Amateur Testing and Morse Requirements

[N0PU]

Bob Rightsell, AE4FA, and Harry Kholer, N0PU, have filed a petition with the FCC for a ruling on the following topics:

1. Consolidation of license classes;
2. Frequency and Mode Privilege reallocation; and
3. Examination Requirements.

Basically the petition asks for the following:

1. Consolidation of the Novice, Technician, and Tech Plus licences into a single Technician class licence with operating privileges that include all of the present privileges of all of the combined classes. Additionally, digital modes, and RTTY to be added to the old novice HF areas and additional SSB space on 10 meters. Power to be limited to 200 Watts below 30 Mhz.

2. Consolidation of the Advanced and Amateur Extra licences into a single Amateur Extra class Licence. Privileges to be those of the Present Extra class.

3. Testing revision to remove Morse Code testing as a block to gaining HF privileges but to continue Morse testing as an intergal part of the overall testing procedure. This is accomplished by integrating the element 1 test into the other tests. Element 1 will still be a 5 WPM test as before but a simple score will be determined and added to the score of the written test. Complete details and justification are fully explained in the petition. [See the link at the end of this article]

4. Testing revision to more fully cover the necessary material by extending the Technician test to 44 questions and the General and Extra test to 88 questions each. Complete details are fully explained in the petition. [See the link at the end of this article]

Integrating the Element 1 and Elements 2, 3 and 4 examinations allows an individual who can show exceptional knowledge of the Amateur Radio Service to obtain a licence without passing the Element 1 exam thus treating Morse Code as 'just another mode' as many individuals have requested in the past.

Included in the petition is an excellent research project submitted by Walt Fair, W5ALT, comparing the band usage of CW, Voice, and digital modes using data collected from the DX Cluster Database. We found the data and his conclusion most interesting. His complete report is linked at the end of the petition. [Thanks Walt!]

5. Other changes to Part 97 are requested to more fully define the testing subjects to be covered on each class of examination. Complete details are fully explained in the petition. [See the link at the end of this article]

AE4FA and I felt that the folks on QRZ.com should be the first to know about this petition as many of you have been unwitting submitters to this petition. We have done extensive reading of your comments, rants and even took the outragious remarks into consideration. We thank you one and all and a special thanks to Fred for keeping this site available to us all.

So with all that, here is the petition:

http://www.earth2.net/fcc/petition/

Here is an alternate link...Just in case I go down again
Thanks to KD7WHQ...

http://www.mausershooters.org/petition.html

[ke6oud]

My turn to reply first!!
Good Idea guys, I'm for it...........73, Charlie

[KD7WHQ]

Good going guys, both FA and PU.
This looks like one I'll comment on when it comes up, as it is balanced, and makes a lot more sense than the "dispense with the code test, and let the balance hang" motions, removes spectrum from noone, doesn't infringe on spectrum outside the current classes after consolidation (except the SSB allocation), and preserves the CW subbands.

Of the lot, I suspect this one will have more favor, but time will tell http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

You can never please them all, ya know http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

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

N0PU: Email it to me, and I'll host it.. Some ISP's aren't all that reliable, but my hosting service is 24/7 99.9% up..

[KD7WHQ]

After reading the full text, this is THE ONE proposal on this issue that needs to pass the bar.
Yeah, I'd be RTTY or CW on 80m, but at the same time, I'd have a 10m space...

Read it!

I didn't check PU's message, but the full text, in the original format is up..

Oh, and all you hardcore no-code guys? Take it from this no-code tech, compromise with balance is a lot easier than a coup..

[G0MZS]

I really can not see this getting off the ground. The world is on its way to dropping morse code as a requirement. Snowball effect is the word I will use and it is getting bigger and faster. Notice how quick the requirement has been dropped in the UK and Switzerland!
The edges of that snowball is near the coast of America and soon it too will be dragged in.

I can not understand why people goad each other over this matter. Why do you want to keep people out of the hobby? Just Police them better, if they step out of line revoke the licence. Simple.

[KD7WHQ]

G0MZS, politics.
One word explains it all.
All over the world, it it done with, but here, well.. Different story.

It could well be the FCC cuts their own rule, but I'd be surprised with the "climate" we have here.

So, step 1 harden the tests, consolidate the classes, and further down the road, who knows when (or what) the second step will be.

73 to you http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[w0tdh]

Tnx Bob es Harry,

Sounds much better than all the other Petitions combined.

Change for change's sake is going backwards.

Just because the rest of the World chooses to foresake tradition to appease the "I want it now" crowd does not mean we need to.

However, compromise is key to most disputes.

When your petition becomes available for comments I will give it a "Thumbs Up".

Tnx for going through all of the rants es raves to help mold your petition.

Tom - K0PJG

Real Radios "GLOW" in the Dark

[KI4BOO]

Thats too easy. Why should the general class license be combined with the extra? If thats the case, two tests will give you full privledges. What kind of deal is that?

Give techs space on 10 meters so they can operate DX. Thats all that needs to change. After that, the normal testing procedures can stay the same. General and Extra class intact.

[KD5WBJ]

I think they're saying combine Advanced and Extra.
I read the whole petition,and I think it's a fair compromise.
Thanks guys.
Mike

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KI4BOO @ Sep. 02 2003,05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thats too easy. Why should the general class license be combined with the extra? If thats the case, two tests will give you full privledges. What kind of deal is that?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You need to go back and read it...
The General and Extra are NOT combined...
The Advanced and Extra are...

[kb9ax]

This is a very fair and researched effort. its refreshing to see something that we can all get behind and support. i for one will welcome any amateurs who pass this criteria. they bring up the most important part that has been missing for many years. our overall testing system is currently flawed and needs to be fixed.



Dan

[kd7bbo]

let me see. if everyone who's trying to keep cw and those who are trying to get rid of it don't work as a team
aginst bpl it won't matter who gets to use hf because you won't be heard to complain.

[k6spq]

Finally one that makes sense. Lets hope the FCC agrees.

[K3UD]

This proposal would, if adopted, accomplish a few things I have been advocating since the first talk of the present license restructure in 1997.

1. Combining Novice, Tech, and Tech+ into one license with HF privileges and expanded privileges above 50 mHz for the present Novice eliminates two "orphan" license classes and may serve to rekindle interest among many who might still have a valid license in these classes, but are not active.

2. Combining the Advanced and Extra also makes sense and eliminates another orphaned license class.

Some thoughts.

The new Technician class should have a bit more HF phone privileges than is stated. 10 meters will be relatively useless and unpopulated for the next 3-4 years. The vast majority of these licensees are of the no code tech class and what is the point of giving them CW/Digital only spectrum? If they had an interest in learning the code, they would have done it.

I think that there should be more HF phone allocations granted to this new class. Possibly on 12,15 or 17 meters #and one lower band, maybe 75 or 160 meters. I also think that the General class privileges should expand to absorb the present Advanced class allocations as the Advanced will cease to exist. The Novice and Tech+ have already passed the now standard code test. The Tech+ does not get any more spectrum in this proposal while the Novice gets all VHF and up privileges.


I am afraid that any testing concerning the code will not fly, even simple letter recognition. However, testing on the CW mode is a good idea.

If the FCC assigns a docket number, I will comment in favor.

73
George
K3UD

[ag9r]

This Compromise I Could Live With, Even 12, 15, 17 and 10M. Gives them the taste.

[ae4fa]

George:

Actually, a current Tech Plus would get 100KHz each on 80 and 10 meters.

Also, the digital privileges on 80, 40, and 15 would be new. The logic behind that is to encourage experimentation with the newer modes - perhaps even development of a brand new one. Who knows . . .

[K3UD]

Bob,

Yes, I saw where you and Harry are proposing to expand the allocations at 10 and 80 meters, However I am not sure if this would stimulate a lot of activity on the part of the "new" Technician class. There may be some who will look at the CW/Digital allocations and decide to learn how to use the code and/or set up for the digital modes. Maybe it has the potential to really increase the population on these allocations, but history seems to mitigate against it.

History shows that one of the very large promises made to the ham community when the no code Technician class was establiched was that there would be a tremendous influx of the techie/enginering type people who had, up until that point, considered ham radio with its code requirement to be outdated.
The thought process seemed to be at the time that these technically oriented people would flock to the emerging digital modes in huge numbers and create innovative new ways to enhance amateur communications.

What we had was an early tremendous flow to two meter and to a lessor extent, 70cm FM, with some doing SSB work also from 50 mHz through 70cm. While I can not put a number on it, my opinion is that relatively few adopted digital communications. Other digital modes developed during the intervening years, but, by and large, they were not fostered by this particular license class. As your research in the FCC database shows, almost 98% of this class are not renewing their license.

Presently, for better or worse, phone privileges on bands other than VHF and up is the holy grail of ham radio. While I am still of the opinion that a scattering of HF phone privileges across several useable HF bands should be included, I will support you and Harry's proposal as soon as it goes up for comments.

73
George
K3UD

[ae4fa]

Hi again, George

I appreciate your comments, and hope you will make them to the FCC. They may very well decide to go the way you suggest, and that would not be a bad thing.

Yes, as Walt's research show, there has been relatively little growth in digital mode use on the HF bands. I guess our thinking was that the newer generation, largely represented in the Technician ranks, would contribute to healthy growth in that are. We could just as easily be wrong about that.

Thanks again, George. It is nice to get well thought and well written comments.

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ae4fa @ Sep. 02 2003,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is nice to get well thought and well written comments.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I concur...

I also appreciate the thoughtful comments...
Very little flame bait in this thread...
Thanks to you all !

[ab0ox]

Guys, a fairly good compromise except that the provision for time served will negatively impact both rig sales and upgrade participation. #Think back (way back) to the difference between the HW-16 and the HW-101. #Crystal control was a significant financial obstacle for some of us back then. #What was the incentive to buy a "Novice" code-only radio? #I could upgrade, but the radio couldn't. #While there is currently little-to-no incentive to buy a HF rig until the General license is earned, this will not be significantly improved by increasing HF access but then (ironically) imposing a mandated delay on involvement. #By your own research, a lot of the initial no-code Techs withered on the vine. #Clearly, for many the initial lure of ham radio is HF phone. #Would you sit in front of a classroom full of children and ask them to participate in a CW ragchew? #Allowing an end-around to the CW requirement and then not allowing any new phone priveleges (i.e., adding data to the current Novice allocations) is not really much of an incentive. #And a 1-year wait (just because!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif serves the same purpose as the current code test -- simply to make the process difficult -- and perhaps with less logical validity than the current code test. #There are a lot of good compromises out there, and this is one of the better ones that I've seen, but we shouldn't be designing the kind of system that encourages the financially responsible ham to wait 2 years until he knows for sure how much rig he should buy. #I can't see anyone maintaining an interest for that long. #Also, look at the proliferation of all-mode all-band radios available these days. #What are we saying to somebody by encouraging them to buy a radio and then telling them to wait a year to use approximately half of its functionality? #Would you go out today and buy a $600 - $1,100 television and then turn down the color and watch it in black & white for a year? #Would this make you a more enlightened viewer? #Should a Technician buy a $3,000 radio? #Should a ham buy a new radio with each new upgrade? #In summary, a mandatory waiting period serves no useful regulatory purpose other than to present a needless frustration to new hams. #I think it's fine to combine the license classes and to extend Novice priveleges to Technicians, but let's not create a seniority based system that punishes the more intelligent or determined/goal-oriented with needless delays and financial disincentives. #That's my 2 cents. #73, Jack

[n5drt]

you guys cant get away from this code stuff,it gone,not needed,not required by international treaty any more,lets move on,let the fcc decide,with out clogging up,fcc with this,and otheer petitions,being filed,last count i had theres 5 allready

The Petition put forth by these thoughtful Amateurs is positive, and I must say, quite well-written.

I have been on the fence as to the future of Element 1, but this proposal in large part strikes a compromise that is not just a compromise for its own sake, but actually serves to advance the hobby. #Bravo.

My only concern lies in the Technician Class license. #There is a discrete group of folks holding No-code licenses that got that license simply to operate an FM mobile in the car for chit-chat, storm spotting, or whatever. #These operators, while often a credit to the hobby, have little or no interest beyond 2m. #The Petitioners suggest increasing the entry-level test to 44 questions. #While I am sure that for those with intent to operate below 144MHz, this is not a bad thing, I would hate to see it stand as a barrier to the housewife, Boy Scout, retiree, etc., that just wants to chat on 2m or 70cm. #Such an operator needs little more than background on Rules and operating procedure, some very basic antenna theory, and RF exposure information. #It simply does not require much training to operate a mobile 2m rig; just push-to-talk.

I am not sure how to address this issue. #One main concept behind the Petitioners’ scheme is simplification of the licensing structure, which is a worthy aim. #To add another Class to serve those mentioned above would run counter to that idea. #With that in mind, let us please make sure that the entry-level license – the Technician Class – is, indeed, entry level.

Peter Baskind, J.D., LL.M.
N4LI

[ky5u]

Hello All,

I tried to post a "new topic" on this information but alas I am not allowed.

Like the other folks here, I am using QRZ to announce that early last week I filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC supporting the retention of Telegraphy testing. The petition seeks to make minor modifications to Part 97 to allow:

1. Use of existing Tech Plus class for No Code access to HF frequencies limited to 100W ERP. Requires passing elements 2 and 3.

2. Petition suggests top 50Khz of most bands but is only a suggestion.

3. Keep Telegraphy Element 1 for General and Extra as today as well as current written test requirements.

4. Keep existing Technician class (Element 2)

The petition does not rule out combination with other like petitions provided certains conditions are met.

I am glad to see other petitions filed supporting CW. When I filed this I was one of, if not the first, to file an alternative to the anti-CW petitions. You can read the short petition by clicking on the link below.

I congratulate the pro-code petitioners for other good alternatives. Although somewhat different, the petitions all agree that CW is far from dead.

73
Charlie Young
AG4YO

http://www.qsl.net/ag4yo/petition.pdf

[kw9u]

Not bad. Except too many burdensome details. The FCC's overhead on novice and advanced is probably minimal, now that they're not given out any more. What difference does that make? Only a problem for computer programmers. The FCC has publicly stated a goal of simplifying the structure, and all the proposed complicated restrictive HF allocations on "new technician" class, as well as the massive changes to the testing, go against that philosophy. Hence, for better or worse, this will not fly. However, thanks for trying.

[W7YQ]

Finally a petition that actually makes some sense! I think this one I will give my support. My hat is off to the author's of this petition. Great job folks.

I have refrained from posting until I saw something that was noteworthy. I do not delude myself into thinking that this will really pass through the FCC, why because it actually appears to be something that could work and does not have any group or special interests involved. This petition actually seems to have the amateur's interest at heart. It also makes sense to me that quite a bit of record keeping done by the FCC could be eliminated. But then we have to ask ourselves does the FCC or the ARRL for that matter ever do anything that makes sense? I don't think so!

I have been a amateur for 25 years and a amateur extra class operator for 24 years, I have saw restructuring 3 different times in the amateur ranks, supposedly for the good of the hobby each and every time! To that I say "NUTS" show me where de-regulation has actually done long term good? Sure it gives the hobby a influx of new operators if you don't believe it listen to your local 2 meter repeater. Now they want us to believe this #proposal to eliminate code testing,will be the answer to everything forever. To that again I say "NUTS". All thats being done is opening the door for futher watering down, and where will it end? It will not end because we have become a society that wants to go buy it take it home get it out of the box plug it in and play with it! On the other hand I suppose if I were to own Icom or Kenwood or Yaesu the "Eliminate the code proposal", would make perfect sense.

I feel anything worthwhile is worth work and effort, and when you accomplish your goal you know why and how you were able to get what you wanted. So rather than dumbing down why not endorse something that makes sense? There is no perfect answer to any issue, but this latest proposal seems to address issues and not emotions. Again to the authors of this petition I say to you marvelous job, well done and you have my total support good luck!

Best 73
Bob W7YQ

[K6UEY]

I would like to thank all those who put in a lot of long hours in drafting and presenting this petition, I as others have noted, think it is based on the spirit of compromise to offer a little to all factions and still get the job done to the betterment of the Amateur fraternity at large.I offer my unequivocal support and hope the FCC has the insight to adopt it.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif # # # ORV # K6UEY

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment to:
Peter- KG4OGX,
You expressed questions about the Technician class ticket whose sole purpose in Amateur radio was to provide a personal communications service via 2 m FM. Although this proposal does not selectively enhance that area, the question has to be asked is it necessary? Is personal communications the goal or basis or purpose of Ham Radio ? In my personal opinion there are other services that do provide that service, and Amateur radio should discourage by virtue of education those who do not fully understand the goals of Ham Radio. Amateur Radio has been changing for quite some time as Society in general has adopted different guide lines so has Amateur radio. The new atitude is change is inevitable but that does not mean it has to be discredited even more. The Technician class from it's inception was not intended as an entry level license but for those with an established Electronics back ground, it is only by default that it turned out that way.
I hope you can support this proposal in an effort to return Ham Radio the to the self educating, knowledgeable fraternal bond it once held with pride.
# #73, # ORV
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc7jty]

We're going to see a lot of scrambling, proposed deals, carrot before the mule, etc. Remember, however, its all smoke and mirrors designed to achieve the same old goal: "The preservation at all costs of the morse code requirement to upgrade".
Code's time is up. It needs to be dropped completely as a requirement world wide. Until this happens the struggle will continue and the future for amateur radio will be in greater jeopardy than it already is.
KC7JTY

[K0RGR]

There are many good ideas in this petition, and I could probably live with some of these results. I would prefer more frequencies and less power for the new Technician Class proposed here.

As I see it, we can either create a 'super Technician' with some HF priveleges or we can eliminate the code requirement for General or some combination of things. Either one should achieve some level of agreement in the community.

[AE6IP]

This is an interesting, heavily researched, thought provoking petition.

Some comments and questions:

1) while the petition provides statistics for a particular period in time, it does not provide the analysis that the petitions seem to believe it does. #In particular, the success or failure of the no-code provision has to be measured by determining the application and retention rate both before and after the provision was made and then carefully isolating and eliminating other possible causes for fluctuation in the rate, such as population demographics.

2) Why was the particular period chosen?

3) section 2.2 makes a strong argument for upgrading the written test and then, as a non-sequiter claims that the observations argue for retaining the code test, without having offered any arguments for the code test.

4) There is no section 2.3.3

5) 3.3.2 reiterates the previously rejected incorrect claim that Morse code is the last recourse of emergency communications. This hasn't been true in practice for a long time, and now, due to modes like PSK-31, isn't true even in theory.

6) 3.3.2 also reiterates the erroneous claim the Morse code is a 'language'. It is not. it is a means of encoding an alphabet. #what is the pro sign for "What's for dinner", anyway?

7) The petitions argument for how to score element 1 strikes me as arbitrary. #why 24?

8) The petition carefully shows that the current tests differ from the previous tests in the number of questions in each area. #But it makes no argument about whether the differences are positive or negative. Instead it jumps ahead to trying to adjust the tests to the previous ratios.

The question pool is updated as the hobby changes. For example, RFI safety questions, which previously didn't have importantance are now seen to be relevant and were added, changing the balance.

9) The petition argues that the tests are too short, but cites no justification for this belief. [this was very disappointing, as i too believe the tests are too short, and was looking forward to such justification. It should come in the form of a correlation between observed poor practice and the lack of testing of the specific practice, i would imagine.]

10) The petition reiterates the common belief that the open question pool offers too easy an opportunity to advance without having learned, but provides no documentation of such a correlation. #[In my case, for example, rapid advance came from long previous familiarity with all but the regulatory material.]

11) The petition does not justify the length it recommends for the tests, nor the category break down.

12) The petition suggests that the CSCEs are a burden on the VEs. In my experience as a VE I have not found this to be the case.

All in all, this is a petition of excellent form, but lacking in substance -- which is a pity, as it has far more substance than most of the existing petitions.

[wb6bnq]

It is unfortunate that, not only the originator of the CW study, but the petitioners as well, have failed miserably in their scope of facts. This “CW” report is seriously flawed.

It is flawed in that the “data set” only considers one, and only one, aspect of a “HAM’s” operating habits. It also is flawed in that it does not provide the element of “TIME” except in the aggregate.

Or more specifically, the “TIME” frame of the activity. Everyone does not chase DX at every minute of a 24 hour day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

The data set, itself, is flawed because it does not include all aspects of Amateur Radio operating practices as it relates to every minute of every day, 52 weeks a year. In other words, not everyone chases after DX ! There are many more that operate in another time honored fashion called “RAG CHEWING” which does not involve chasing DX.

So if you were to consider only the “RAG CHEWING” crowd, the data set would be heavily skewed toward SSB instead of CW. Likewise if you only considered those that operate “CONTESTS” then obviously that would be skewed as there are many more voice type contests as opposed to CW.

It is also unfortunate that all the nice computer programs that allow for nice charts, etc., do not also teach how to properly use “STATISTICAL” information. Statistical information is a study in how the variables affect the outcome of a process. This is not a simple process and the conclusions are usually, themselves, skewed by the biases of the individuals making the inferences from the data at hand. That is exactly the conditions and the problem with this report.

To illustrate this very point lets consider just one aspect of this report that is extremely flagrant in its assumptions of the presented data. This concerns the following statement made of the 80 meter band results:

{ "The DX spot activity for the 80 meter band is shown in the graph. Note that the long term trends clearly show a decline in the SSB activity. In additon, except for 1997 and 1998, there has been more CW activity than SSB activity. The increase in CW activity from 1998 to 2001 is clearly offest by diminished SSB activity, with the small amount of digital activity also declining. The incomplete data for 2003 indicate that SSB activity is flat, and the decline in CW activity is replaced by digital activity. For this band the CW actvity is significantly higher than the 40% estimate from other sources." }

What is wrong with this conclusion based on just the presented data ? It does not take into account the factors of propagation, noise, size of antennas, etc. So there is another, and by all means not the only, conclusion that can be drawn about this “DX” data. Most likely the following conclusion would be closer to the true facts if one was to “properly” conduct the necessary audit.

OTHER CONCLUSION :

{ "There is no argument that CW can and is a better weak signal mode. SSB, for intelligent communication to occur, requires a much better antenna system and higher power levels if distant stations (“DX”) on the fringe are to be contacted. There are far fewer people that have the capability to erect multiple phased vertical arrays or real beams needing 200 foot towers that provide the necessary base from which to have consistent results working SSB DX on 80 meters." }


If one were to take an honest look at the real operating habits on the “MAJORITY” of the operation that occurs on the Amateur bands, one would certainly see a different picture. For example, on the 80 meter band, the real majority operating practice is SSB in the “rag chewing” mode. There is truly little CW or DIGITAL that occurs. If one was to be truly honest about the issues that surround the 80 meter band, it would be to reduce the “CW” only segment. The primary reason is to provide the room necessary for that band to reduce all the squabble that occurs due to overcrowding in the voice portion.

One other aspect of the “REPORT” that needs to be addressed. The comparison to the so-called ARRL surveys. Those surveys suffer for the same reasons outlined above. They are highly skewed because the “DATA” sets are very small statistically. They are also highly skewed due to nature of the questions asked. And finally, they are highly skewed as they did not statistically include those that are not members of that organization.

To attempt to justify your report based on some perceived correlation with other flawed reports is wholly irresponsible and biased on its face. While your efforts to produce a properly written “REQUEST” is laudable, it is disingenuous to do so with fallible data and incorrect assumptions. This is a discredit to the Amateur community as a whole, self serving on your behalf and, sadly to say, demonstrates a total lack of candor on the part of the author of the report.


Bill.........WB6BNQ

[KD5WBJ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ Sep. 02 2003,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We're going to see a lot of scrambling, proposed deals, carrot before the mule, etc. Remember, however, its all smoke and mirrors designed to achieve the same old goal: "The preservation at all costs of the morse code requirement to upgrade".
Code's time is up. It needs to be dropped completely as a requirement world wide. Until this happens the struggle will continue and the future for amateur radio will be in greater jeopardy than it already is.
KC7JTY[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I won't even dignify this with what I really think.
I think it stands on it's own.
Mike

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 02 2003,14:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Sep. 02 2003,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) 3.3.2 reiterates the previously rejected incorrect claim that Morse code is the last recourse of emergency communications. This hasn't been true in practice for a long time, and now, due to modes like PSK-31, isn't true even in theory.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So exactly what do you do when your mic or mic cord breaks, you have no computer or power for it, or the interface cable to it malfunctions, you are out of cell range, and you really need to get a call out? Sit and wait for help?? Try that in Alaska. We will pick up the body in the spring when it comes out of the melting snow. The eulogy will read "He was a nice guy. He was a ham with an Extra license. What could have possibly gone wrong? RIP OM"

You see the problem here is that when someone who is code knowledgeable signals for help and the all the ops #hearing the signal do not know code they will dismiss it as just another QSO and not anything important. How would you like to be calling for help and actually have people hear you and them not understand anything you are saying and just ignore you when they had the means to help? That is the ultimate tragedy. One guy calls for help on a crowded band. Dozens of no-code types hear the call. None understand. Like falling in a pit of quicksand in front of a crowd and none having enough sense to throw a rope. Death by ignorance.


OSO....OSO....OSO.....OSO....Hmmmmmm, I wonder what that means??[/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">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Sep. 02 2003,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) 3.3.2 reiterates the previously rejected incorrect claim that Morse code is the last recourse of emergency communications. This hasn't been true in practice for a long time, and now, due to modes like PSK-31, isn't true even in theory.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So exactly what do you do when your mic or mic cord breaks, you have no computer or power for it, or the interface cable to it malfunctions, you are out of cell range, and you really need to get a call out? Sit and wait for help?? Try that in Alaska. We will pick up the body in the spring when it comes out of the melting snow.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm.... Let me think.... I started back packing when I was 10. #In Montana and British Columbia. #Never carried any kind of two way rig back packing solo. #Never went out with anyone who did. #Even when I hiked in Denali. Not even snow camping on glaciers. Been all over the Santa Cruz mountains without any two way rig. Gonna be 50 soon.

Maybe you should save the scare stories for the kiddies around the camp fire, for after the snipe hunt while they're making s'mores?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The eulogy will read "He was a nice guy. He was a ham with an Extra license. What could have possibly gone wrong? RIP OM"
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, mine's going to read: lived fast, played hard, died doing what he loved.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
You see the problem here is that when someone who is code knowledgeable signals for help and the all the ops #hearing the signal do not know code they will dismiss it as just another QSO and not anything important. How would you like to be calling for help and actually have people hear you and them not understand anything you are saying and just ignore you when they had the means to help? That is the ultimate tragedy. One guy calls for help on a crowded band. Dozens of no-code types hear the call. None understand. Like falling in a pit of quicksand in front of a crowd and none having enough sense to throw a rope. Death by ignorance.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

D00D, anybody who's dumb enough to "call for help on a crowded [phone] band" in CW and apparently doesn't know the wilderness radio protocol probably does deserve to die from his ignorance. #It's called the Darwin award.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
OSO....OSO....OSO.....OSO....Hmmmmmm, I wonder what that means??
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So, just #out of curiosity, how many times have you called for help using CW?

The 'what if' scare stories are fascinating, but all they do is demonstrate, as Peter Salus would put it, that the difference between theory and practice is always larger in practice.

Besides, you're making an argument for using Morse, not for testing Morse proficiency. #People who study just enough to pass the proficiency test aren't going to use it, and it's definitely a use it or lose it skill.

[wb6bnq]

There is another issue that needs to be brought to light from this petition. I am writing this separately as it is a separate subject and deserves to be handled differently.

In the following paragraph (3.3.2 of the petition) there is a glaring misconception that seems to propagate itself through the Amateur community with impunity. The offending statement is emphasized by BOLD type and placed in curly brackets.

[ “3.3.2 ....... { CW is also an "International Language", by which, peoples of the world who have differing spoken languages can communicate efficiently. }............]

CW is not a language in any manner of consideration. If you take two operators from two different countries that cannot speak each other’s language, then there is not any possibility for those two to communicate with CW. For example, one person ONLY knowing English and the other ONLY knowing Chinese will not have any possibility of communicating.

Yes if both knew the same “Q” signals they could carry on a VERY limited form of communications. But then they are using the same “alphabet” set, that is not a language !

CW is only a representative form of an existing alphabet that the “Western” world uses. There are other alphabets that are different. As in the example, the Chinese alphabet is radically different as is the alphabet for the Middle East languages, to name another.

The alphabet only denotes the shape of a lettering set that represents a particular language and not its usage. So even within the same alphabet, if you do not know the words being spelled in another language you would still have no way of communicating. Yes some languages have many words that are generically similar and can be figured out. But there are also some languages that have no crossover of words. The NORDIC languages come to mind.

Another example, and more to the point, is the use of an American Indian dialect that had no “known” written form. You only learned this language by being there growing up with it. The United States use these Indians as a code set during World War II. Because there was no written form of this language it was impossible to break it unless you spoke this very specific language.

“So try talking to one of those Indians on CW and see how far you get !

It constantly amazes me how people make the erroneous leap of faith about something that should be so obvious. It is really embarrassing that people in this country are so illiterate on such simple things and unfortunately show it to the rest of the world.

Bill.....WB6BNQ

[K6UEY]

Gee Bill ,they have been communicating for decades,guess no one informed the international set that it was impossible, must have been no coders passing #the word.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[W5HTW]

It's a very good proposal and will draw the support of a good many hams, perhaps even a majority.

I hate to be the one to throw the wet blanket, but I'm afraid the time for good proposals such as this is past. The FCC has stated publicly, in response to requests they drop the code testing requirement, "we can't, due to international law." That is a de facto statement "if international law didn't require it, neither would we." I truly believe the FCC's collective minds have been made long before this, and that even excellent petitions like this one are going to wind up being a waste of time and space. However, I'm glad the petitioneers don't feel that way, and took the time to develop and submit this! Perhaps my attitude is defeatist, but I recall how hams fought hard against the creation of the no-code Tech license, some of us resisting back in the early 1960s when the EIA was pushing it. Despite our attempts to block it, it happened.

This is a petition I would support. I just don't think it has a snowball's chance of success. I hate to get into the politics of the reasons, in what is so far a nearly flame-free thread, and I would like to be proven wrong, and to see this get a fair comment. But the clamor for free and easy access to HF is coming from several directions, and all of them have clout, even if only in numbers, such as the current no-code licensees. A lot of them have more clout, in the form of money.

If this petition gets its due, and is given a chance for public comment, mine will be favorable. We shall see.

Ed

[kb9ax]

To W5HTW,

when it comes to Amateur Radio testing the FCC will usually do what that feel we ( ham radio operators )really want. The recent WRC conference is not a regulating body of this government, their purpose is the protection of spectrum world wide for commercial use. They have no real interest in Ham Radio other than what spectrum is used. If enough of us act and comment, we may be able to fix a very broken licensing system. Many of the countries who have dropped code already don't have the same issues to contend with that we do. Even if morse is dropped tomorrow I believe we could still entertain a proposal to fix a miserable licensing system.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One slip. One misstep and one radio would have changed your attitude for life. You lucked out dood. But I'll bet in the back of your mind you always thought if I get in trouble someone will find me.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You would lose #that bet. #The first step to not needing rescue is not counting on it. #Luck's got very little to do with it.

I've been in trouble, d00d, and I never exected someone else to get me out of it. #That includes two major earthquakes, the worst fire season in Montana history, blizzards, Mt. Saint Helens as experienced in Montana, truck breakdowns in the back country, climbing falls, and getting tossed out of my canoe on the same rapid that two weeks later #killed one of the top kayakers in the US in a freak accident.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
And guess what they would use to call for help. And guide the chopper in. That person could have easily been a ham as a non-ham.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Let me think.... oh, right, voice. None of the professional emergency services use CW where I've hiked.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I do know of a couple of bush instances where CW brought help and other modes were not available. ONE INSTANCE is all that would be needed to save your butt.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

"a couple." #in 35 years in Alaska, that's the best you can do, "a couple"? #Hardly makes it worth carrying the weight of that QRP rig around. #I think I'll leave it behind and use the weight for a more complete first aid kit, thanks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
And wouldn't you hope that all resources would be used to try and save it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If by "all resources", you mean other people's resources, and by "it" you mean my life, the answer is no.

I've done mountain rescue. #I know the kinds of risks we take to save people. #If I get myself into a mess because I did something stupid, I don't want anyone else taking a risk to get me out of it. #It's called personal responsibility.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When in trouble you need to use any and ALL resources to get help. Why limit those resources? That is what you are saying.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Um, no, it's not what I'm saying. #It's not practical to use any and ALL resources. #There ain't enough space in my pack for all the emergency gear I might carry. I'm sure not going to carry ice climbing gear when I'm in Death Valley on the off chance I might get caught in a hundred year storm.

What's practical, and what's common sense, is to take the gear that has the highest probability of helping you in the emergencies you might encounter.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It may only be needed one time in a 100 years but if it is available and the people trained and required to have the knowledge, then that one time may save not only one, but tens, hundreds or thousands. Who can know the scope of emergency or disaster before it happens?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

See, there you go with that theory rather than practice thing again. #Here's a challenge, that no pro-coder has yet been willing to take on: Find me one communications emergency in the United States in the last 50 years, where HF was needed to communicate out of the emergency area but CW was the only mode that could get through.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The bears like guys like you. For breakfast, lunch, and supper. Not to mention an occasional snack.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Are you sure you're from Alaska? #I used to hunt bears with a dart gun for Craighhead in Yellowstone, d00d, and I'm far more concerned about mamma moose than I am about bears. (and yes, I do have a healthy respect for bears.)

In fact, the only time I've ever been really frightened in the woods was in Denali, when I came around a corner and saw a moose calf and couldn't locate the cow.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Besides if you carried a radio it makes a good club. The battery can be shorted to provide a spark to start a fire.
The shiny insides used as a signaling mirror. The PTT button as a CW key.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So what, you're suggesting taking on a grizzly with an HT as a club? And after I've toasted the battery to start that fire (presumably from being too stupid to have matches and flints) how much CW do you think i'll be able to send?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
All resources are important in time of need. Do not throw away an important one.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think that means what you think that means. #To carry an HT solo packing, i probably would have to toss an important one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
From the Great White North where I have lived for 35 years.
And seen them come and go. Some in body bags.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You forgot the melodramatic music.

The problem with logic like these just-so stories is that there a literally thousands of things I could put in my pack that have saved one or two people over a 30 or 40 year period.

So should I fill my pack with random junk cuz it just might come in handy, or should I weigh my risks, make my tradeoffs, and behave as intelligently as possible, knowing that I'm doing something that might just get me killed?

[ag4mu]

It's important to know Morse Code. #We shouldn't drop it.
73's
AG4MU / Dave Russell http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N8UZE]

Regardless of the status of Morse testing and future license structures, I am opposed to combining classes with the exception of Techs with code and Techs without code. If the remaining Novices could not be bothered to upgrade, they should NOT be automatically bumped up. The simplest approach is to leave the license classes alone and let the Novice and Advance go by attrition. I wonder how many Novices are actually renewing their licenses as Novices? In the last year, the number of Novice licensees has decrease approximately 30%. The number of Advanced licensees has dropped by about 16%.

If you must mess with the licensing structure, it would be better to simply drop the class and not let them renew but require that the upgrade by the end of their expiration date grace period. Same with the Advanced. They should either have to upgrade to Extra via the written test or accept a downgrade to General.

[NY7Q]

damn harry, this is sickening. i actually agree with you on this one, in spite of the fact you admit you arent a cw op, but sympathize with us. it is a good idea. i will back it.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
To the couple of people that CW saved I'll bet it means a bunch! Like the rest of their life. In one case it was a teenager.
So let me get this right.
You would let them die instead of requiring people involved in emergency communications to know CW when it could save them? That is what you are saying. That's the bottom line.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Another emotional ploy masquerading as an argument. #Over a 40 year period, people who get into trouble in the back country get saved in a lot of #unusual ways. Your argument, basically, is that we should grasp at every possible straw on the remote chance that someone's life might be saved by it.

It's not realistic, it's not practical, and it's not the way the world works.

Let's frame this question a little more realistically: would I rather people take the time to learn CPR than CW? Most definitely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
No code and die. CW and live. That was the situation.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You're going to have to offer a whole lot more detail on these stories before one can judge if code was the only way and those people could not have been saved in any other way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I still say if it was you, your attitude would definately be different. You would still be here to argue. #You are wrong about the luck thing though. You have no control over nature and unexpected things happen all the time.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Um, did you read my whole post? #Which of St Helens, Hebgen Lake, or Loma Prieta, do you think I knew about in advance? Have uou ever been in a forest when a lightning strike starts a wild fire?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Sometimes you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and there is nothing else you can do about it except try to get help.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And the more you expect to be a victim, the more likely you are to become one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I mean in life or death situations you use EVERY MEANS TO SURVIVE. Do not discount or refuse any means. CW is still one of those means. Geez, I really hope you never need it. I can just hear you now, saying, "No thanks, rather than call on CW today,I will just wait for the next guy on voice tomorrow." [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You go ahead and keep grasping at straws, d00d. #I'll stick with pragmatics and spend my energy on being prepared for what's likely to happen.

By the way, element 1 doesn't guarentee that people know Morse code. All it guarentees, no matter the speed, is that the person studied enough Morse to pass the test. If they walk out of that room and never touch a code key again, they will quickly lose what proficiency they do have.

[n4oyt]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I think you hit the nail on the head guys..
exalent work,tnx
i'll support it..

chuck cook n4oyt

[WB6ANP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (G0MZS @ Sep. 02 2003,00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can not understand why people goad each other over this matter. Why do you want to keep people out of the hobby? Just Police them better, if they step out of line revoke the licence. Simple.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
From what I have seen of these messages it seems to me that most of the people that are for keeping CW are just trying to keep the hobby for a "select" few. As one other petition to the fcc shows they want to not only keep the CW test but make it more difficult. As for the petition here I do not agree with making CW test a requirement for Technician class. I would not have become a ham if I had to padd morse for tech. I have been trying for several years to get morse but just cannot seem to get the hang of it.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 02 2003,18:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Sep. 02 2003,18:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's frame this question a little more realistically: would I rather people take the time to learn CPR than CW? Most definitely.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So they can't learn both and be better prepared? I would suspect that if they can learn CPR they could surely learn CW. And you don't even have to have a radio to use CW to signal for help. A simple mirror or shiny surface will work also. Or flags.
It's OK. We will still save you when the time comes, by golly. Even if we have to use code.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So then you're arguing that CPR should be a requirement to get a ham ticket?

How about EMT training?

Or maybe we should all do the ranger survival school?

d00d, you're completely missing the point here. Let those who want to learn code, but don't assume that you couldn't fill your whole life learning more useful emergency tools. #I know, cuz I have friends who have.

as to "we" rescuing me; i'm curious. you ever actually get off the Anchorage tidal flats and go into the interior?
(I've always Anchorage, it's got a milder climate than the town I grew up in, due to the Japan current.)

I'm curious cuz we almost bought the town of Willow way back when it was for sale and I'm wondering how it's doing.

[ae4fa]

Just a reminder, folks, that comments posted here don't amount to a hill of beans. The FCC will never see them.

What will count are the comments appropriately filed with the FCC. One of us will try to let you know when it is posted for comments. If you sees it before we do, please let us know . . .

Thanks to all who have offered comments, opinions, and suggestions. And, I sincerely appreciate the absence of flames in this thread!

[W4JRD]

These guys must be crazy. The whole idea in dropping the code requirment is to advance ham radio.

Jamie R. Dean - W4JRD

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How could I give CPR over the radio? I am not an on-call trained emergency responder that has the means to get to most emergencies. If the reponders did get into problems it would be to their advantage to be able to use code as a life saving device.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

that's called 'moving the goal post', what you just did. We've been talking about what the person in the field should know, and now you're talking about someone other.

Come visit sometime, by the way, and I'll teach you how to "give" (read instruct) CPR over the air. It's a technique that has saved quiet a few lives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I, personally am an electronics tech and a communicator. I can call the right people to help. And I may need to use CW.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So all this advice you've been giving me about bears and flashing mirrors is theory, then? Do you backpack at all?
'no' would explain a lot here.

Have you ever had to use CW?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I hope the guy at the other end can understand it. I also could provide the emergency responders with the comm link if they don't know how to do it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yeah, the search and rescue boys are gonna be really dumb about how to use a "comm link."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You would have us decrease that pool of trained people to a point that renders it usless. Once again, doing without only increases the chance that someone may experience loss of life, limb, or property.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Element 1 isn't supply a pool of 'trained people' if you mean code operators. Deleting it doesn't deny anybody anything.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As to Willow, I live only a couple of miles from there as the crow flies.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm... I would have guessed more like 20 by crow and 40 by road, but whatever.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
CW is for all hams and you will never change my mind. They are linked through history, tradition, need, and future advancement and learning.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And yet, only a minority of hams actually use it, and none of them are doing emcomm when they do.

Another point you seem to be missing: If code is so valuable, you shouldn't need element 1 to "insure" this pool of trained operators. Bright people get HF licenses and bright people pretty quickly figure out what tools work for them. IF code is such an important tool, than it'll get used. IF it is not, then it will fade out of EMCOMM.

Oh. Wait. It already has.

73

Marty

[N7VQM]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 02 2003,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CW is for all hams and you will never change my mind. They are linked through history, tradition, need, and future advancement and learning.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In a few years, your argument re:rescue won't matter because of satellite-based rescue systems now that they are authorized for nationwide use. #You simply pop the top and pull the cord. #The destress signal is picked up by a geosyncronous satellite such as GOES. #Using information from the satellite, ground crews and get a ballpark location for the person(s) in distress who can then be located by S&R teams with DF equipment. #The whole shebang is called SARSAT: Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking.

Here is an NOAA Press release:
Satellites Help Save Hiker (http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2002/sep02/noaa02r316.html)

Review the various emergency beacons here:
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

They aren't perfect but like most other technologies, they are improving all the time. #Personally, I'd rather carry a Personal Locator Beacon than a 2m rig when hiking.

Also, just what percentage of the hiker/climber population do you think has an ARS license? #I realize that NO license is needed to call for help if in dire need but, if you didn't know that the ARS exsisted, would you have a radio to call for help in the first place? I seriously doubt it.


Back on topic:

The only portion of the petition I don't fully understand is the "time in grade" requirements. #How, exactly, would this improve the calibre of operator? #What is the motivation for this? #To be blunt, having required time with a certain license before you can upgrade doesn't make sense to me.

[K6BBC]

I received my first license in 1968 at the age of 12. In those days, the PC and the Internet were a fancy of pulp-writers and futurist. The young and technically inquisitive had few available outlets for their interest. Both young and old populated the bands. It was a lively time.


Now, for the most part, the numbers of youth on Ham Radio seems to have greatly diminished. If dropping CW encourages a return to youth, them drop it. Our future is in the young. We need them back.


K6BBC

[K3UD]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7VQM @ Sep. 03 2003,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Back on topic:

The only portion of the petition I don't fully understand is the "time in grade" requirements. How, exactly, would this improve the calibre of operator? What is the motivation for this? To be blunt, having required time with a certain license before you can upgrade doesn't make sense to me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually the ARS has a history of requireing a time in grade period before you could upgrade. I believe that the Extra CLass license initially required a 2 year period as a General before you could take the test. This was in effect for about 17 years then the time was reduced to one year then abandoned altogether.

I think the time in grade for the Extra class was established because the FCC was concerned about the technical skills, code skills, and operating practice effeciency (particulary in the area of traffic handling)
of the hams who would try for the highest class license. In fact, the FCC was so concerned about these mentioned skills that it lead to the Incentive Licensing proposals in the 60s. If you were going to have the "super grade" license, you needed to be a superior ham.

While the Novice license with its initial 1 year, non renewable term served as an entry point into ham radio, and while there was no specific time in grade requirement for upgrade to the old Technicion or General class, the reality was the most Novices spent an average of 8 months as a Novice (ARRL number from the 60s) before upgrading, and many spent more time than that as a Novice. IMO the Novice license filled it expectation by getting untrained operators ready for the big time.

73
George
K3UD

[ke4sky]

I agree!

Well done guys, we should ALL get behind this one.

Ok here is my to cents worth. Times are changing with amateur radio as with everything else. Morse code should be aloud to change with it. Look at the equipment today compaired to a few year ago. The way I see it the FCC will do what they want. Look at the other countries that have dropped the morse code all together. See what they are doing with testing. I think if they do away with it as requirement. Then it should be offered as a proficiency. The reward the sub-bands and the 30 meter band. If they have more band space somewhere give it to those people who have passed the code part.
I just hope that whatever the out come maybe that we live with it and enjoy it. I know I will.



It was once said that if you get set in your way you can never change.



73's....Kc8qdo http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[K6UEY]

73 = Best Regards

# 73's= Best Regards'es
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W0RSR]

This is a well thought out proposal that deserves serious consideration. I believe that, overall, the hobby will benefit from its approval. I imagine it will be an uphill battle though. --Mike, W0RSR

[kr4xh]

An excellent and well-written petition... Obviously a lot of thought and hard work went into its creation. I suspect that the code requirement will face an uphill battle, but I could definitely support this one!

73


don # KR4XH

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
If the person in the field is supposed to be ham and able communicator then I want him to be competent in basic communications.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You want him? #Who put you in charge?

I want him to be as self sufficient as possible.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Same goes for the other end. You're the one that slid the blockers in the way by bringing in skill requirements that were not communications related.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's the problem with a lot of amateur emergency communicators. They tend to forget that communications is only a tiny part of dealing with emergencies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As to my goal post: I want them VERY HIGH when it comes to amateur compentency with BASIC communication modes. Better than bringing them down to ground level like the no-code propositions would do. Or even sub-basement level.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

On the other hand, you seem to think that the only skill needed for going into wilderness is BASIC communication modes.

I happen to be thinking about the whole picture. #The most important skills in the wilderness are those that keep you out of trouble. The next most important set are those that help you get yourself out of trouble. Relying on someone else to get you out of trouble is asking to die young, cold, and alone.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> #
So all this advice you've been giving me about bears and flashing mirrors is theory, then? Do you backpack at all?
'no' would explain a lot here.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Been all over Alaska. Fishing, hunting, hiking and working. But as I get older I do less. Been here 35 years.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You didn't mention backpacking.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
But it (Morse code) still needs to be there and available if needed.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No one is asking for morse to go away. only to stop testing people in it who aren't going to use it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> #
Another point you seem to be missing: If code is so valuable, you shouldn't need element 1 to "insure" this pool of trained operators. Bright people get HF licenses and bright people pretty quickly figure out what tools work for them. IF code is such an important tool, than it'll get used. IF it is not, then it will fade out of EMCOMM.

Oh. Wait. It already has.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Then how come all those "bright people" are always complaining about not being able to learn code? There are always a lot of bright people who seem to need help in an emergency.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Um, they're complaining because they don't want to be tested in a mode they don't use?

But you're right about the bright people who seem to need help in an emergency. They tend to be the ones with fixed ideas who concentrate on remote possibilities and ignore the main chance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As for it's time. It's time is anytime it is needed to help. It's time may not have been for a while. It's time may not BE for a while. But it will be needed and of great value at some time. #And you will be glad it is there when that time comes.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, it hasn't been needed in a communications emergency in the US in 50 years, so if the time doesn't come for half again as long, it'll be beyond my caring.

Realistically, though, the role of Morse in emergency communications as dwindled to a trivial amount, and will soon dwindle to zero.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n4oyt @ Sep. 02 2003,18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I think you hit the nail on the head guys..
exalent work,tnx
i'll support it..

chuck cook #n4oyt[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Where are those guys that said the hams who passed a code test/ use code are better spellers?
KC7JTY

[ky5u]

When I was a volunteer fire chief years ago, we had a new pumper with a new electric pump shift. I insisted we carry a rubber mallet for the express purpose of ensuring that if the electrics failed, we could get under the truck and beat the PTO into in pump gear. Wish I had a dollar for everyone who said I was stupid, old fashoned, etc.

They only had to use that mallet one time in over 20 years. I was gone to another area by then. They were glad they didn't have to explain to the person who's house was on fire why they couldn't pump water with their new shiney fire truck. The Chief was nice enough to call and thank me for taking the heat years ago.

CW is that stupid, backward thinking, old fashioned, we're never going to use it, mallet. I hope we never have to explain why we were so gullible as to believe that communications based on infrastructure of any kind would never fail.

You can use all the modern digital modes you want right now and you don't need to pass the code test. But that's not what you want. You want to "talk skip" on HF. That's what's so funny, all the "CW is antiquated" rhetoric while drooling to get on HF with SSB, a mode almost as outdated as CW. There is not a darned thing stopping you from using all the "modern" modes right now.

And let us not forget the "pioneers" the "changers" the "forward thinkers" who see keeping the code test as being like driving your grandma's horse to a sports car show. Being a "changer" can be a really superior position. You don't have to really make sense, right? Change is good!!! All the old bad stuff must be changed NOW!!!

73
Charlie

[ae4fa]

Hi, Charlie

Good to hear from you again. Thanks for the great QSL! You'll get one from me, too - but, like I said in our QSO, I'm slow with 'em. I tend to do a batch every 6 months or so.

Still bragging on you to some of my buddies . . .

[KM5AV]

Good stuff. I think it is the best compromise so far. It should make most people happy. I think it was well thought out and researched. Good job. Please post the RM- number on QRZ so we can comment on this.

Scott
KM5AV

[N0PGI]

I can't understand why anyone would want the USA to hold onto the morse code requirement for obtaining an amatuer radio license. All of the arguments I have read for keeping it just don't cut it. I was licensed in 1991 and would have been much sooner had it not been for having to pass a test on something I would never use. There is no need for morse code...period. The sooner it is dropped, the better. The USA should quickly follow the lead of the other countries that are dropping it.

Russell Fernandez
Parsons, Kansas

[K6BBC]

That's right Russ -- but you will soon learn that many hams are from the Chicken Little school of broadcasting.

Time will have to take care of the current generation of gezers.

--... ...-- ' ...

[K6UEY]

73= Best Regards
73's= Best Regards'es
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kb9ax]

To N0PGI and K6BBC

Since you obviously didn’t bother to actually read the petition these gentlemen delivered I don’t know if making any remarks to you will do any good. No one in this petition is using Morse as a barrier to a ham ticket. You can either do really well on the written without code, or pass both with a few more questions missed. In that way someone could still enter ham radio without being forced to learn Morse.

We currently have a hobby that is made up of people who feel both ways. I have comments on the FCC website with my feelings about the matter, so you are welcome to read them. Since Morse is currently the only mode that requires you to actually learn a skill, it is tested differently. All things have their purpose, and currently many hams that use HF still feel strongly about CW. So, Unless you are advocating that we make CW illegal for anyone to use, I don’t see the point of your post. Since you are advocating being fair, remember that many hams don’t use this board, or the internet. Should we say they have no meaning or say in OUR hobby? Since HF and ALL current voices modes are obsolete and older then the hills, shouldn’t we just eliminate HF from the hobby as well.

All they are trying to do is fix a VERY broken testing system, and do it in a way that does not alienate or disenfranchise anyone. So I for one will back the proposal. And when it is before the FCC, I will comment to add additional phone segments then what is in this proposal for the entry level license.

I still think they did a fine job and put in an excellent effort to help end this debate. Can you give me any good reason to not honor some of our more senior members in this hobby if we don’t stop the younger ones from entering the hobby by giving them an alternative route to HF?

Dan KB9AX

[ky5u]

Hi,

Back on page 6, Bob AE4fA left another encouraging post for me. The simple story is:


I have been a ham for just over 6 months. If you asked me last year if I would like to use CW I would have told you "hell no!". When I started to learn it in January of this year, I hated it.

The short of it is that I kept trying and at some point realized it was actually kinda fun.

I am one of the (hisss booooo!!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif new Extra Class Ops. I studied for a month and took all the elements on one night and passed them.

I got on CW and immediately had to put up with "old school" hams and being slammed. Twice, I asked a speedy cw amateur to slow to QRS 10WPM and both of them started at 30WPM and gradually slowed to about 3 WPM over a sentence asking, "is this slow enough extra?".

But there were also a bunch of cool hams that gave me encouragement. Bob there is one of them. They came at just the time when I needed it.

So what?

1. You may hate learning cw but if I wasn't required to try, I would have never known that I like it.
2. There are butt heads out there no matter what we do.
3. There are also folks like Ray, a ham who is in the Boxing Hall of fame in his NE state; Lee my first CW contact who was so patient, Captain Paul and his krewe, and Bob who helped me get over the 20WPM mark with encouragement.

Last night on 40M sitting in my hotel room (I travel alot for my job) with my suitcase Yeasu FT840 set up and the MFJ 1621 antenna in the middle of the bed, I worked a station in Italy on CW. What a great hobby!!

Thanks Bob for your encouragement!

Charlie

[KB0NLY]

That petition stinks, PU..

Keeping the code as a testing requirement as usual, when are you people going to wise up?

Seriously, how many of you have taken the time to read through the comments for the petitions currently open for comment?

RM-10781
RM-10782
RM-10783
RM-10784
RM-10785
RM-10787

I was surprised to see the outstanding support for the removal of the CW requirement. I would say that each of those petitions that ask for the removal, only one mentions keeping it, have at least a 85-90% support rate when you tally up the comments. And the comments keep coming. I read through another dozen today and they are still in favor of removing CW.

I guess that the ones that want to keep CW are not computer proficient enough to comment to the FCC electronically. If they even commented at all, such as by snail mail, it will be too little too late. The pro-cw types are way behind, the no-code movement is organized and ready!

73,

Scott, KB0NLY

Why don't you go and live in one of the no code countries? Then we would not have to put up with the resulting CB sort of dumbing down in this country at least.
73,
Mike W0LTL

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w0ltl @ Sep. 04 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you go and live in one of the no code countries? #Then we would not have to put up with the resulting CB sort of dumbing down in this country at least.
73,
Mike W0LTL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mike # An excellent suggestion! Except.....then they would have to learn a foreign language. But they would be too lazy to do that. Whine about I can't hear it or some such drivel. Then they would demand that the requirements to speak the local language is too hard and that country should have to give everybody English lessons and change the national language to English. The same old crap. If they ain't going to learn one they ain't gonna learn another. And if they did they would just whine in a different language.
Wait!!! Maybe that is the solution to the problem. Some of those foreign governments wouldn't put up with the whining. They would just march them out to the field, stand them against the fence, and have the firing squad end the problem right then and there! End of whining. And the rest of them might just take note. Maybe. But I doubt it.

[kb9num]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 04 2003,10:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w0ltl @ Sep. 04 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you go and live in one of the no code countries? Then we would not have to put up with the resulting CB sort of dumbing down in this country at least.
73,
Mike W0LTL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mike An excellent suggestion! Except.....then they would have to learn a foreign language. But they would be too lazy to do that. Whine about I can't hear it or some such drivel. Then they would demand that the requirements to speak the local language is too hard and that country should have to give everybody English lessons and change the national language to English. The same old crap. If they ain't going to learn one they ain't gonna learn another. And if they did they would just whine in a different language.
Wait!!! Maybe that is the solution to the problem. Some of those foreign governments wouldn't put up with the whining. They would just march them out to the field, stand them against the fence, and have the firing squad end the problem right then and there! End of whining. And the rest of them might just take note. Maybe. But I doubt it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The attitude shown in both of the quoted posts are, in my opinion, far more likely to kill amateur radio than any change to the testing-licensing structure. Why is it so hard to have a civil discourse about this subject? What does it add to the body of knowledge about this subject to sling mud? How does it make us all look to the rest of the world (who are also reading this site) to have this childish stuff come up again and again?

I hope that the FCC makes its mind up soon, so this kind of crap can stop. Thank goodness most of this is limited to the internet and not on the air.

[KL7FZ]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9num @ Sep. 04 2003,11http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 04 2003,10:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w0ltl @ Sep. 04 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you go and live in one of the no code countries? #Then we would not have to put up with the resulting CB sort of dumbing down in this country at least.
73,
Mike W0LTL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mike # An excellent suggestion! Except.....then they would have to learn a foreign language. But they would be too lazy to do that. Whine about I can't hear it or some such drivel. Then they would demand that the requirements to speak the local language is too hard and that country should have to give everybody English lessons and change the national language to English. The same old crap. If they ain't going to learn one they ain't gonna learn another. And if they did they would just whine in a different language.
Wait!!! Maybe that is the solution to the problem. Some of those foreign governments wouldn't put up with the whining. They would just march them out to the field, stand them against the fence, and have the firing squad end the problem right then and there! End of whining. And the rest of them might just take note. Maybe. But I doubt it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The attitude shown in both of the quoted posts are, in my opinion, far more likely to kill amateur radio than any change to the testing-licensing structure. #Why is it so hard to have a civil discourse about this subject? #What does it add to the body of knowledge about this subject to sling mud? #How does it make us all look to the rest of the world (who are also reading this site) to have this childish stuff come up again and again?

I hope that the FCC makes its mind up soon, so this kind of crap can stop. #Thank goodness most of this is limited to the internet and not on the air.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See I told you it wouldn't end the whining!

[kb9num]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 04 2003,11:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9num @ Sep. 04 2003,11<!--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. 04 2003,10:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w0ltl @ Sep. 04 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you go and live in one of the no code countries? Then we would not have to put up with the resulting CB sort of dumbing down in this country at least.
73,
Mike W0LTL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mike An excellent suggestion! Except.....then they would have to learn a foreign language. But they would be too lazy to do that. Whine about I can't hear it or some such drivel. Then they would demand that the requirements to speak the local language is too hard and that country should have to give everybody English lessons and change the national language to English. The same old crap. If they ain't going to learn one they ain't gonna learn another. And if they did they would just whine in a different language.
Wait!!! Maybe that is the solution to the problem. Some of those foreign governments wouldn't put up with the whining. They would just march them out to the field, stand them against the fence, and have the firing squad end the problem right then and there! End of whining. And the rest of them might just take note. Maybe. But I doubt it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The attitude shown in both of the quoted posts are, in my opinion, far more likely to kill amateur radio than any change to the testing-licensing structure. Why is it so hard to have a civil discourse about this subject? What does it add to the body of knowledge about this subject to sling mud? How does it make us all look to the rest of the world (who are also reading this site) to have this childish stuff come up again and again?

I hope that the FCC makes its mind up soon, so this kind of crap can stop. Thank goodness most of this is limited to the internet and not on the air.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See I told you it wouldn't end the whining![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A true to form reply. Sure showed me. Also gave your best reasoning to the rest of the world.

[ky5u]

1. My guess on how long this issue will go on before being ruled on by the FCC? Close to 2 years. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

2. If you start studying the code now, you can be on HF before Christmas. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

As it always has been, it's your choice. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kb9num]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Sep. 04 2003,12:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. My guess on how long this issue will go on before being ruled on by the FCC? Close to 2 years. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

2. If you start studying the code now, you can be on HF before Christmas. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

As it always has been, it's your choice. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If that is directed at me look up my call. I hold an Extra Class License. I was on HF between my post and yours. I have no personal stake in the outcome. While not a regular on the CW bands once in a while I am out there. I want to see the CW bands preserved for those who do use them.

I am sickened at the way some seem to need to treat fellow hams. How much damage is this name calling going to do the hobby before we are done. How many new folks do you think are going to join the ranks if they know that they are going to be ridiculed for not joining when testing was done differently?

Enough time wasted in this pointless arguing.

[KD7KOY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9num @ Sep. 04 2003,11<!--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. 04 2003,10:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w0ltl @ Sep. 04 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you go and live in one of the no code countries? #Then we would not have to put up with the resulting CB sort of dumbing down in this country at least.
73,
Mike W0LTL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mike # An excellent suggestion! Except.....then they would have to learn a foreign language. But they would be too lazy to do that. Whine about I can't hear it or some such drivel. Then they would demand that the requirements to speak the local language is too hard and that country should have to give everybody English lessons and change the national language to English. The same old crap. If they ain't going to learn one they ain't gonna learn another. And if they did they would just whine in a different language.
Wait!!! Maybe that is the solution to the problem. Some of those foreign governments wouldn't put up with the whining. They would just march them out to the field, stand them against the fence, and have the firing squad end the problem right then and there! End of whining. And the rest of them might just take note. Maybe. But I doubt it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The attitude shown in both of the quoted posts are, in my opinion, far more likely to kill amateur radio than any change to the testing-licensing structure. #Why is it so hard to have a civil discourse about this subject? #What does it add to the body of knowledge about this subject to sling mud? #How does it make us all look to the rest of the world (who are also reading this site) to have this childish stuff come up again and again?

I hope that the FCC makes its mind up soon, so this kind of crap can stop. #Thank goodness most of this is limited to the internet and not on the air.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"The attitude shown in both of the quoted posts are, in my opinion, far more likely to kill amateur radio than any change to the testing-licensing structure. #"

I agree..
I think the original authors of the petition, although I have issues with some of the rational of their argument they put forth, did it in a civil and well thought out way. I also applaud them for being proactive even when we disagree.
However, when we have amatuers advocating someone 'stood against a fence and shot' because of disagreement, thats going well over the top and just 'killed' alot of perspective operators from entering the service/hobby with this attitude.
Sometimes, amatuers are their own worse enemies..

[ky5u]

KB9NUM

Whoa, dood. That was pointed in the general direction of any no coders who are out now shopping for HF rigs. (I support no code access to HF in the tech plus class, but preservation of CW testing for General and Extra.)

The FCC will not act quickly here and this is not a slam dunk for ANY side. I suggest if someone wants to get on HF, they get after learning the code in the short term.

How is that calling you names and treating you badly?

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9num @ Sep. 04 2003,12:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 04 2003,11http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9num @ Sep. 04 2003,11<!--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. 04 2003,10:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w0ltl @ Sep. 04 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you go and live in one of the no code countries? #Then we would not have to put up with the resulting CB sort of dumbing down in this country at least.
73,
Mike W0LTL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mike # An excellent suggestion! Except.....then they would have to learn a foreign language. But they would be too lazy to do that. Whine about I can't hear it or some such drivel. Then they would demand that the requirements to speak the local language is too hard and that country should have to give everybody English lessons and change the national language to English. The same old crap. If they ain't going to learn one they ain't gonna learn another. And if they did they would just whine in a different language.
Wait!!! Maybe that is the solution to the problem. Some of those foreign governments wouldn't put up with the whining. They would just march them out to the field, stand them against the fence, and have the firing squad end the problem right then and there! End of whining. And the rest of them might just take note. Maybe. But I doubt it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The attitude shown in both of the quoted posts are, in my opinion, far more likely to kill amateur radio than any change to the testing-licensing structure. #Why is it so hard to have a civil discourse about this subject? #What does it add to the body of knowledge about this subject to sling mud? #How does it make us all look to the rest of the world (who are also reading this site) to have this childish stuff come up again and again?

I hope that the FCC makes its mind up soon, so this kind of crap can stop. #Thank goodness most of this is limited to the internet and not on the air.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See I told you it wouldn't end the whining![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A true to form reply. #Sure showed me. #Also gave your best reasoning to the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just stating the way it is.
The new proposed HF no-code license should still come with a crutch.

[N0PU]

OK... enough is enough...

I presented this News so that Bob and I could collect constructive information and to see how the wind was blowing...

And a FEW of you have turned this into a Flame Fest...

Please take your flames somewhere else...

I really am not interested in what the two extreme camps have to say other than a single comment... you folks are set in your ways and that is that and I accept it... and THAT is fair... but this bickering is getting to me...

I am far more interested in what the fence sitters have to say and in CONSTRUCTIVE comments...

I understand the emotion involved in this topic, but please try to keep it on topic... and the topic is:

The Petition we submitted...

NOT general no/know code OPINIONS...

[kb9num]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Sep. 04 2003,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KB9NUM

Whoa, dood. That was pointed in the general direction of any no coders who are out now shopping for HF rigs. (I support no code access to HF in the tech plus class, but preservation of CW testing for General and Extra.)

The FCC will not act quickly here and this is not a slam dunk for ANY side. I suggest if someone wants to get on HF, they get after learning the code in the short term.

How is that calling you names and treating you badly?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No one has called me names: I am not one of the hated no coders. My only axe to grind is the name calling in general.

I also agree that it is time to get this thread back to topic and discuss the well worded petition that this thread started with.

Sorry for any confusion.

73

[ae4fa]

Just a follow-up on Harry's post:

Why, you might ask, would those guys be seeking comments now?

Simple. We're still doing our homework. It is quite possible that an articulate, objective comment - either here or to the FCC once it is posted - might persuade us to concede a point in our reply comments, thus making for a better rule-making.

I have been somewhat bewildered by the comments in support for petitions RM-108782 through RM-10786. Here's what those petitions propose for Techs without code:

CW only on the current Novice/Tech Plus portions of 80, 40, and 15 meters - and Tech Plus privileges on 10. No digital on 80, 40, or 15.

Harry and I worked for nearly two months on our petition. No, it is not "perfect." Yes, it is a compromise. No, it will not satisfy everyone. That's why comment periods exist.

In short, I would encourage everyone to consider the long term. How can we ensure the continuing value of Amateur Radio to the nation? If we fail to do that, the Amateur Radio Service will cease to exist, and folks that do offer value to the nation will get our frequencies.

[kg4cbj]

I would like to comment on the Technician delima. Currently all Tech's are lumped in to the same catagory. Unfortunately, there is no clear delineation between Tech+ and Tech. Tech + was allowed to go on to General with the written element 3. Now, because there is no Tech + you must have a CSCE within the 365 day limit. #Further, how can OO's monitor and determine who has an appropriate license for use on HF. #I believe this would reinstate those who passed element 1 and bring new opportunity for the rest.

[KG4TWX]

The one petition that makes sense. I'm all for it. I think that it will encourage many a boyscout and many others trying to join in. On the rig not being able to upgraded I think that many people will just go ahead and buy a little mobile HF rig and then when they upgrade they do not have to buy again, of course the manufacturers will come up with something. I'm for it, let's adopt it. Thanls guys for making some sense out of this. minor note: this is the only petition that is not getting a lot of opposition and yet the others that say "DROP IT IMMEDIATLY" have caught so much opposition it is unreal. I hope this passes.

73 KG4TWX
Save the Code
p.s. I will file a comment in support of this hopefully many others will too.

[k9dta]

any one can learn morse code at 5 wpm
and pass a simple comprehensive test
"unless you were deaf and blind and couldnt see a light or hear a tone"

[KD7CAO]

I believe strongly that if we are not going to abolish code as a way of gaining an HF license then we need to also add a digital portion to the test. Computers are being used more and more in Ham Radio. Why don't we make the older hams come up in technology and learn a mode that will replace CW in the near future. It has already been shown that in some areas data will get through where as CW doesn't. For example unless you use a computer to send and receive you still have that possiblility of human error. But, if you use packet or something like TCP/IP over radio you have error control. I personally would like to see code abolished.

I have been working on my code with every means that I have found including Hypnosis. But, I can not grasp it. They say everyone can get 5wpm that is highly false. There are a lot of us that just can't do it. Now if the test would allow me to show that I could set up a computer to properly send and receive code. Then I could pass with out any problem.

Lets do what is right. Abolish Code.

Eric KD7CAO http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[k4iii]

If code stays and BPL is approved, catch me on 460 Mhz GMRS! and/or MURS!

(BPL=No HF)

MURS, vhf is free now! And, GMRS is cheap and you can get a family GMRS license for 5 years that covers the whole family for only 75 dollars, I believe. No tests, testing expenses or licensing requirements... Even put up a repeater on GMRS! Take away club dues of around $20/yr. Multiply times 5 years, you can have enough for a 5-yr license for the whole family!. (=$100) You can even have your own group and restrict everyone and create rules like "only 65+ year old males with doctor visits on Tuesday mornings welcome" as do some current hams.

Unfortunate, yes... Sad, yes... Mistake, NO...

From a younger ham's perspective...

1. Why stand up for an activity that no longer stands up to current technologies and regulations... Let's start a typewriter training group, fellows. GOSH FRS & GMRS radios now almost have more capabilities than vhf/uhf ham radios. They now have built it GPS, TNCs and CTCSS/DCS tones and various scan and tone scan features! And GET THIS... the average 6 year old can operate them whereby a simple feature like CTCSS tone can be a mystery to Extra Class Hams! You don't need CW, just speak plain ENGLISH! How about learning English in the USA before complaining about CW testing?

2. Why support the community when they don't want any support, and businesses and the local county and community see you as only a threat or liability? (except for that one week every couple years during a storm, emergency, or county fair where you help blowing up balloons?) The once volunteer Search & Rescue teams now get an hourly PAYCHECK for their services from my county! In my area, no cell companies or wireless companies want ham equipment on their towers and consider amateurs a threat because of their communication capabilities! The only way any tower space really can be considered is if it can directly benefit the owner or company, whereby GMRS could allow such... Bet they're Pro-BPL! Whatever happened to "Think not of what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

3. If we provide civil defence communications under new anti-terrorism legislation, and the FCC is such a proponent of BPL technology and states it's effectiveness and capabilities, I am expecting a ($50 x 12) $600 check from the FCC in the mail for my Internet bill the end of this year! I've purchased my computer as us hams purchase radios and I'll be glad to use my computer using the Internet to advance safety, pass messages, etc... as long as the spectrum is provided at no cost, as it is and should be in Amateur Radio... Else, I'll pay for it privately and don't expect any other #"shared" use of it, similar to my cell phone...

4. Nothing any longer is free, not even a smile, and although I applaud many hams for offering free services and friendly support, I know these people are now a rarity. I believe we are getting the short end of the stick fellow hams!!! Time to face the facts... ARRL signing proposals with other "free-bander" service groups and I think that makes us look like CBers, "free-ba