch of lazy techs don't want to study. I believe the elimination of the code requirement will send amateur radio down the road to the gutter right along side of cb.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let me get this right then. #By retaining a Morse exam you are saying that this will ensure that those "lazy techs" will keep off the HF bands, without regard for the fact that some people just simply can't crack the code, no matter how hard they try, and this will be enough to exclude them from this part of the hobby?

Now what about those confirmed CW-only operators who think it is below them to study the theory and practice of the various digital modes for instance? #Would you be willing to take extra classes in order to sit an exam in say AMTOR, PSK31 or Packet systems?

In the UK I was once equivalent to what you refer to as a "lazy tech" even though I am first and foremost a professional electronics engineer who also happens to be a former military communications operator too. #I could equally argue that there are many, many, licensed amateurs throughout the world who's depth of understanding of radio theory is less than it ought to be. #In otherwords it could be perceived that they undertook the classes and sat the exams only to get the ticket and render the study books back to the safe confines of the bookshelf. #They may be among the worlds most proficient Morse Code operators, but they may not know one end of the Gray Code from the other. #This it would appear is OK?

My opinion is that if there is to be a valid reason to maintain a formal level of testing of an individuals proficiency in Morse Code, then there ought to equally be, in this day and age, a similar emphasis on the other modes of operation too. #If this means sitting exams in the operation of the numerous other digi modes and areas such as SSTV, and FSTV for instance, then fine, I'm all for that.

73,

Rick M1RAL

[KB1SF]

RATS! And here I was hoping the FCC (et al) would soon require us all to be able to copy Packet Chirps by ear! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[AB9HR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb1sf @ Sep. 01 2003,15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">RATS! And here I was hoping the FCC (et al) would soon require us all to be able to copy Packet Chirps by ear! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


That broad from T3 can do it.

[wb8wor]

TROLL!!!

[ei5ja]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (G0MZS @ Sep. 01 2003,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not even one failed? In the last 20 years you say not one failed and they all passed first time? Come on, that is alittle hard to swallow. You must be the only one in the history of Morse training to have achieved this claim. Some pass rate over 20 years!

73s[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let me reiterate. I CAN TEACH ANYONE MORSE CODE!

I ran my last course in 1985.
I was not alone in what I achieved. there were others
like me. It is all about application. Sure there were hiccups along the way. The secret, besides motivation. is to give incremental progress tests and not to test them at any speed until they are ready. If they are motivated there will not be a problem. Whatever is said on this thread, everyone has the capacity to learn the code. On the other hand, if people refuse, for other reasons, to believe that they cannot learn then they will not learn.
Sorry about your hard swallow om but thats the eay it was.
73 & good luck, neighbour.

[ke4zhn]

Here we go again! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Thats right morse is history, ham radio is history, everything is history!Giveaway tickets are just around the corner. yada yada yada.....

[k8jd]

I suppose that now the code requirement is lifted because some people are not talented enough to get it, and voice or computers will be good enough to communicate,We can stop bothering with the 3 "r's" in elementary school because some kids are not talented to get it. We have computers to do voice-to-paper writing and reading for the students and computers can take care of that messy math!
I will continue to operate CW until they pry the key out of my cold, dead fingers
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[K1VSK]

This is way beyond a reasonable argument (whether morse has outlived its unsefulness or serves any purpose). The reality is that this is just another example of lowering the standards rather than raising the expectations to get something that used to be earned. This happens every day in various ways and our culture has learned to accept it.
It has nothing to do with letting go of the old, improving anything or modernizing the license structure - it has everything to do with lowering standards and all one needs to do is listen on the bands to hear the result.
Don

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (M3RAL @ Sep. 01 2003,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4iqb @ Sep. 01 2003,15<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the move to eliminate the code requirement is going to prove to be disastrous. Just because a bunch of lazy techs don't want to study. I believe the elimination of the code requirement will send amateur radio down the road to the gutter right along side of cb.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let me get this right then. #By retaining a Morse exam you are saying that this will ensure that those "lazy techs" will keep off the HF bands, without regard for the fact that some people just simply can't crack the code, no matter how hard they try, and this will be enough to exclude them from this part of the hobby?

Now what about those confirmed CW-only operators who think it is below them to study the theory and practice of the various digital modes for instance? #Would you be willing to take extra classes in order to sit an exam in say AMTOR, PSK31 or Packet systems?

In the UK I was once equivalent to what you refer to as a "lazy tech" even though I am first and foremost a professional electronics engineer who also happens to be a former military communications operator too. #I could equally argue that there are many, many, licensed amateurs throughout the world who's depth of understanding of radio theory is less than it ought to be. #In otherwords it could be perceived that they undertook the classes and sat the exams only to get the ticket and render the study books back to the safe confines of the bookshelf. #They may be among the worlds most proficient Morse Code operators, but they may not know one end of the Gray Code from the other. #This it would appear is OK?

My opinion is that if there is to be a valid reason to maintain a formal level of testing of an individuals proficiency in Morse Code, then there ought to equally be, in this day and age, a similar emphasis on the other modes of operation too. #If this means sitting exams in the operation of the numerous other digi modes and areas such as SSTV, and FSTV for instance, then fine, I'm all for that.

73,

Rick M1RAL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
1. Properly taught, anyone can "crack the code". Failures are due to the many really bad teaching methods out there that are still in use, lack of proper encouragement by the instructors and other hams, and/or lack of motivation on the part of the student.

2. The digital modes that you so tout were by and large developed by hams in the higher license classes not the Novices or Technicians.

3. The developer of PSK31 drew upon his knowledge of Morse code to develop a protocol that was robust and not in need of constant error checking (see the recently filed petition with the FCC by FISTS for discussion of this). So a "worthless and outdated mode" as some think it is was vital in the development of the latest and greates digital mode.

4. I have no trouble agreeing to additional testing on modes other than code and voice. Additional testing is no big deal. I know quite a few people who work a variety of modes including CW, digital, image, and voice.

[VA6SZ]

Bonnie, great article. I think that you hit the nail right on the head in many of your points. I just want to let everyone know that here in Canada, the body that says it represents amateurs has conducted a survey of this issue.
Although this survey was far from scientific and only represents a very small portion of the amateur population here in Canada, the results are very interesting. The bottom line from this survey is that 66 percent of the respondants wish to see an end to Morse code being a requirement to access to the HF spectrum.
The complete results can be viewed at the following:

http://www.rac.ca/news/mresults.htm

I would think that these views may be representative of amateurs both in Canada and the USA. Again, this survey is not very scientific and has many flaws. So take it for what it's worth. By the way, for those of you who doubt anything to do with the dropping of this silly requirement, please be sure to look at the majority of respondants to this survey. (They were mostly hams who had passed the Morse code.)

Andy VA6SZ/VA6TTT

[KC0KBG]

Now I have not read all 30 pages of comments but........

Why not make the morse code test a requirement for vanity call signs?

1.) It cuts the demand for vanity call signs.

2.) A vanity call sign then becomes a proof of morse proficency.

[w5ux]

Re the survey showing 66 percent want cw to go away.

Of course. # #The have nots always outnumber the haves.

[K6UEY]

I read earlier that it was 63 % that wanted to keep CW just as it is here in the US. I have been out of school a long time so I'm not familiar with this new math but can we have 66 % against and 63 % for an issue ?? Maybe thats why we have a differential in the Exchange Rate.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[VA6SZ]

To K6UEY;
READ THE SURVEY RESULTS, DUMMY!!

If you would only go to the link provided, you would see that the earlier posting of 63% in favor of Morse is WRONG!!
I hope that you can see the light....

[AB9HR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (VA6SZ @ Sep. 01 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To K6UEY;
# # READ THE SURVEY RESULTS, DUMMY!!

If you would only go to the link provided, you would see that the earlier posting of 63% in favor of Morse is WRONG!!
I hope that you can see the light....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Come on, there is no need for name calling. Settle down, you will live longer :-)

Take care,
Chris

[W7YQ]

Personally I think bleeding hearts are going to get exactly what they
want and that is seeing the code testing requirement go away. I think
the FISTS petition is a noble but futile effort, because we that support
keeping code as a testing requirement are now being blind sided by
groups such as W5YI and Bonnie KQ6XA who seem only to have their own
interests at heart! Yes it's only a matter of time. Think about it
deregulation about to rear it's ugly head once again and take the amateur radio
service to another all time low level. Where is our governing body
standing on this issue meaning of course the ARRL. Why do we continue to
support a organization that is afraid to take a stand on any issue. What
are they afraid of losing members if they take a stand? Oh they want our
dues yearly and will happily take them from us, but other than that
when it comes to a unpopular issue they always seems to hide in the woods
until the smoke clears then their out there in full force. Example IRLP
did they oppose or support it? No they did not they did however wait
until it was accepted and embraced by the amateur community and then
managed to list IRLP nodes in their new repeater book! Doesn't it make one
wonder? Rather than sitting here flaming each other why not direct our
energy at them, and make them get off their duffs and do something.

W5YI states that VE's are saying it is a burden to have to administer
the code test! I am a VE we just held a testing session this past
Saturday and we did administer the code exam. Strange as it may seem not one
of the VE's had to run home and lie down from being over worked. I know
of NO VE's that were asked what they thought before W5YI posted their
petition with the commission. I wonder why? Yeah right! Because they
knew if they did ask us the response they would have gotten would have
been a plain and simple no it is not a burden to administer code exams.
But instead of doing things the right way it was easier for them to go
through the back door.

Yes I am afraid it is only a matter of time, before we see code testing
go away. I will continue to oppose any such petition thats supports
removal of the code exam. If and when the day comes that the code
requirement is droped it will be the beginning of the end of the amateur radio
service as we know it because what will be next?
Best 73
Bob W7YQ

[w5ux]

Well, hf won't be available to you no-coders tomorrow or even the next day. #So sit there and twiddle your thumbs until you get it. #Of course many of the tech classes still operate illegal cb.

[aa4vb]

In this forum, I fully support KL7FZ's proposal and encourage any and all to immediately embrace the "do-wah" code, farnsworth or no. With some effort, we could incorporate the "do-wah" form into voice comm, and all be singing, "do-wah-ditty-ditty-dum-ditty-do".

But, then someone would file a petition or forum showing that the 'wah's" were discriminating against the "do's" and there was some hidden demonic meaning in "do-wah" if spoken backwards, and that some people without lips, like chickens, couldn't pronounce "wah" or "do" and that wouldn't be fair, would it(?), or that the history and tradition of "do-wah" could be traced back to the '50's and since we didn't drive Hudson's and Mercury's anymore, that all references to "do-wah" were obsolete and not a part of modern culture, and.............

I cant believe I've read, and participated in, 30 pages of this drivel. In the period of time it took to read all of this, we could have all (guilty here!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif learned something new or something old, but we'd still have been learning.

So, Bonnie, good luck with your next book. You should make a killing.

Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, and the like, wipe the stupid grins off your face. We can hear you laughing.

Me, I'm gonna turn off this silly CRT and turn on something a little more important and fun.

Keep up the "do-wah's" KL7FZ.

73,qrt,aa4vb

[ke6irp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Aug. 27 2003,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no legitimate test anyone has ever conceived that will filter undesirable people.[/i] Only the enertia of good operators continuing to provide peer support, and beaming as shining examples in the amateur community, can have that effect.[/b][/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not sure what definition of enertia you're using....but------plenty of tests keep out undesireable elements. While having tough core requirements like code surely won't keep out every wingnut, it sure keeps out many.....Keep the code---

[G0MZS]

An old saying.

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"

You find it going on alot in this and similar threads. Tis a shame, a thought Amateurs better than this, I was wrong.

Valid points Bonnie, excellent thread starter.

[KC0OFZ]

30% failed to pass the code test. Sounds like a failure on the part of the teacher. Keep up the good work of eliminating the testing, Bonnie, I look forward to you going after the written tests next. While you are at it, just use the same excuses as you do for the code, less work than coming up with new ones.

[k0xu]

If we are really going to modernize, why not throw out the antiquated phone modes? They take up way too much bandwidth for their data stream and the space could be more efficiently used by the digital modes.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k0xu @ Sep. 02 2003,19:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we are really going to modernize, why not throw out the antiquated phone modes? They take up way too much bandwidth for their data stream and the space could be more efficiently used by the digital modes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not one of the petitions before the FCC calls for throwing out the CW mode or Morse code.

Many of the comments explicitly call for leaving the subbands and mode alone.

It is the test that should be eliminated; not the mode.

[w5ljm]

Well now, I was a tech plus from 96-2000 and a general since 2000 to present. Now, in this time of having code privileges in the HF bands, I've ONLY made one CW contact, mainly because I HAVE NO INTEREST in it. I will not miss the code if they did away with it. HOWEVER--- I still hate to see a classic mode of communication just become obsolete (my spelling probably sucks). So to each their own. If you like working code, go for it. I'm sure they'll keep the bands open to you guys so so you can di-dah all the do dah day. #For those who prefere phone or other modes... Do it. Later tater and 73, KC5NOD # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W4PRJ]

I am a 5wpm amateur extra class operator. I feel like I squeaked by at that. Most of my VE's were well seasoned operators that could easily do 20 or 30 or more wpm. I feel this is a slap in their faces.

Now the reality. Technology evolves. Ham radio is evolving. We must keep up with the times. Another reality is that we need more hams period. Without more and newer blood this hobby will surely die. It is a trade off. I know of 5 or 6 people that will become hams becuase of a lack of code requirement. 2 of these individuals I know very well. Please trust when I say that ham radio would benefit from having these individuals among their ranks.

I mean no disrespect to any amateur, especially those who earned their tickets the hard way but, I think we must look at the big picture. Since we always welcome the new technologies, it may be time to let one of the dated ones go.

I hope that those who make the decision regarding this will look at it openly, honestly, and without sentiment or emotion.

Phil Julian
W4PRJ

[K6VB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Aug. 29 2003,11:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All you no-code types should all go to hell if the entrance exam (Code) is dropped. #

I see this ground swell of sentiment for the ones who cannot hack the code. #This "Only Fair" crap is going to make the HF frequencies sound like a CB band and all you whiners and sympathizers will have to live with it. #I have been told I am not "sensitive" to the feelings of others and they are probably correct. #I did not go for sensitivity training.

Code may be old and obsolete, but it is a standard that must be met.

BTW, I do not use code. #I say give the no-coders, 28.1-28.3 mhz and make CW the only allowed mode. #They get HF frequencies and will be forced to learn it to get other HF privledges. #Sounds like a good "sympathetic" deal to me.

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm with you, brother...Long live the code!!!

If a person doesn't have the will or motivation to pass the code test, then enjoy the world above 50MHz.

Jim (K6VB) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[G0MZS]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 02 2003,17:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (G0MZS @ Sep. 02 2003,16:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An old saying.

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"

You find it going on alot in this and similar threads. Tis a shame, a thought Amateurs better than this, I was wrong.

Valid points Bonnie, excellent thread starter.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And no-code is the lowest form of amateur license and learning.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That my be the case in your part of the world but in the UK we pride our Amateur radio community and support up and comming amateurs what ever licence they hold. We all start from the bottom some forget where they come from and when at the top become selfish and not help others. This also is a shame. You sir have show your worth.

[K6UEY]

If it is not broken,don't fix it . And if you can't meet the qualifications you don't get a license,"it is only fair"
#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kj3n]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (G0MZS @ Sep. 02 2003,16:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tis a shame, a thought Amateurs better than this, I was wrong.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
American Amateurs aren't better than this, sad to say.

Amateurs in other countries seem to be better than this.

Just my personal observation.

[G0MZS]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Sep. 03 2003,02:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it is not broken,don't fix it . And if you can't meet the qualifications you don't get a license,"it is only fair"
#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Dropping the morse requirement is not a fix to a problem. It is not broken. The reason for morse was so amateurs could understand morse so they would not cause interference to shipping energency communication etc

I do nto remember morse been a filter or a test of how good an amateur you are. Let us be frank, the main reason for this big debate runs deap in the American psyche. Americans feel the need to make a big impression on the world. As morse was an American, it is this and the dropping of the American "invention" of code from amateur radio that is the problem. Wiping out a bit of American history from Amateur radio, I can see alot of people thinking this way.
I do not look at it this way, but I am not American, I look at It as the way forward and an update to an outdated ruleing that was needed years ago but not needed anymore.

Lets move forward and stop this divistion.

Been to Norway, nice country but wouldnt ask them how to handle run my country or my radios. What other countries are doing is not a real strong argument to me.

Code comes with the territory. The 17 year old that replied earlier gets it.

If you want to dumb it all down till it means nothing, then thats what you have .... nothing.

You can mess around with a lot of interesting electronics without needing a license, but whats wrong with saving the really good stuff for those that will go the extra mile?

Code? Just suck it up. Accept it. Deal with. Learn it. Enjoy it.

[kb8nnu]

This is a absolutely ludicrous! Why should we fallow in other people's footsteps? C'mon people....the code is a talent that is part of the hobby. Do you tell someone who has been playing a classical piano that they ultimately have to switch over to playing an electronic keyboard because its what "everyone else is doin"http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif? Personally, I think the code should stay where it is. Yes, I am a CW op and plan to stay one. I earned my priveledges under the old "unmarketed" way with many hours of listening to tapes and playing with a code oscilator. I believe people are constantly looking for easy in and easy out way of doing things and clearly this another push for companies to make a buck. This hobby is full of talented people with extroardinary talents that makes this hobby what it is today. Most of these people earned their license by ways unknown to many now. Their privledges weren't gained by simply guessing the right answer, but by making an educated decision on what was right based on their factual experience and not by some washed up marketer looking to gain way. Like NT5S says...Deal with it!! Can't take it? Well, their is always golf...

[wa4rqg]

I can see by your call sign KQ6??? you have been a ham for too awful long. I can also see you don't have a clue what amateur radio is about... Not to mention the Eurpoean community, those folks can't wipe their noses much less make a real amateur radio operator any more. I for one may be locked into the past, But I feel the Morse code requirement is necessary and shall always be. I took my code and writen exame in an FCC Office in front of an FCC examiner, I think we need to return to this method, Vol E people help the FCC reduce their manpower but don't add much to the Amateur Society, and the current test, come on any one with half a brain can memorize q&a verbatim from a sample test, IO'm not saying these folks aren't smart ewnough to pass a real test, but that they don't have the electronics background the Amateur Service was intended to provide. Welcome indeed to the 21st century.. Citizens Band has evolved to take over Amateur Radio. Call signs included.
I know I'll get a lot of flack from you and your co harts, but what the heck you guys have been shouting off your mouths for too long withoput someone trying to tell you Shut The Heck Up, I afor one am tired of hearing it.
:angry:

[G0MZS]

KL7FZ:

Ok you have problem on the band in your part of the world. CW did not keep them off nor did the exams structure you have in place. When you can pass a test basis of just remembering from a question pool then yes people do not learn just remember and not understand. I think they call this parrot fasion.
Looks like the exams need a look at and a revamp and not shouting about how good CW is at keeping rubbish off HF because we all know it is not working.

[K8AG]

Remember AM? #I don't mean SSB but real AM. #The kind used in CB and AM radio AM. #Full carrier AM. #Although it is an old form of putting information on a radio signal, it is still used in some places by people who still like AM.

CW will do the same thing. #It may remain a bit more popular than AM simply because of its advantages especially in bandwidth and weak signal performance. #Its simplicity may also keep it around at greater strength than AM, but it will not remain in prominance because it requires effort to learn and people generally take the path of least resistance.

This is not to say that I am against CW. #On the contrary it is fundamental to radio communications and must be taught as a mode before other methods of modulation such as AM, SSB, FM PSK etc. #I do, however, see CW waning in use.

The only thing that I hope for is, unlike AM, I would like to see CW only portions of the ham bands still remain (and even make one on 60 meters). #They might be reduced in size, but I hope that they are not abolished.

73

John Pawlicki, K8AG

I keep wondering why people who are not happy with meeting high standards, do now want to go live where the standards are lower, rather than lowering ours. We now have the lowest scoring school students in the world thanks to this mentality, and now there is a small very vocal element that does not wish to perform, but to lower the standards.

I suggest that you folks do one of two things.

Onr more time. I suggest that you folks do one of two things. Get on the CB bands where the requirements are at your level, or move to one of these wonderful countries that have lowered their standards.
Mike W0LTL http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KL7FZ]

Will the new No-code HF license get you parking in the handicapped spaces? It should. Maybe the license will be overlaid with the blue wheelchair icon to denote that person's learning disabilities. Maybe the FCC should also require any HF rig they purchase to have a built-in Morse decoder.
Maybe that brings up a good name for the new license class: Special.

[AB8HI]

While I personally believe that an incentive laden approach to operating privledges on the HF bands is still correct,, I do not want to see another mode become morse code's replacement. #If a person wants to operate RTTY, Packet, SSB, or FM-whatever, let there be a test just on the particular mode of interest rather than one mode being the gateway to all the others. #If we continue an esoteric approach to our hobby, we will continue to lose amateurs and band allocation. #Our goal should be twofold-to encourage more people to get involved with this wonderful hobby of ours and to become better operators once they enter our fellowship. #I always thought it was shortsighted to require proficiency in a mode that you never planned to make use of in order to do what you really wanted to do in the first place.

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AB8HI @ Sep. 04 2003,12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While I personally believe that an incentive laden approach to operating privledges on the HF bands is still correct,, I do not want to see another mode become morse code's replacement. #If a person wants to operate RTTY, Packet, SSB, or FM-whatever, let there be a test just on the particular mode of interest rather than one mode being the gateway to all the others. #If we continue an esoteric approach to our hobby, we will continue to lose amateurs and band allocation. #Our goal should be twofold-to encourage more people to get involved with this wonderful hobby of ours and to become better operators once they enter our fellowship. #I always thought it was shortsighted to require proficiency in a mode that you never planned to make use of in order to do what you really wanted to do in the first place.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well... Let's examine this one. Say a person has interest only in RTTY. What would the test require? Well first how to operate a keyboard, computer interface, TNC, terminal, etc. Then how to operate the radio. What freqencies and bands? How to hook it up? How to install and wire an antenna. How to interface it to the radio. The power supply to run it all. Propagation and when is the best/time place to operate. How to identify the other signals, and to differentiate beween the modes. The commands and software needed to operate.
Funny. Doesn't that sound like an amateur test?
It is all interconnected. Can't operate one area or mode #without having full knowledge of all the facets of electronics/communications. Without the ops being more trouble than help.

[n1qdx]

Hello all,
Maybe we should have 2 tests one will be written for those who are not good with the code. And one that is just code for those that are not good with written tests.
And maybe one where you just wink and nod for those
who are not good with either code or written.

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n1qdx @ Sep. 04 2003,19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hello all,
Maybe we should have 2 tests one will be written for those who are not good with the code. And one that is just code for those that are not good with written tests.
And maybe one where you just wink and nod for those
who are not good with either code or written.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Oh No No No......Those out there who can not wink and nod at the same time would come all unglued saying it discriminated against them. They would surely petition to get rid of one or the other. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif They would use the same argument as they do againt the code. It requires a physical skill and coordination and has nothing to do communication. Same argument as they are using now. My response would the same as it is on no-code. A wink and or a nod are both forms of communication. Them: But it hurts my neck! I never learned to wink as a child so why should I start now! I can talk on the radio without either. Can I use the other eye? How about if we just make it a shrug? Will that do? Sheeeesh!

[kb9num]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We now have the lowest scoring school students in the world thanks to this mentality,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

w0ltl, can you cite your source for this data? Much of what I find contradicts this opinion. I keep reading this in posts on this issue but can't find studies to confirm this. It would save me lots of time researching.

Thanks, and 73

[KD7CAO]

I would like to state that as a group of Amateur Radio Operators that serve so many different organizations, that there seems to be a lot of belittiling and rude remarks being posted. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Bonnie may have written a CB operators book. But, did you ever think that she was trying to make CB better? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I would like to see something more fitting put in place of the CW requirement such as a Data test. Or a proper set up of an Emergency Station.

I don't think that CW will ever go away on the air waves but I do believe that when Canada for instance abolishes code as a "Requirement" then the US will follow. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I am going to post one more thing here. Many people forgotten one of our most basic rules. You wouldn't believe how often I hear stations during Field Day, and other Contests forgetting to use their call signs at the end of the transmission. If people really want to get picky about things then maybe we should look inwards and realize that we are not perfect and that times are changing.

I would like to state that I am a 21 year old Ham, I have been licensed since 1998 and have been trying to get my Code Requirement out of the way since I started studying for my license. I have since become very involved in the Red Cross, ARES / RACES, and Search and Rescue. In SAR when we go out on a mission we have the ability to relay a message but what mode do we use? Voice or as we are experimenting packet. There seem to be a lot of people that say Morse Code is the only way to successfully get a message through in a time of a disaster. I say not. You have to many other modes such as TCP/IP which has built in error control.

[B][U]

[kn6z]

Abolish the code requirement, of course. Retain cw privileges, of course. Raise the standards for being
a ham, YES. Replace the code requirement with a ninth grade-level test of English grammar and spelling so that we will make a better impression on the public when they read our websites. If a pool of hundreds of questions can be written, then a 10000 question pool can be written. FCC: write it.

[W9IND]

I have the utmost respect for Bonnie, but I can’t help but chuckle when I read the litany of arguments against CW … because as airtight as they might seem to their authors, I can offer the same type of arguments against a different element in the amateur radio test: theory!

That’s right. When I was a teenager, I always thought it was far easier to memorize about 50 combinations of dits and dahs than to learn about all that complicated stuff about E, I, R and capacitors and resistors, etc. And, according to Bonnie’s logic, it may well be that I was simply untalented in this technical area. In fact, back in the days of the nonrenewable Novice license, I let my license lapse and didn’t return for nine years because back then, my 17-year-old brain simply couldn’t master the General theory. Just think how many other Novices we lost for the same reason — perhaps even 30 percent. Sure, it was a minority, but is it fair for us to discriminate against people just because they’re not technically inclined?

I can come up with just as many reasonable arguments against theory as the anti-CW crowd can offer against Morse code. Try these on for size:

1. Having to master radio theory is as old-school as spark-gap transmitters. Think about it – how many HF ops build their own radios anymore? Five percent? One percent? These days, everything you need to get on the air can be ordered, with minimal assembly (and even then, you can always pay someone to hook it up). In fact, it’s entirely possible to spend decades, even a lifetime as a ham radio operator without once using a piece of homebrew equipment. So maybe it’s time to drop this archaic requirement and move into the 21st century.

2. To those of you who say, “But dropping the theory would lead to a lower grade of operator,” I say, “Hogwash!” Think about it: When you got your driver’s license, did the examiner ask you to demonstrate how to change your oil and clean a carburetor? Were you asked to discuss differences in spark plugs? Were there any questions about how fossil fuels power internal-combustion engines? No? And yet, you nevertheless turned out to be a pretty fair driver, didn’t you? Well, thank you for proving my point: that by and large, operating skills have nothing to do with technical knowledge. Whether it’s radio or motor vehicles, you can become a proficient operator by simply learning the rules and regulations – not the technical aspects of the device in question. So again, why test theory?

3. Oh, I can hear the commotion now – “But there are lots of times when a knowledge of radio theory would be helpful in a case of yada, yada, yada.” Well, sure. And there are lots of times when a knowledge of CW would be helpful, too. Especially considering what large chunks of the HF bands are set aside for CW and similar modes. (Ever try operating SSB on 30 meters? Bad idea.) It’s also worth noting that for all the hoo-hah about “modern” modes such as PSK31, I have yet to see them surpass CW in popularity. (Which contest gets the most entries: CQWW CW or your last PSK31 competition? Well, then.)

So what do you say, folks? Shall we go for a no-theory exam?

Keep smiling, all. I know I am.
73,
Brian, W9IND

[K6UEY]

They haven't gotten rid of the code officially, but they are so confident that they are already starting to work on getting rid of all that silly technical stuff, after all they don't need it on CB why would they need it on Ham Radio. If they refuse to learn it, then they will never use it, so why test for it . OH don't worry about the fact Part 97 requires a technical background because that will be the next to go .......................... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
And some wonder why I don't support change ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Sep. 06 2003,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They haven't gotten rid of the code officially, but they are so confident that they are already starting to work on getting rid of all that silly technical stuff, after all they don't need it on CB why would they need it on Ham Radio. If they refuse to learn it, then they will never use it, so why test for it . OH don't worry about the fact Part 97 requires a technical background because that will be the next to go .......................... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
And some wonder why I don't support change ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
MARK MY WORDS! The day after NO-code HF is implemented the petition will be filed to eliminate the theory test. They won't stop until it is a free, no-code, no-brain, no intelligence service. My one consolation is that they will have to live with the crap they are bringing about. They shall squat in their own dung!

[KL7FZ]

Name and test for the No-code HF license:
The: No-Brainer License

No code is required. We believe it is too difficult and we would not like to keep the 3 and 4 year olds out of the amateur service. After all, they are our future.
Written test question pool for the new license.
How do you spell HF?
a. a....ah.....b......no.....a.....b.... Oh! I don't know!
b. I still don't know
c. Can I get a clue?
d. It doesn't matter. Pretty soon we won't have any written test for an HF license. I won't even have to attend preschool to get a license.

What is an antenna?
a. The woman married to Uncle Bill
b. The last part of a small crawling bug.
c. The last part of a cypher: X an 10 are?
d. duh??

My name is?
a. Bubba
b. Darrell. Or is that my brother? Or my other my
other brother?
c. My momma did not give me one.
d. They refused to tell me.
e: optional answer: I don't need no stinking name.
I got me one of those no-code HF license call
signs:KOØKOO
d: 2nd optional answer: What's a name?

Can you count to three?
a. no
b. still no
c. What's three?
d. One....ah....one.....ah....one.....ah....one....ah ..
...no....I guess not.

What is 2 + 2?
a. two numbers.
b. I don't know
c. 22
d. A cypher?

Without looking down: What color are your socks?
a. white
b. black
c. I can't afford no socks.
d. My mama don't let me talk about my intimates.

The above test will get you an no-code HF amateur license.
All you need is to answer one question. It need not be a correct answer. We consider that the fact that you could operate a pencil (or crayon) sufficient proof of ability that you have the necessary skills to operate the channel selector knob and engage the roger beep.

Have fun on the HF bands. All the rest of the children are waiting for you.
Billy! Stop pulling on Jenny's knobs!

[kb9yiv]

Hello all, i have to say this , WHAT IS THE BIG FEAR?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif do you think as soon as the code is abolished that a bunch of no-code techs are gonna start playing Head Banging Rock Music on the HF bands, or that swearing and rude manners will be forthcoming?? PLEASE Are techs and novices like that???, I have yet to meet one. I have nothing but respect for ALL bands and follow Part 97 as i was taught, I dont butt in, i wait for my station to be acknowledged, I am respectful and find Ham Radio to be a world filled with polite and well mannered individuals. And if you dont behave, no one will answer, and remember we are the TRUE POLICE for our hobby. Im sure i will be flamed for this but flame away, the abolishemnt of the code is not a question it is soon to be fact, and you know what the sun will still rise, and you just might find a few more hams to rag-chew with, so tell me truly Whats The Big-Deal?? 73 KB9YIV

I apoligize truly if i have insulted anyone by this post. It was not my intention[/B]

[K6BBC]

Maybe, just maybe, if the code is dropped, more NORMAL PEOPLE will get into the hobby. You code lovers are going to kill this once great hobby.

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Sep. 06 2003,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe, just maybe, if the code is dropped, more NORMAL PEOPLE will get into the hobby. #You code lovers are going to kill this once great hobby.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Funny. One of the reasons I loved amateur radio was that most of the folks involved were ABOVE normal. And one of the reasons it is great hobby is BECAUSE of the code. 40 years as a ham but over 50 with close associations.
#KL7FZ # # dit dit

[K6BBC]

KL7FZ, you have been around long enough to see the drastic decline of young people in the hobby. When I was licensed in 68, I met quite a few younger hams within a couple of miles of my home. There were lots of them on the bands. Today, they are all but gone. It's sad but we have to realize it's time to change for the sake of the hobby.

[KL7FZ]

K6BBC # # That is exactly what they said about no-code for VHF UHF. So where are all those many new high tech types that were being kept out by the code?? And why is the same argument being used when it did not work the first time? I see just as many young types around here as before. No improvement or decline in numbers. What I do see is their knowledge of electronics and enthusiasm is much lower than before no-code. A lot of the ones who I see are wanting to get on HF have no interest in learning anything more. They just want to talk on HF. Just what we need. More mindless chatter with no real knowledge.
I would much rather have a smaller number of knowledgeable operators and good electronics techs than mindless chattering hordes QRMing each other on the bands.

[W9IND]

Again, no offense to Bonnie, but the central argument pervading this entire thread goes something like this: "1. Thirty percent of the prospects in a ham radio class didn't get a license. 2. The Morse code requirement exists (for some licenses). 3. Therefore, Morse code is keeping out prospective hams."

Other variations on that argument include: "1. There seem to be fewer young people joining ham radio. 2. The Morse code requirement exists (for some licenses). 3. Therefore, Morse code is keeping out prospective young hams."

Folks, don't take this personally, but neither one of these arguments would earn a D-minus in a first-level college logic course. While it's possible that Morse code is keeping out a significant number of prospects -- note the word "possible" -- arguments and conclusions like these prove absolutely zilch.

Point being: Just because two events occur simultaneously or in succession does not prove a link. Here's an example of a similar argument: "1. The number of Shriners is declining. 2. They still wear those funny red hats. 3. Therefore, if they did away with those funny red hats, they would see an immediate and dramatic increase in membership."

Or, closer to home, one might argue that: "1. Our radio club gave 100 tests on a sunny day and 100 tests on a rainy day. 2. Eighty people passed on a sunny day, but only 60 passed on a rainy day. 3. Therefore, giving ham radio exams on a rainy day results in a 33 percent decline in the number of successes."

Faulty logic, no? And that's what I'm getting at. Simply observing a trend (i.e., a perceived decline in the number of licensed hams) and citing ONE of the requirements for getting SOME amateur licenses (i.e., a 5 wpm knowledge of Morse code) does not prove that A is the direct result of B.

As I said, that MAY be the case, but you can't possibly prove it with the kind of arguments being offered up here. So how might you prove it? Well, you could start by taking polls of young people, licensed and unlicensed, particularly those who signed up for ham radio classes but never followed through. Even so, that would still measure only opinions, and it wouldn't prove that the 30 percent or so who gave up on a ham license would have ever gotten one even if there'd been no CW requirement. After all, nearly every class has its dropouts. (Should we stop teaching math in high school because: "1. Some kids quit high school. 2. Many of them consider math difficult. 3. Therefore, math prevents people from getting high school diplomas.") In other words, causes and effects in the real world are a lot more complicated than 1-2-3.

So let's get our facts straight before making any more drastic revisions in our licensing exams. As I stated earlier, it's just as easy to conclude that radio theory is the culprit, not CW. And besides, isn't the current no-code argument the same one I heard a few years back ... just before the FCC dropped the CW requirement for Technician Class? So why didn't THAT usher us into the 21st century? Or was it all about the General and Extra code tests being way too fast (at 13 and 20 wpm)? So how come the new 5 wpm requirement didn't put us on that "superhighway into the future"? #

Or maybe it's about those funny red hats ...

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

73 to all,
Brian, W9IND

[ki4bbk]

-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.. . -.- .. ....- -... -... -.-
Just to cover all the bases, here are two posts I've put up elsewhere.....
[post 1]
I have read much ranting by the no code crowd about how a) morse is antiquated b) it doesnt reflect the REAL interests of Hams c) it isn't 'fair' d) it's too hard, e) it isn't a viable mode f) other minor issues ad nauseum.

Morse (Element 1) is a filter. The no coders say that 'If we drop code, ham radio wont become like the 11 meter crowd'. This flies in the face of mountains and mountains of evidence.

1. EVERY TIME SOMETHING HAS BEEN DEREGULATED, IT IS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.

2. EVERY TIME STANDARDS ARE LOWERED, PERFORMANCE DEGRADES.

I submit that it will be nigh on to impossible to refute those two statements. I would be very interested to see where I might be wrong here...Im covering bets though, 'cause I think I have a pretty good understanding of human nature.

So why all the hullabaloo about morse? What benefit does Element 1 give us? Well, as I have stated before, it keeps out those who aren't dedicated on some level. Element 1 is a SKILL vice KNOWLEDGE test. ANYONE can memorize the test answers. Heck, they are here on QRZ. No real proof of anything other than a good memory. But Morse? Well no one can do it for you. You gotta want it.

To those who make asinine statements (like 'I've been trying for 10 years but just can't get it...I CAN'T learn code'http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif you don't really want it. If you can operate on tech bands and pass that test, you have the requisite mental processes to learn and pass morse IF YOU REALLY WANT TO. PERIOD. If you have some obscure, psychological disorder that affects only the ability to learn morse, well too bad. Sorry, the world just aint fair sometimes. File for SSI. But don't use that as an excuse to deregulate HF....and make no mistake about it - that is, in effect, what is at the heart of the CW debate.

Another disturbing element is that this (elimination of the CW requirement) reflects an underlying American (and to some degree all western influenced societies) sickness. To wit, an Iconoclasm...tearing down ANYTHING that smacks of excellence or superiority. Listen to a lot of the no coders arguments...at the heart they center around 'fairness'. They throw up smoke and mirrors about 'moving into the 21st century' and the like. 'Those CW guys ought to learn TCP/IP, ECHOLINK' etc etc ad nauseum. But they never seem to mention anything about skill testing....only knowledge based.
So, does passing Element 1 make you 'Better'? No. But it proves a determination and dedication to strive for a higher level....a level of excellence.

About the only benefit to 'deregulating' HF (10-160 meters) is that a) demand will go up (for HF rigs) and the price of them will come down (as YAESU, ICOM, et al will begin to produce en masse) . 'Course, the HF bands will become unusable, but hey, it'll be 'fair' to get a ham license, and it won't be reserved to all old superior minded farts tapping out code.

Sadly, I think that the FCC will cave in and do away with element one, giving in to the 'humanists' the 'fairness' crowd and all of us raising heck on this issue will be proven right in our concerns. I hope I'm wrong, but looking at human behavior the last 40 years or so, I doubt it. People being the way they are, you will always win if you 'Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity' (R.A.Heinlein)

BTW, so you don't think I'm a 90 year old CW pro, I just got my tech ticket in mid june of 2003 and upgraded to general at the end of june '03 (I wanted the General ticket bad enough to learn Morse in 10 days - it WAS a symbol of 'excellance' to me). Do I work CW? Not right now...I've got an HTX-10 that I'm building a CW adapter for, and need to get a key. Can't wait to get finished so I can work the CW bands.

[post 2]
[ -.. . -.- .. ....- -... -... -.-]
de KI4BBK
Some of this may seem off topic, but bear with me.
The reason there are fewer hams is not the code. All you no-coders who claim that is the reason, I challenge you to submit the evidence. I'll bet it ain't there.
I submit that Amateur Radio is in decline, not because of element 1, but rather from our own, collective (pro and no code alike) failure to promote the hobby. I put this on ARRL as well, but then they are just giving us (hams) what we appear to want. (just like the political realm) When was the last time we saw an ad on tv about the ARS? You know that ARRL could produce a PSA (Public Service Announcement) and both TV and RADIO are obligated to run it. They could also buy commercial ad time (yeah, I know, it costs). Also, have they gotten with Discovery Channel? I watch a lot of DC and they have a lot of programs dealing with stuff much more obscure than the ARS and hams.
Imagine if we put 1/10th the effort into GOTA etc that we have on this issue. Bet that would get the awareness level up.
As to code. I remain pro-code for the reasons in my previous postings. I believe in a reward for pursuit of excellence. I believe that excellence is not demonstrated by passing a written test. I believe that learning and demonstrating some competence with a skill is an evaluatable criteria for determining dedication.
I believe that when the FCC does away with element 1 (Which I think they will), YAESU, ICOM, KENWOOD, et al will make a massive drive to get more people into the hobby. And with the one 'skill challenge' gone, the 11 meter crowd will flood the bands from end to end. Not to say that all CBers are rude, undisciplined and technically incompetent...but if there are 10 million of them in the US, and 10 percent of them are, that's still 1 million jerks. And it don't take THAT many to flood the HF bands. Especially when they (CBers that are jerks, and that is NOT all or even most of them) don't pay any attention to the laws and rules that govern that band. There are power limitations placed on CBs...and I submit to you that if you ever listen to ch 1-40, you'd come to the inescapable conclusion that "only the minimum amount of power necessary to conduct communications" is a phrase that they do not as a rule understand. Or care about.
Most of the pro-coders that I've noticed are older. Not all (Hey, I'm 39) but most and the no-coders, whom I see mostly as a younger crowd...I may be wrong on that, but thats how it seems to me. And this I would submit to the no-coders: The reason that I (and a fair amount of pro-coders) ARE pro-coders is that it is a standard. It is a barrier. It ain't perfect, BUT it is the only one we have. And what we fear is that by removing the code, the ARS will be flooded by the undisciplined. I will grant you that passing code doesn't in and of itself ensure that you will be a disciplined and motivated operator on the bands. BUT, it is an indicator. And once the undisciplined (or barbarians) get thru the gates, it's all over. We, the older pro-coders, have seen what happens when you let the barbarians in the gates. And we don't want that to happen.
Look at 11 meters. Yeah, the FCC removed the licensing AFTER it started going to hell. But once they threw their hands in the air and ran away from it, it got worse by leaps and bounds. Stuff that would cost a ham his ticket (words I won't mention here) are the order of the day on 11 meters. I took the CB out of my car because I couldn't have it on while the kid was in the car. End of it's usefulness.
As to requests for 'evidence' defending keeping of code. If I say it's evidence and you say it isn't, who is right? I say that because both sides are guilty of this, but I have to lean in favor of the pro-coders (and not just because I'm one) for this reason: If you are striving to change something, it's on YOU to provide the 'evidence' as to why your way is better.
I have heard a lot of posturing from both sides, but the invective from the no-coders tends to become more emotional and from time to time, viciously personal against pro-coders. Now, this is NOT to say that some pro-coders haven't been just as bad. I have seen some posts from Pro-Coders that make me want to burn my ticket. But the no-coders lose the battle of lows (or win it depending on your point of view) from what I've seen.
Both sides of this issue need to grow up and keep the debate EMOTIONLESS. CW won't die if element 1 goes the way of FCC examiners. It still gets through when nothing else will. FISTS will still have members. Vibroplex will still sell iambic paddles. ICOM, YAESU and Kenwood will still make pretty darn good gear. Heathkit will still be out of busines. The sun will still rise, and 10 meters will still suck for the next 4-6 years. My point is not about the death of code. Its about the death of Amateur Radio in the US. That's why I am so pro-code. It is the only way I know of to filter out those without the dedication to do a hard thing. If you have a better way to keep out the barbarians at the gates, a better way to ensure that all (ok, most, alot, many) HF operators don't become like those on channel 19, I'm willing to listen. But I still say that if you honestly want to learn code, you can. Too many people have.
I will make you this guarantee: If you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to learn code and are willing to go to ANY lengths to learn it, I will guarantee that when you and I get done, you will know code, at least 5 WPM. You WILL have to sign a waiver, but I guarantee that you will learn the code.
Hey, if it were up to me, I'd do away with NCVEC and go back to FCC examiners...with code (transmit and receive) AND an evaluation of your ability to actually use proper phone procedures (i.e. you have to conduct a proper QSO), and heck, examine a schematic and build the circuit. AND it would have to work. AND I'd keep the test pool secret. I'd also support having to show that you can use an o-scope, multimeter, TDRM, logic probe, ammeter, grid dip meter. Build a yagi from items available at Lowes. But that's just me.

[G0MZS]

ki4bbk

Long winded! Nothing new to add! Morse is on its way out as a requirement. Live with it.
Most no coders in UK have been licenced for years and now they are on HF it has still not degraded to the level you hear them report of over the pond and still you have morse as a requirement! So what happened to keeping the cbers out over the pond? Did they all do morse and upgrade?

[N8UZE]

To KI4BBK, I couldn't agree more.

[K7HIL]

There is a major difference between commercial radio, citizens band and amateur radio. These differences are seen in three areas: history, licensing and use. Our focus here is the difference between citizens band and amateur radio.

History shows that citizens band was formulated in the desire for “open communications” between non-technical participants. Because of that there were no technical requirements of the participants and the use of the citizens band showed that the easy access to relatively local communications was a function of pocket book only. Ham radio, on the other hand, was formed to supply a ready pool of communications for emergency, traffic handling and the “furthering of the radio arts”. There are still many amateur radio organizations that utilize all modes to meet these original goals. In times of high radio interference (atmospheric, time of day and so forth), the ability to pass messages is dependent upon resources available: line of sight (VHF/UHF), local equipment (Cell phones, etc.), available power and capability of equipment and operators. As conditions worsen, the final communications link has always been the use of Morse code (CW).

If CW is dropped from the amateur license testing, this would be just one more distance removed from the separation of citizens band and Ham radio. Is there any difference between removing the packet radio, amateur TV or knowledge of bands and regulations from the amateur testing? Yes! That difference is that anyone can simply memorize the right answer, without any perception of the content, from the finite test questions available from multiple sources. CW is the only element of the testing left that actually requires a candidate to understand the tested material.

There is currently lots of bandwidth available for the non-code licensees, in my (admittedly very limited) exploration of those bands I have seen virtually no operation. In contrast to the “30 percent of (highly) educated” people who “can’t” pass the 5 WPM code test, I have seen close to 90 percent passing of the code test, with close to perfect copy, before the recent FCC licensing changes.

Michael, K7HIL

[G0MZS]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K7HIL @ Sep. 07 2003,11:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is there any difference between removing the packet radio, amateur TV or knowledge of bands and regulations from the amateur testing? #Yes! That difference is that anyone can simply memorize the right answer, without any perception of the content, from the finite test questions available from multiple sources. #CW is the only element of the testing left that actually requires a candidate to understand the tested material.


Michael, K7HIL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I assume you are speaking of your licencing structure?
Ours is not parrot fashion learning and we have not a clue what 80 questions will be in the exam.

[N6JSX]

Just consider a few items that when the FCC removes the requirement to demonstrate an ability to copy Morse code(CW) to get a license so goes other privilages that we enjoy. What you say?

If CW is no longer required then the OO Program will not be able to nor be required to monitor CW for potential violations. FCC must do this on their own! Hohum.

With NO CW being required - and IF CW as a mode is still authorized - NO HAM can be cited for CW violations as they did not have to prove there abilities in CW. OO's cannot be used as expert witnesses in any trial. So the FCC will CREATE a big loop hole that lawyers will love.

When CW is eliminated as a requirement so should the use of CW as a legal mode of communications on the HAM bands. This just follows logic!

Since CW will no longer be monitored by OO's then HAMdom should be restricted from using CW in any fashion as a legal method of ID'ing. Repeater owners get ready to suffer the costs of modify your repeaters for DVR voice ID ONLY devices. All SATs will need to go off the air or change their mode of ID'ing and passing telemtry. No more weak signal CW. No more CW tune up on the HF bands.

Already the FCC has fumbled the ball (but what else is new) as when they lowered the CW to 5 WPM. The FCC should have modified the Rules to ONLY allow CW ID'ing at 5 WPM. As this is all the OO group is required to know, today.

So anti-CW'ers beware of what you want it can open a pandora's box in eliminating other HIGHLY desired operations - providing the FCC has the guts to follow through with logic in their inevitable death ruling to CW.

Also another point --- ONLY HAMs are going to feel the negative affect of eliminating CW. The commerical interests will see a jump in big rig/amp sales, lawyers see potential business, ARRL will sell more books and increase there 20% of HAMdom memberships. Only HAMs will be hurt or gain - so the FCC will go with the potential of economy building - not logic.

This will not kill HAMdom but it is another nail in the demise of HAM radio that started way back when the the FCC took 220 away. It is just a slow but steady progression to eliminating our service and sell the spectrum. Killing CW is just pandering to the lazy that want everything handed to them.

Next I propose the elimination of all testing and do mail in licenses - I see the history of CB being played out again right here - but most of the lazy HAMs don't know about the old CB days. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K6BBC]

The more pro-code post I read, the more I am convinced the hobby needs new blood. DROP THE CODE.

[ei5ja]

To W9IND.

Brian,
With all the ranting and flaming that has gone on in this thread, your post is the first to inject a breath of fresh air into the argument. Well thought out and written.
We should all, now, cease putting in our tuppenceworth and find another topic.

73 Ed.

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

[W9IND]

To Ed, EI5JA:

Thank you, sir.

As a veteran journalist, I'm just always leery of simplistic cause-and-effect relationships with little or no foundation.

Usually, there are several possible causes for a particular outcome -- not just one. And until someone proves the link between the number of new licensees and the Morse code requirement, count me skeptical.

And I agree: Both sides have pretty much fired their best salvos in this skirmish. Next topic, please.

73 OM,
Brian, W9IND

[ki4bbk]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Sep. 07 2003,15:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The more pro-code post I read, the more I am convinced the hobby needs new blood. #DROP THE CODE.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
-.. . -.- .. ....- -... -... -.-
Be careful what you ask for....you might get it.
If you haven't lately, I highly recommend that you go out and listen to 11 meters for awhile....scan all 40 channels. Out there in LA/Hollywood I am sure that you will get an earful. After you have listened to that mess, I think you might begin to understand pro-code. It is our fear that that is what will happen to HF if we drop code. We might be wrong. BUT. Once you open Pandora's box, you are screwed and can't take it back. I'm not about putting down those who can't do code. I think that a lot who say they can't learn it are bs-ing either themselves or the rest of us, but that's JMHO. Code is the only thing we have to maintain some element of disciplined operations in the hooby. Once they get their license, they gotta screw up pretty badly to lose it. If what we (Pro-Coders - PC [ack - I'm officially 'PC' now! Kill me!]) fear will happen to 10-160 DOES happen, well it's all over. And if you think that AMTOR, PACTOR, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, ATV, D-HF et al are going to somehow be immune, think again.
I am an American, but being in the Navy, I have been around the world. I have seen how other countries people act. And I hate to say it, but here in the US we got a few people running around who just plain don't understand consideration for others. Yes, some of them have GEN/ADV/EXT tickets...but I believe that is the exception rather than the rule. I also think that it is the exception on 11 Meters too. But it don't take too many yahoos with a hacked 2, 3, 5, 10 KW amps to really screw up HF. And when you add BPL to the equation, well the future looks bleak.
So that (plus my previous posts) is why I am pro-code. There is no evidence that code keeps out any appreciable number of people from the hobby. The same arguments were used for the no-code tech license, and numbers are still dropping.
I'll tell you another interesting tidbit. Look at how the USMC recruits and how the other services do. The USMC stresses HIGHER standards. They Stress EXCELLENCE. They make it harder to get in. They miss goal less than any other service. They have overall higher morale than any other service. They work with each other pretty darn well. As we have dropped our standards, our numbers have dropped. Maybe we (Amateurs) ought to take a page outta the Marines play book.

Anyway, everybody have a FINE NAVY DAY! BEAT ARMY!
73's
-.- .. ....- -... -... -.-

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD7CAO @ Sep. 05 2003,01http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bonnie may have written a CB operators book. But, did you ever think that she was trying to make CB better? <!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nope. Just for the bucks!

[K8YS]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 05 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Sep. 06 2003,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe, just maybe, if the code is dropped, more NORMAL PEOPLE will get into the hobby. #You code lovers are going to kill this once great hobby.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Funny. One of the reasons I loved amateur radio was that most of the folks involved were ABOVE normal. And one of the reasons it is great hobby is BECAUSE of the code. 40 years as a ham but over 50 with close associations.
#KL7FZ # # dit dit[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NORMAL PEOPLE? what have you been smoking? Just go back and read some of the comments about fellow amateurs and the Dayton Hamvention, and then redefine normal

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8YS @ Sep. 07 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 05 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Sep. 06 2003,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe, just maybe, if the code is dropped, more NORMAL PEOPLE will get into the hobby. #You code lovers are going to kill this once great hobby.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Funny. One of the reasons I loved amateur radio was that most of the folks involved were ABOVE normal. And one of the reasons it is great hobby is BECAUSE of the code. 40 years as a ham but over 50 with close associations.
#KL7FZ # # dit dit[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NORMAL PEOPLE? what have you been smoking? Just go back and read some of the comments about fellow amateurs and the Dayton Hamvention, and then redefine normal[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think those observations were made subsequent to the passing of no-code Tech and the reduction to 5 wpm HF.
See?

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With NO CW being required - and IF CW as a mode is still authorized - NO HAM can be cited for CW violations as they did not have to prove there abilities in CW. OO's cannot be used as expert witnesses in any trial. So the FCC will CREATE a big loop hole that lawyers will love.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This doesn't follow. There are many modes, and the question pool doesn't cover many of them in any detail, but you can be cited for violations in any of them.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I keep wondering why people who are not happy with meeting high standards, do now want to go live where the standards are lower, rather than lowering ours. We now have the lowest scoring school students in the world thanks to this mentality, and now there is a small very vocal element that does not wish to perform, but to lower the standards.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's an interesting strawman you're taking a part there. How, exactly, does it relate to the observation that VEs and people holding all of the higher classes of license are opposed to continuing element 1?