FISTS Petitions the FCC

[wz8c]

FISTS CW Club has submitted a Petition for Rulemaking to the FCC.

The petition will be available for viewing on the FISTS webpage soon http://www.fists.org, but for now can be read on these two links.

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

and

http://www.qsl.net/n1ea/FIST_FCC_Petition_8-30-303.pdf

73
Nancy WZ8C

[KD7WHQ]

"A CB operator who managed to get an ARS operator license."

Please.

I'm riding the fence on this issue, as I see both sides, but the continual bashing is a bit much..

73

Will, another no-code tech, who also uses Eudora, as if that mattered..

[K6UEY]

It would appear he does not know the difference between Ham Radio and his Internet Mail program, I understand why he wants to continue his education !!!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[kc5jpz]

I like the way W3JGG (re)stated it: #"cw captures the spirit of amateur radio like no other mode can." #
That is something that I could enjoy...
staying up late at night with headphones on...
...listening in the dark for weak signals...
...and then I hear it...
...so weak that it is more a modulation of the noise background...
...but it is readable. #"I'm using ten-milliwatts"...Wow! #How many miles per milliwatt would that be...
Yes I hope to someday do this. #But I still want to see the Telegraph Exam to go away.
James Johnson
kc5jpz
A Technician Lite

[KF4GHK]

Witty commentary aside, I applaud your effort, Nancy...Lets see, 8/9/10,000 FISTS behind you? #

"CW- Try it, you'll like it!"

..
Justin W3JGG

[K6UEY]

James - KC5JPZ,
You are right I do not know the difference,nor do I care,it has NOTHING to do with Ham Radio,I spend my time on the air not playing games on the Internet. BTW I noticed you did not point out the difference !! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
PS
My apologies to the FIST group and congratulations, I wish you success in your petition.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kb3fgc]

Funny
I never got the survey in the mail

[KD7WHQ]

See the posting by N0PU below (or above, ya never know ;)
This, at least as I see it, is the most fair, balanced, and reasoned way to restructure to take into account the international changes.
Read it, and see if you agree.

This "all or nothing" game isn't helping anyone.
In fact, when it all hits bottom, it may hurt..

How does Morse Code proficiency encourage circuit construction and RF design? PROFICIENCY in Morse code has nothing to do with it.

I think a some of the statements in the report are a stretch at best.

[kw7dsp]

I support the F.I.S.T.S. petition.

[KD7EV]

The F.I.S.T.S. petition is REFRESHING to say the least, I was beginning to think I was all alone in wanting to keep the Morse requirement.
FISTS you have my total support in your petition drive

[KQ6XA]

The petition falsely states that Fists is "the fastest-growing amateur radio organization in the United States."

[kg4wel]

I think I must say something about dedication, determination and discipline... which is what I believe element 1 really requires. CW is a tool for a potential HF op to display these skills, why? You can key up on HF with a few watts impact reception all over the globe. What would HF be without a code requirement? Well "CB like" might then be a accurate description, crowded and full of ops without the 3d's. Does the code requirement keep some potential hams from HF? You bet.

5 WPM is no big deal, it just takes a little 3d, unlike the technical elements now with Q&A pools.

Just call me prejudice, Scott 9944

[W4TYU]

As an "old timer" of 52 years as W4TYU, I completly agree with this petition. Having handled "traffic" under all conditions, I have learned that CW will permit communication at almost any time. As there are efforts being made to assure a viable system during times of emergency, I consider it necessary for this country to maintain the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively communicate during emergencies. Amateur radio is one way to do so. As a large number of communities recently learned being without electric power completly destroys their infrastructure. Amateur radio can and does operate independently of electrical power mains and provides communication both within and without the area. Knowledge of CW is essential to "record communications"
and must be retained at a level sufficient to assure the skills required to effectively communicate.

JEAN W4TYU

[KQ6XA]

The fist petition pleads: "We recommend increasing the Morse exam to 12-wpm."

Here are two honest questions for the fist petitioners:

#1) # #Does your recommendation represent a posturing stance to balance calls to eliminate morse testing entirely, or are the petitioners in denial of the restructuring rulings made by the FCC and the recent WRC-03 treaty changes?

#2) # #Foreign nationals from many countries need no longer be morse proficient for amateur HF privileges. These same amateurs are visiting USA and operating on the HF bands. Is it the intention of the petitioners to recommend that the FCC regulate American citizens more stringently than it regulates the foreign tourists in USA?





























.

[n4qa]

Way to go, FISTS!
As promised over on eHam, my check, for back dues, current-year dues, and a little 'extra' for the CW cause,
went into the mail this morning.
I know, I know, I still need to get some SASEs over to Stan at the FISTS QSL Bureau...along with some outgoing QSLs...Hang in there, Stan!
Long live CW...ESPECIALLY the testing requirement for (increased) Morse Code proficiency.
73.
Bill, N4QA

[kc0jez]

Looks to me like FISTS are concerned about losing membership over the coming years as people are no longer forced to learn morse code.

[KB5UXK]

Just as soon as they eliminate the requirement of CW for ALL license exams then I believe it will be illegal for anyone to operate that mode on any band!

NOT!

You will still be able to "Dit" your "Dahs"......What's the problem?

[N8CPA]

Thank you, Nancy, Stan, and FISTS! #What isn't mentioned in the petition is that FISTS is almost entirely grass roots. There is far less bureaucracy than any other organization its size. #It has no profit margin, as alleged by one poster--who by the tone of his other posts sees Amateur Radio as a kind of country club to which he's entitled entry.

Demanding an HF license without learning the code is like demanding a library card and refusing to learn to read! # #

CW not only conserves bandwidth, it is also more efficient, in a serial sense, than any other text mode. #i.e. No computer necessary in the block diagram of the receiver. #Compared to the other digital modes, only Morse can be understood by a human interface. #For sheer beauty, elegance, and natural simplicity, you just can't beat it!

Is its purported impending demise something worth celebrating? ABSOLUTELY NOT! #Neither is it true. #

Steve !!

[W1SSN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Sep. 02 2003,03<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The petition falsely states that Fists is #"the fastest-growing amateur radio organization in the United States."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

. . . not in error #. . . merely prophetic . . . now that the petition has been filed wait to see how fast they grow.

W1SSN

[ve5rww]

Hello to all. CW is not my best mode in fact i dont use it much. I had a hard time of practice every day to get 5 w.p.m. It is not impossible if you try! For the HAMS out there with no code who think CW should be part of our history did you do your best or did you give up because it was to hard. It is easier to get 5 w.p.m. that it is to quit smoking I am still trying that one. Maybe I am not trying hard enough! Take care all.

This one has my vote!!!!!!!!!

Ham radio is NOT for everyone..... It is for those who love the art of radio communications and CW is at the heart of that art.... For those of you who just want to talk on the radio, use the radio services that were designed for that (ie. CB, FRS, GMRS, etc.) Do not try to make ham radio something it was not meant to be... It is for those who love expanding their knowledge and skills.... It is NOT a personal communications service and was never intended to be...

de Tom NJ1K 73

[kw9u]

Way too much baggage in this one - it will never fly.

[K8UT]

As a FISTS member who was not surveyed, I must voice my minority opinion that this petition is NOT in the best interest of Amateur Radio. Technology has changed, and we must change to accommodate it or risk further declines in the number of licensed hams. And the greatest risk of reduced licensees? - frequency encroachment by the FCC as they declare our allocations "underutilized".

CW -- like antenna construction or kit building -- are merely characteristics of our hobby but must not be included as prerequisites for membership. Those hams who enjoy the mode will use it; those who do not have no reason to know it.

As much as I enjoy CW, I cannot support it as a required skill for licensing and operation -- any more than I would suggest that coil-winding or transmitter building should be required of all applicants.

My 2 cents worth,

-larry

[n9kpn]

Too many falsehoods or "skewed facts" in the petition. #Many have been addressed. #One thing that F.I.S.T.S. completely ignore is the Amateur census. #Just over one third of all Amateurs in the US are No Code Tech. #A license class that has been around for only twelve years or so.

Let's hit a few of the "facts" and see how true they really are:

Page 5 statement 8 says emergency communications packs for VHF and HF radio sets are used for Emergency Operations Centers. #This is true and we have one of these where I work. #The Emergency Coordinator/Communications Officer in charge of this equipment has handled ambulance and police traffic as a dispatcher for years. #He can listen to multiple radio calls and know what is happening on multiple voice channels at once. #His emergency HF station does not have a Morse code key that I have seen. #Even if it did, not one of the dispatchers that would be using this in an emergency knows Morse code. #Not at our site or any of the ones that he works with at other locations. (I have also been helping some of the dispatchers get into Amateur radio; none are Amateurs now.) #Sorry but even if Morse code were retained as a requirement 99.9% of the people using these stations will NOT know Morse code. #It goes back to what I always say about Morse code getting through. #If voice cannot make it through and Morse can JUST BARELY make it through, try a different band. #

Page 6 statement 11 says that without a Morse code requirement will prevent people from understanding radio-frequency design. #This is just more BS. #Sorry but eliminating Morse code will not prevent someone that WANTS to learn Morse code from learning it and building a CW transmitter. #On the other end of the spectrum is a person like me. #I was building FM "Mr. Microphones" in grade school and high school. #A simple AM transmitter can be built for HF bands. #Only AM is shunned and there is no place for a #Novice or Tech Plus to use AM. #So instead of teaching someone how to make a simple voice transmitter we must FORCE them to learn Morse code so that they can learn transmitter theory. #It does not make sense to me. # Let's say that someone DOES want to build a CW transmitter. #Shouldn't it be left up to them to decide if they WANT to learn code? #Just as if they decide that they want to learn how to construct equipment?

These are only a couple of points. #There are others but I'll leave it at this.

I support the FISTS petition and the goals as stated. It can be hardly called "going forward" to systematically destroy all standards under the guise of the public good. America does not have to follow the rest of the world into oblivion. We were once the greatest nation on earth, when we had real standards.

While I could not disagree with many of the points made in this petition, I feel the petition lacks a strong and pointed argument to convince the FCC to move in the opposite direction; that is, to further complicate licensing requirements by introducing multiple speed Morse testing.

The petition essentially makes the argument that Morse code and the CW mode are useful and interesting things. #Who could disagree with that? #But that alone is simply not a compelling reason to require proficiency testing for HF access. #There are other useful and interesting modes used on HF that are not tested for operator proficiency...how can Morse testing logically be singled out?

To me, a more likely scenario would be to retain the existing 5 wpm requirement for Extra class and remove it altogether for General class (I believe this, too, has been proposed). #That makes sense, since the Extra class license is intended to address more diverse and in-depth operating with the reward of exclusive band segments. #In light of recent developments on the international testing requirement, this would be a compromise that has some chance of satisfying a greater percentage of hams.

I don't know how anyone is going to be able to convince the FCC to reverse directions on the Morse testing issue. #In my opinion, this petition is not capable of doing that. #It would be easier to convince them to keep things as they are.

Morse code and CW mode ARE great...the application of them and the motivations for learning code DO NOT go away even if the testing does. #Someone who wants to use code will learn it...removing the testing requirement does not impede that process at all.

- Doug

[kc5jpz]

"Demanding an HF license without learning the code is like demanding a library card and refusing to learn to read!"

I do not agree. #I would get a kid a library card so we could use the library's help in teaching the kid to read. #If I want to read any language the library would help...
...If I have access to telegraph bands and the equipment then I would have incentive to learn telegraph code. #It is more probable that I will learn the continental code, (some people think it is "Morse" code) and be able to tap my message around the world, without the telegraph exam.

1. The telegraph exam should be eliminated.
2. The telegraph only subbands should be preserved. #Forever.
3. If a person fails an exam, they should not be able to take another exam in the same session.
4. I support the NCI petition.

I hope that those who have passed the telegraph exam do not treat those who have not passed the exam too badly when the new telegrapher gets on the air and has the ability but not the paper that says he passed.

Doug: #I agree with you... "Morse code and CW mode ARE great...the application of them and the motivations for learning code DO NOT go away even if the testing does. #Someone who wants to use code will learn it...removing the testing requirement does not impede that process at all."

James Johnson
Arlington, Texas

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We were once the greatest nation on earth, when we had real standards. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If we aren't the greatest nation today, then what nation is?

Dave
KG6JTB

[N2EY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n8ary @ Sep. 02 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How does Morse Code proficiency encourage circuit construction and RF design? #PROFICIENCY in Morse code has nothing to do with it.

I think a some of the statements in the report are a stretch at best.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
First off, there's no way 5 wpm can be called "proficiency" by any stretch of the imagination. 5 wpm is entry-level skill.

As for circuit construction and RF design, equipment for Morse code use (particularly HF-amateur-band Morse code use) can be extremely simple, very complex, or anything in between. Such equipment can use very old technologies, the latest developments, or anything in between - and in combination.

Suppose a beginner with no formal radio or electronic experience says he/she wants to build a ham rig - from scratch. What would YOU recommend as a first project? How many hams build complete SSB transceivers as first projects?

I started out as a 13 year old Novice with a simple homebrew CW rig. But it wasn't simple to me back then! Now it's 36 years later and I'm still homebrewing complete ham stations from scratch (receivers, transmitters, transceivers, antennas, tuners, test gear, power supplies, furniture....) but they're somewhat more complex today....;-)

Look at the available kits and projects, particularly the low cost and simple ones. Almost all CW.

I don't think any of the statements in the petition are a stretch.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[whsmith]

My heart likes the FISTS petition, but my mind tells me that Peter Beauregard's one page petition RM-10781 is the most practical solution. By simply giving all Technician class licencees access to the "Novice" digital/CW sub-bands and keeping element 1 for the General level license, I believe we can strike a very nice compromise. Such an arrangement accomplishes what I see as the two most important interests of the code vs no-code factions. (1) Amateur radio can take advantage of the benefits of the WARC decision by providing a limited slice of bandwidth for Technician's to get their feet wet in the CW and other digital modes without a proficiency test. (2) Morse proficiency testing will be retained to attain access to the full CW spectrum at the General and Extra levels. Keeping a recommendation focused sqarely on the issue and easy to implement are undoubtedly important traits for a petition. Not withstanding, I agree with the FISTS ancillary CW issues, such as tougher test requirements and promotion of entry level kit building to improve amateur radio. But realistically, until diminished requirements cause a problem in the bands, less regulation will most likely be the trend. My cautionary note to the FCC is that it will be hard to put get the cows back in the barn, once the door is open. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[N2EY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Sep. 02 2003,03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The petition falsely states that Fists is "the fastest-growing amateur radio organization in the United States."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How is that statement false?

I joined FISTS a few years ago, and got #4360. Now they're handing out numbers well over 10,000. What other US amateur radio group has grown that much in a few years?

ARRL numbers have been stalled for a long time. I've never seen an NCI number above 5000 - and NCI started their member numbers with 1001, not 0001, so you have to subtract 1000 to get even a halfway accurate idea of the real size of the organization.

So tell us - what amateur radio organization in the US is growing faster than FISTS?

73 de Jim, N2EY
FISTS #4360

yes, I got a survey card.

[N8CPA]

You have access to telegraph bands, with a Technician license. #The first 100Kcs (at least) of every band up to 2 Meters is CW only, except for 160 (all modes through out, and gentlemen's agreements), 60 (USB voice only), 30 (CW, digital only throughout). #Not to mention that CW is legal on any allocated frequency, except for 60M. # Look at the frequency charts. #If you have an all mode VHF rig, somewhere, all you need is a key. #Good luck!

!!

[N5GLR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Sep. 02 2003,03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fist petition pleads: "We recommend increasing the Morse exam to 12-wpm."

Here are two honest questions for the fist petitioners:

#1) # #Does your recommendation represent a posturing stance to balance calls to eliminate morse testing entirely, or are the petitioners in denial of the restructuring rulings made by the FCC and the recent WRC-03 treaty changes?

#2) # #Foreign nationals from many countries need no longer be morse proficient for amateur HF privileges. These same amateurs are visiting USA and operating on the HF bands. Is it the intention of the petitioners to recommend that the FCC regulate American citizens more stringently than it regulates the foreign tourists in USA? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, the attacks have begun. #This one is typical. #

1) Ask irrelevant, irrational, confusing questions to impune the integrity of the opposition. #

2) This one whines about the plight of poor visiting foreign Hams. #I can almost see the quivering lower lip and the crocodile tears running down the cheek.

This is an issue for American Hams. #I'm sure visiting foreigners can be accomodated in the rules just as they are now.
#
These folks can't deal with facts and logic. #Every response is based on emotion. #The FISTS petition must have really hit them where it hurts. #Could they be afraid that it will prevail. #I think so. #

Now, watch the "fact" twisting, it's already started. #They will attempt to disparage this petition by quoting it out of context and lying about the content. #They have already begun to "re-write" history to support their cause.


N5GLR

[whsmith]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8CPA @ Sep. 02 2003,10:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have access to telegraph bands, with a Technician license. #The first 100Kcs (at least) of every band up to 2 Meters is CW only, except for 160 (all modes through out, and gentlemen's agreements), 60 (USB voice only), 30 (CW, digital only throughout). #Not to mention that CW is legal on any allocated frequency, except for 60M. # Look at the frequency charts. #If you have an all mode VHF rig, somewhere, all you need is a key. #Good luck!

!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
... and Good Dx ! Hi Hi

[K8MP]

I read your petition.
Congratulations on a professional and to-the-point capsulization of the pertinent data.
I had read the W6YI groups petition when it came out, and it was filled with generalizations, and parts of it really sounded like bleeding-heart type stuff.
Unfortunately, the FCC will probably get rid of the code requirement, robbing thousands of future hams of the fun of cw.
(Of course it wasn't fun learning the code, we learned it because we had to if we wanted a ham license...)
I understand why peolple balk at learning the code. I was the same way 42 years ago when I studied for my novice test, thinking "Why in the world would any one want to use this morse code, when you can just talk into a mic?"
But to my surprise, I found that once on the air, I loved cw.
Fourty-one years later, it is still my favorite mode.

[I]

[edisnc5s]

You are either a complete Amateur operator, or you are not.

Morse code proficiency = Complete

No Morse code proficiency = Not Complete.

EOS

[N3HGB]

"Demanding an HF license without learning the code is like demanding a library card and refusing to learn to read!"

No, it is like demanding a driver's license without learning to work a manual spark advance or a crank starter. It is like demanding a pilot's license without learning how to hand carve your own prop. It is like demanding a captain's license without knowing how to navigate by rubbing a floating needle with a lodestone. It is like demanding an MCSE without knowing how to run a card punch.
73

[K2WH]

Hey, didn't anyone see the movie "Independence Day"?

CW communications saved the world. I'm sure the movie was actually a documentary and it really happened.

K2WH

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2EY @ Sep. 02 2003,12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for circuit construction and RF design, equipment for Morse code use (particularly HF-amateur-band Morse code use) can be extremely simple, very complex, or anything in between. Such equipment can use very old technologies, the latest developments, or anything in between - and in combination.

Suppose a beginner with no formal radio or electronic experience says he/she wants to build a ham rig - from scratch. What would YOU recommend as a first project? How many hams build complete SSB transceivers as first projects?

Look at the available kits and projects, particularly the low cost and simple ones. Almost all CW.

73 de Jim, N2EY[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Agreed. #But what does this have to do with the Morse testing requirement?

Your points only support your opinion that CW is the most fun, most interesting and most suitable for learning about radio technology. #While that may be true, it does not support the argument that Morse testing should be required for HF access.

- Doug

[AE6IP]

There iss no pro-code argument in the FISTS position that hasn't already been dismissed by the FCC.

FISTS' community and the US ham population would have been better served if FISTS had concentrated on the problems they would like to fix in the written tests.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edisnc5s @ Sep. 02 2003,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are either a complete Amateur operator, or you are not.

Morse code proficiency #= # Complete

No Morse code proficiency #= #Not Complete.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Certainly one can become proficient in Morse code just as easily if he is NOT tested on it. #The testing happens on the air. #Therefore, it is possible to become a "complete Amateur operator"--by your definition--without the testing requirement. #Does the FCC require that you be a complete operator before getting on the air? #What about all of the other aspects of amateur operating (homebrewing, grounding, RF safety, emergency power supplies, digital modes, and so on)? #Don't you have to be proficient in those as well if you want to be a "complete amateur operator"? #Some of those things are tested, some are not. #Why should Morse code be one of the things that is tested? #Is it arbitrary?

[N5GLR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Sep. 02 2003,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There iss no pro-code argument in the FISTS position that hasn't already been dismissed by the FCC.

**** You made the claim, now Prove it! *****

FISTS' community and the US ham population would have been better served if FISTS had concentrated on the problems they would like to fix in the written tests.

**** Your obviously biased opinion. ****


**** comments by N5GLR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Here's another one. An obvious example of an attempt to re-write history to fit their agenda.

To AE6IP ... I see you're trying out your act on a different web site. It won't work here either.

N5GLR

[ke6irp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kw7dsp @ Sep. 02 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I support the F.I.S.T.S. petition.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
ME TOO! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K2WH]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W2DUG @ Sep. 01 2003,12:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2EY @ Sep. 02 2003,12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for circuit construction and RF design, equipment for Morse code use (particularly HF-amateur-band Morse code use) can be extremely simple, very complex, or anything in between. Such equipment can use very old technologies, the latest developments, or anything in between - and in combination.

Suppose a beginner with no formal radio or electronic experience says he/she wants to build a ham rig - from scratch. What would YOU recommend as a first project? How many hams build complete SSB transceivers as first projects?

Look at the available kits and projects, particularly the low cost and simple ones. Almost all CW.

73 de Jim, N2EY[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Agreed. #But what does this have to do with the Morse testing requirement?

Your points only support your opinion that CW is the most fun, most interesting and most suitable for learning about radio technology. #While that may be true, it does not support the argument that Morse testing should be required for HF access.

- Doug[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Morse testing is only a part of the whole for HF access. #It is not the single most important element for HF access. The CW exam if only 5 minutes and as I understand it now, you don't even have to have perfect copy, it is basically a multiple choice answer session on what the person listening thought it meant. Come on now!

Using your logic, elimination of the theory exam to gain access to HF must also be considered because no one really builds anything anymore.

Shouldn't there be some goal or stepping stone for HF access? #What should be required for HF access? #If not CW - what? #If not theory - what? #See where this is going!

K2WH

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N5GLR @ Sep. 02 2003,12:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's another one. #An obvious example of an attempt to re-write history to fit their agenda. #

To AE6IP ... I see you're trying out your act on a different web site. #It won't work here either.

N5GLR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Here is the text of my comment on the FISTS proposal, which will be posted to the FCC site as soon as the FISTS proposal has an RM number and I know it:

I would like to respectfully disagree with many, but not all of the assertions made in the FISTS proposal. The arguments by FISTS in favor of keeping the Morse code testing requirement are the same ones previously rejected by the Commission. Nothing has changed to add validity to these arguments. Development of new digital modes, most notably PSK-31, has rendered some of them even less relevant.

It is no longer true that Morse code is the only usable mode in poor propagation conditions, nor that Morse uses less bandwidth, nor uses the bandwidth more efficiently. While the comparisons made in the FISTS filing between Morse and SSB still remain true, FISTS neglects to compare Morse to PSK-31, which uses less bandwidth, uses it more efficiently, and in many poor propagation conditions is easier to copy. Additionally, PSK-31 has the advantage that the copy is available on a computer, allowing it to be transferred to a packet or other network without worry about transcription errors.

Maintaining a Morse code requirement will not ensure an adequate supply of skilled radio operators for emergency communications. In practice, Morse code is rarely, if ever, used in emergency communications. Further, those people who learn Morse code merely because they are required to pass a proficiency examination will not use it and will quickly lose what proficiency they had at examination time. Also, those operators who enjoy using Morse code will retain proficiency in it whether there is a proficiency requirement or not.

While it is difficult for a neophyte to build a high quality voice station from components, it is also not necessary. There are many good transceivers on the market, as well as good antennas.

There is no evidence that skill as a Morse code operator correlates with technical skill. Even those operators who build their own transceivers tend to do so from kits, and often don't have the skills necessary to repair or modify those radios.

Further, if, as argued in the FISTS petition, Morse code transceivers are simpler and easier to construct than SSB transceivers, it is more likely that those who construct SSB transceivers will acquire greater technical skill, since they undertake a harder challenge.

I do agree with the FISTS recommendation that Tech and Tech plus classes be merged and given digital privileges in the HF bands.

I agree with the FISTS recommendation that the examinations for General and Extra class should contain more, and more relevant material; but I believe that the tests should test for proficiency in the practice and technique of the privileges most likely to be used by the holder of such licenses. I recommend that the Commission take no direct action on this, but rather that it encourage organizations such as FISTS to contribute appropriate questions to the question pool review process.

The FISTS filing claims, but does not document, that the number of upgrades exceeding the number of new licenses indicates that the 5 WPM test is not a burden. This fact may be as easily explained by the assertion that the number of people interested in the amateur service is not growing at as fast a rate as the number of people using the service who are interested in upgrading.

The FISTS filing claims that the ability to send and receive Morse code at 12 WPM is "imperative if an operator during an emergency situation is to communicate effectively." In practice, the vast majority of emergency communications in the amateur service are handled using phone modes, with the remainder nearly always handled using digital modes. In practice, Morse code is rarely, if ever used in emergency communications.

I agree with the FISTS recommendation that the CW subbands be retained. Deleting a testing requirement for Morse code should not be construed as a request to delete CW operations. The mode is a fairly popular use of the amateur service, and should be retained and protected.

I have, in comments on other filings, stated that I agreed fully with the NC-VEC filing (RM-10787.) I have since reconsidered my opinion, and one thing that I do not agree with is the NC-VEC assertion that Morse code testing places an unreasonable burden on the VE.

However, as a VE, I dispute the FISTS filing claim that retesting is a burden on the VE nor do I accept that retesting is not useful. #Testing sessions are arranged so that a number of tests are given over a period of time. There is no difference to the VE between a new examinee and a retest, and both will be allowed so long as there is time left, and neither will be allowed if there isn't sufficient time.

As a small irony, the one instant retest I took myself, and passed, was my element 1 test. I was nervous during the first attempt and barely failed. I waited a few minutes, calmed down, and passed the test on the second attempt.

The FISTS filing claims that the process for developing the question pool should not be in the hands of NC-VEC. The Commission itself found that Question Pool Committee (QPC) of the NC-VEC has a better ability to ensure that the question pools reflect current technology than it does. The FISTS recommendation would carry more weight if they had identified a problem with the current process. The QPC solicits questions for the pool from all amateur radio operators. Perhaps FISTS could recommend specific questions as each pool is updated.

In conclusion, I believe that the Morse code requirement should be dropped; that Tech and Tech plus should be combined into a single license class that has digital operating privileges in part of the HF amateur service spectrum; that the CW subbands should remain; that tests should be updated to more accurately reflect operating practice and current technologies, and that the process for doing this should remain the NC-VEC QPC question pool review.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The CW exam is only 5 minutes and as I understand it now, you don't even have to have perfect copy, it is basically a multiple choice answer session on what the person listening thought it meant. #Come on now!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The exam consists of at least five minutes of code at 5 wpm. There are two ways to #pass it: by demonstrating 1 minute of perfect copy, or by passing a 10 question fill in the blank test. The #VE who administers the code tests in my VE group says that people almost never fail one minute of copy and are able to correctly answer the questions on the test.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Shouldn't there be some goal or stepping stone for HF access? #What should be required for HF access? #If not CW - what? #If not theory - what? #See where this is going!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The FCC has said "the general standards suggested by the ARRL -- i.e., testing should be related to privileges, should place greater emphasis on operating practices and current technology, and should support and encourage experimentation -- is a reasonable standard ..."

What is being proposed to the FCC now is that element 1 no longer serves those purposes. This is not news to the FCC, since they have already previously came to the same conclusion, ruling that the only reason they kept element 1 was because of the WRC requirement. That requirement no longer exists, so it is time to remove the element.

[N2EY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8CPA @ Sep. 02 2003,10:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have access to telegraph bands, with a Technician license. #The first 100Kcs (at least) of every band up to 2 Meters is CW only, except for 160 (all modes through out, and gentlemen's agreements), 60 (USB voice only), 30 (CW, digital only throughout). #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NO!!!

You are mistaken.

The *ONLY* CW-only subbands are 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1 MHz. There are *NO* CW-only subbands on HF. ALL of the non-phone/image subbands are shared with data modes (under FCC rules).

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N3HGB @ Sep. 02 2003,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Demanding an HF license without learning the code is like demanding a library card and refusing to learn to read!"

No, it is like demanding a driver's license without learning to work a manual spark advance or a crank starter. It is like demanding a pilot's license without learning how to hand carve your own prop. It is like demanding a captain's license without knowing how to navigate by rubbing a floating needle with a lodestone. It is like demanding an MCSE without knowing how to run a card punch. # #
73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, not at all.

Try this one:

"It's like requiring a basic level of manual transmission skill in order to get a full-privileges driver's license".

There aren't many people driving cars with crank starters or manual spark advances today. But there are plenty of manual-shift cars on the road, and still being made.

In fact the 5 wpm test can be compared to having to get the car into first gear and across a parking lot at 5 wpm without stalling out.

73 de Jim, N2EY

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Sep. 02 2003,15:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Morse testing is only a part of the whole for HF access. #It is not the single most important element for HF access. #The CW exam if only 5 minutes and as I understand it now, you don't even have to have perfect copy, it is basically a multiple choice answer session on what the person listening thought it meant. #Come on now![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>I agree, but "because it's easy" simply isn't a good enough reason to require code testing. #We can learn code without a test if we are 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">Using your logic, elimination of the theory exam to gain access to HF must also be considered because no one really builds anything anymore.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>I don't know how you got this from what I wrote. #I didn't say anything about whether people build things or not. #I wouldn't have suggested removing the theory testing...those are your words, not mine. #There is a lot of information in the written exams that must be understood to legally, safely and effectively operate ANY kind of station.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shouldn't there be some goal or stepping stone for HF access? #What should be required for HF access? #If not CW - what? #If not theory - what?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Yes. #The FCC has already designated what the requirements are. #What's on the table is whether it makes sense to continue to use Morse testing as one of those criteria. #Again, I never suggested removing the theory test--those are your words. #I certainly would have no objections to stiffer theory tests as a compromise to eliminating Morse code testing.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">See where this is going![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Yes...toward the ridiculous and illogical. #You twisted my words to serve your own emotional argument.

[n5drt]

the people stuck in stone ages,there no usa agency even use code any more,why should we?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Simtechiii]

I also support the FIST petition. It makes sense. I'll be joining their organization within the next month.

73,

Steven / KG6JEV/4

[KB9KLC]

I also support the petition ......And I don't think the manual transmission test is a bad idea either...good luck es 73

[N2EY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W2DUG @ Sep. 02 2003,11:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2EY @ Sep. 02 2003,12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for circuit construction and RF design, equipment for Morse code use (particularly HF-amateur-band Morse code use) can be extremely simple, very complex, or anything in between. Such equipment can use very old technologies, the latest developments, or anything in between - and in combination.

Suppose a beginner with no formal radio or electronic experience says he/she wants to build a ham rig - from scratch. What would YOU recommend as a first project? How many hams build complete SSB transceivers as first projects?

Look at the available kits and projects, particularly the low cost and simple ones. Almost all CW.

73 de Jim, N2EY[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Agreed. #But what does this have to do with the Morse testing requirement?

Your points only support your opinion that CW is the most fun, most interesting and most suitable for learning about radio technology. #While that may be true, it does not support the argument that Morse testing should be required for HF access.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The point is that the ham with Morse skills, even basic ones, has many more options in building radios than the ham who does not have those skills. Particularly on HF. Which serves to encourage hams to build. Which supports the bases and purposes of the ARS.

Consider this simple fact: A ham with a Tech license is allowed by FCC to design/build/repair/modify/align and most of all OPERATE an amateur station on any authorized amateur frequency and mode above 50 MHz. And said Tech ham can use any power level up to the legal limit.

All it takes to get that license is passing a 35 question written exam.

But to get more than a few slivers of HF privileges, said Tech amateur has to pass the General written exam. And to get full privileges, he/she has to pass the Extra written exam.

WHY?

Is there some reason that lots more theory knowledge is required to operate on 21.020 MHz than on 144.020 MHz?

Yes, those exams have some questions on HF/MF propagation, rules and regs. But a lot of those tests are about theory, electronic symbols, etc. Why is so much more written testing required for HF access beyond the Novice level? Particularly when most hams are not going to build their rigs?

I'm not saying the written tests should be reduced or eliminated - in fact, I think they're too easy.


73 de Jim, N2EY

[n9kpn]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Sep. 02 2003,12:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, didn't anyone see the movie "Independence Day"?

CW communications saved the world. #I'm sure the movie was actually a documentary and it really happened.

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Did you see the Terminator series? #I guess we all need high powered fully automatic weapons to stop the Terminators. #;-)

[KC9ASI]

Hey, folks.

Remember that ALL Technicians currently have HF access:

4w AM 26.9650-27.4050, 10 khz spacing
12w SSB (Upper or Lower) on those same frequencies!

There are even readily available affordable transceivers available!


I support the FISTS proposal. #I expect that my membership dues will be in the mail shortly.

[n0klu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC9ASI @ Sep. 02 2003,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, folks.

Remember that ALL Technicians currently have HF access:

4w AM 26.9650-27.4050, 10 khz spacing
12w SSB (Upper or Lower) on those same frequencies!

There are even readily available affordable transceivers available![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You guys on both sides if the Ham code fence:

You sound like a bunch of babies "Thats my toy, No it's mine,wah wah"

The fellow quoted below is a good sample of what I'm describing He is referencing the "CB" Bands which he obviously belongs to! He talks like one too!

I am a Technician and talk on 50Mhz up. If the FCC decides to allow me to talk on 50Mhz and below I will be tickeled pink. I really don't care any more.

To the Old Timmers: remember the fights over AM/FM and SSB? This sort of remindsme of that time. all the name calling, belittleing cussing and so forth.

Once the FCC allowed SSB everyone settled down and got together and forgot thier differences, didn't they?
The same thing will happen (I hope) if they phase out Morse Code. The Ham Bands will not turn into CB if WE THE HAMS DON'T LET IT!!!

If the FCC Keeps the Code I'll remain a Tech.
If The FCC drops the Code I'll upgrade. It's as simple as that. No use in getting all mad at the world. You might as well crawl into a box somewhere and only talk to your buddies out there somewhere.

You Generals and Extras as well as Technicians my word to you is GROW UP and quit acting like BABIES!!!

(of course if you are babies then continue to argue)

I am a good and COURTIOUS ham operator are you?

(I have my doubts listening to you here)


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

[K2WH]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0klu @ Sep. 01 2003,16:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC9ASI @ Sep. 02 2003,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, folks.

Remember that ALL Technicians currently have HF access:

4w AM 26.9650-27.4050, 10 khz spacing
12w SSB (Upper or Lower) on those same frequencies!

There are even readily available affordable transceivers available![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You guys on both sides if the Ham code fence:

You sound like a bunch of babies "Thats my toy, No it's mine,wah wah"

The fellow quoted below is a good sample of what I'm describing He is referencing the "CB" Bands which he obviously belongs to! He talks like one too!

I am a Technician and talk on 50Mhz up. If the FCC decides to allow me to talk on 50Mhz and below I will be tickeled pink. I really don't care any more.

To the Old Timmers: remember the fights over AM/FM and SSB? #This sort of remindsme of that time. all the name calling, belittleing cussing and so forth.

Once the FCC allowed SSB everyone settled down and got together and forgot thier differences, didn't they?
The same thing will happen (I hope) if they phase out Morse Code. #The Ham Bands will not turn into CB if WE THE HAMS DON'T LET IT!!!

If the FCC Keeps the Code I'll remain a Tech.
If The FCC drops the Code I'll upgrade. It's as simple as that. No use in getting all mad at the world. You might as well crawl into a box somewhere and only talk to your buddies out there somewhere.

You Generals and Extras as well as Technicians my word to you is GROW UP and quit acting like BABIES!!!

(of course if you are babies then continue to argue)

I am a good and COURTIOUS ham operator are you?

(I have my doubts listening to you here)


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
From N0KLU:

"Once the FCC allowed SSB everyone settled down and got together and forgot thier differences, didn't they?
The same thing will happen (I hope) if they phase out Morse Code. #The Ham Bands will not turn into CB if WE THE HAMS DON'T LET IT!!!"

You may be a nice and caring guy. #What about uncle pete or joey boy down the block. #You gonna stop em?Tell us - How are you going to stop it once it is started? #I and others would really like to know. #You have no enforcement powers. #The fcc going to help? #Forget it.

Oh and by the way, maintaining the current code testing has already stopped the CB invasion. #But you want to drop it right?

But just so I'm clear on this, you want to drop the code, open the door, let everyone in and then fight or police it to make sure everyone plays nice once everyone is in? #Somethings wrong with that. #I vote, keep the door closed.

K2WH

BTW, I do not use CW. #Just thought you'd like to know.

[n3jv]

Amateur Radio is not for everyone. If you are unwilling to spend the time necessary to meet the qualifications for the license that you desire, you should not get the license; it's that simple. If you truly cannot learn the code at 5 wpm, I'm sorry, but that's the way it goes. There are many activities/professions that some people cannot qualify for due to various reasons; that does not mean that the requirements for them should be abolished or changed to accomodate everyone that complains.

A golf course that I once played at issued a memo to try to alleviate slow play. They suggested that those who played so poorly that they were causing the pace of play to be unacceptably slow either a) take lessons, b) practice during non-busy hours, c) pick up their ball when they reached twice par on any hole and go to the next one, or c) give up the game. I think we need a similar approach.

Those who worry that we are excluding some people from our ranks by keeping the morse code requirements miss the point. If we continue to lower the standards and eliminate requirements to insure that anyone and everyone who wants to be a HAM is admitted to the ranks, Amateur Radio as a whole suffers. I agree that not everyone will want to operate CW when they get their license; that does not make it irrelevant. Does every amateur radio operator use all of the knowledge required to pass the written elements of the exams? Of course not; does that therefore mean we should eliminate the written elements as well?

I believe that if the great majority of the people who complain about having to learn morse code at 5 wpm would put in as much effort learning code as they do complaining about it and trying to change the license requirements, they'd probably have their new or upgraded tickets by now.

I wholeheartedly support the FISTS petition.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that the ham with Morse skills, even basic ones, has many more options in building radios than the ham who does not have those skills. Particularly on HF. Which serves to encourage hams to build. Which supports the bases and purposes of the ARS.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I have to admit this is an argument I've only recently encountered.

It's not true, though. You can find SSB kits of just about any level of complexity and price, just as you can find CW kits. There's even a fairly simple psk-31 transceiver kit based on an SSB design from a QST article.

[KA3RFE]

Sigh....

"Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion stilll"

I don't remember the source but I think it was in a Beatles' song. It just stuck in my memory during my time as an addictions counselor and it seems apt to the present discussion/argument/feud/hysteria over the removal of morse from the testing requirements that the ITU passed recently for HF operation.

Me? It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Morse and CW are simply modes of communication. There is no magical ingredient that makes for a better (or worse) operator.

I'm a 13 wpm General and have been one for ten years. I'm not interested in upgrading. I'm happy with the privileges I now have. Upgrading wouldn't give me much more than I have, since I'm more or less deaf and can't understand speech over the radio, even at FM, so the added phone privileges are useless to me and the slice of the Extra CW-only in each band isn't that much more room, either.

Yes, I'm more or less deaf but I copy Morse just fine and enjoy it. But it's not anything special and it doesn't make me a better ham.

I don't care what the FCC does with this issue, frankly . It's not going to change my participation or my operating practices and I don't believe that the hams who have come into the hobby via the Technician tests are somehow less than human or something. That test is, after all, an entry-level, and our goal should be to welcome them and encourage them to keep on learning and perhaps show them that Morse is an enjoyable operating mode.

Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them? Wouldn't that go a long way to increase the numbers of good operators no matter which license they have?

[n0klu]

You missed my main theme:

If the FCC Keeps the Code I'll remain a Tech.
If The FCC drops the Code I'll upgrade. It's as simple as that.

To the disgusting laguage posters:

If in your opinion: Technician No-Code is equal to CBer
you my friends have some real descrimination to overcome as there is quite a few of us Techs.

If I must "Become" some one that overtly discriminates as Most "Know-Code" do in order to work HF, then you can have it all to yourselfs! one day you will be all alone and find you have no friends to talk to. #Go and join the KKK your attitude fits nicely! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N2EAC]

First, I would like to go on the record that I am a Tech. Second, am I against CW?? Heck no. CW is a valid MODE, yes MODE of communication. This is no different than RTTY, or PSK. HOWEVER, copying CW at 5 wpm should NOT be the criteria for determining privilege on the HF bands. I am a MARS operator and net control station. The military did away with CW years ago as a requirement for MARS participation. Why? Because the military did away with CW in general. MARS uses only voice and digital modes, NO CW. Usually we think of the military as antiquated in many ways. In this case MARS has a "leg up" on the amateur community.

The best analogy is the "blacksmith" who would not sell rubber tires, or the typewriter manufacturer who did not make it to the computer age. CW is analogous to Smith Corona, whereas IBM got into the computer age while still making typewriters. Where is S/C and where is IBM?

While I am not against reserving spectrum for CW or other modes, all I can say is that other parties want the spectum allocated to amateur use. Remember why we have "contests" and "field day events"?? To show that the bands are used. Keep in mind CW does not equal amateur radio. If we do not use the allocated spectrum, someone else will get it to the detriment of the amateur radio community. Folks, this is about USE OF THE BANDS ALLOCATED TO AMATEUR RADIO AND KEEPING COMMERCIAL PARTIES OFF OF THE AMATEUR BANDS.

Candidly, I am sorry to see FISTS take this rigid position. Why? Because, adopting a position of keeping the CW requirement will just mean there will be fewer and fewer hams and then, FISTS won't be able to stop the commercial parties trying to take the HF spectrum away from amateur use (including the CW allocation). Rather, I would have thought that FISTS would enlist support of others.

BTW, I just don't "buy" the argument that doing away with CW will turn the HF bands into CB land. That is an unfair analogy because the FCC totally did away with licensure for 11m. No one is advocating doing away with the radio theory part of amateur licensure.

I, like a number of other hams have a doctoral level education, but don't have the time OR INTEREST to allocate to learning or playing with CW. That does not mean that I am not a good and courteous operator capable of operating on HF. Heck, I operate all the time on the MARS frequencies. Additionally, many of the hams (that I personally know) that did learn (including 13 wpm'ers) it and NEVER use it. They got their license and immediately forgot about it. So much for progressing the use of CW.

Anyway, I am sure I will get hate mail for this. But, I believe that there will be one of two outcomes, (1) FISTS will get their way, CW will continue to be a requirement and amateur radio wil die a slow and terrible death, or (2) like the rest of the world, CW will be recognized for what it is, a mode that should not be used as a barrier to licensure so that amateur radio can thrive and the amateur radio community can protect the frequency allocation.

73, ed, n2eac

[n0klu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA3RFE @ Sep. 02 2003,18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't care what the FCC does with this issue, frankly . It's not going to change my participation or my operating practices and I don't believe that the hams who have come into the hobby via the Technician tests are somehow less than human or something. That test is, after all, an entry-level, and our goal should be to welcome them and encourage them to keep on learning and perhaps show them that Morse is an enjoyable operating mode.

Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them? Wouldn't that go a long way to increase the numbers of good operators no matter which license they have?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
KA3RFE, thank you for " REASON and a breath of fresh air. I was beginning to wonder if ALL Generals/Extras considered us Techs as trash or something!
I agree with your statement:
Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them?

I just wish there were more of them out there, seems like th only ones are too far away to really be of much help.
73's and thanks again KA3RFE de N0KLU http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WA7CS]

I also support the FISTS petition.

I will voice my support in the form of a written letter to the FCC.

73
Carl
WA7CS


<TITLE>When an Amateur Extra was something special</TITLE>
</HEAD>
><CENTER><FONT SIZE="+3" COLOR="#D00000">Extra Privileges for Sale: $10</FONT></CENTER><HR ALIGN="Center" SIZE="1">
When I was first licensed way back when in the "good old days", I didn't know many Hams that held the Amateur Extra ticket.



In the 1960s, and through the 1980s, to have an Amateur Extra Class license really was something special. I can recall holding in genuine awe those with the top ticket.


To become an Amateur Extra was an honor, and it required at least a small degree of desire, self education, and dedication



<HR SIZE="1" WIDTH="50%" ALIGN="Center">

<UL TYPE="DISC">
<LI>First: An applicant must have already been licensed for at least two years.

Your time as a Novice didn't count.


<LI>Second: You had to pass a test - a real test.

Nowadays a written test is required for all classes of licenses, but in fact it is just a formality. You see, the entire set of test questions, including all of the correct answers are published by the FCC for anyone to see! Can you imagine if you could have taken every test in High School or College after you had looked over every possible question along with the answers?!


<LI>Third: In addition to the written test, there was a Morse Code examination.

To qualify for the Amateur Extra, an applicant must demonstrate, in the presence of an FCC Examiner, the ability to Send and Receive Code at 20 WPM. To make it more difficult, the test criteria was solid copy for a full minute.



Did you notice that I said SEND and RECEIVE?


And for a Full minute of solid 100% correct copy?


In later years, the sending requirement was eliminated, and solid copy wasn't required either. The applicant was merely asked a few questions regarding the text sent - sometimes in multiple choice format!



Today, no Morse code is required at all for the Extra Class License other than the same 5 WPM that I took as a Novice.


[/list]
<HR SIZE="1" WIDTH="50%" ALIGN="Center">
Now, in a misguided spirit of political correctness, anyone with half a brain, and $10 can have an Amateur Extra ticket issued to them.



In my humble opinion, it is a terrible shame to have eliminated the incentive licensing program.



The incentive for self improvement and education was additional spectrum in most of the Amateur bands.



Now, the extra spectrum once reserved for those that worked hard and achieved a higher level of knowledge and skill is being handed out to anyone capable of coughing up 10 bucks to sit for a "test". A "test" for which every question and answer is freely available. The result is that the Extra portions of the HF bands are populated with many licensees that have no knowledge, skill, courtesy, experience or a real love for the hobby.



About the only value I associate with my Amateur Extra ticket is the knowledge that I qualified back in the good old days when the privileges could only be earned and not bought.



Back to WA7CS Radio Shack (http://www.webbworks.com/crstrode/arswa7cs.html)
</BODY>
</HTML>



When an Amateur Extra was Something Special (http://www.webbworks.com/crstrode/extraclass.htm)

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Sep. 02 2003,05:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The petition falsely states that Fists is "the fastest-growing amateur radio organization in the United States."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Please post the statistics to disprove their claim. Several people I know have joined recently.

[w5nl]

WAH,WAH,WAH...BLAH,BLAH,BLAH....kwitchyerbitchin and learn it already. I HATE, HATE, HATE CW I have never tapped a key, and never will. But instead of crying about it I did it. Took 3 weeks and it was difficult but guess what? I'm on HF enjoying every minute of good DX. How are you spending your time?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif See ya on HF. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0klu @ Sep. 02 2003,17:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">{snip}

I am a Technician and talk on 50Mhz up. If the FCC decides to allow me to talk on 50Mhz and below I will be tickeled pink. I really don't care any more.

If the FCC Keeps the Code I'll remain a Tech.
If The FCC drops the Code I'll upgrade.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't understand your reasoning. The FCC allows anyone on HF as soon as they pass the code.

Why are you going to wait on the FCC to do something for you when you can do it for yourself by taking the test?

Take your destiny in your own hands. Get the G4FON software, put in about 30 hours of study and practice, take the test and you've got it made.

[K2WH]

I was just on the FCC website and read about 20 filed comments on the VEC's petition. #The 75% in favor of dropping the code are tech licensee. #Something for nothing.

BTW check this out. #This is a submission to the FCC by a ham on a submarine. #The spelling is his.

"Hello, My name is #, and I've been a TECH. licensed ham for about 2-2.5 yrs now. I was also an electronic technition communications spieclist in group 2 submarine fleet U.S. NAVY. As of august 17 2002 I passed my general license written exam. 6 months prior to that I started to study morse code. I practices 30 minutes a day every day, and still to this day. As of 17 AUG 2003 my CSCE for my general class license has expired, and still I study the code.

I doubt that I'll ever study enough in my life time to pass the code test. You I'm not a dumb guy it's just that for some reason or another that i cant controll my brain and my ears just dont recognize morse code.Beleive me as a submarine radioman breaking digital,and other such
electronic eves dropping is a day in day out thing, morse
code to me is an unbreakable barrier. This is why I urge the FCC. to adopt the no code HF. petition set forth by NCVEC. Why because I know that there is others out thers like me. Wether because they have hearing loss ,or the code just dont click. WE too would like to talk around the world on HF band. SO please please
take great consideration when making your discion."

So, as you can see, Morse is just too hard to understand. #He makes a good point here. #His ears don't connect to his brain. #Cant wait to talk to this guy.


K2WH

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ecienki @ Sep. 02 2003,18:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">{snip}
Candidly, I am sorry to see FISTS take this rigid position. #Why? #Because, adopting a position of keeping the CW requirement will just mean there will be fewer and fewer hams and then, FISTS won't be able to stop the commercial parties trying to take the HF spectrum away from amateur use (including the CW allocation). #Rather, I would have thought that FISTS would enlist support of others.

{snip}
Anyway, I am sure I will get hate mail for this. #But, I believe that there will be one of two outcomes, (1) FISTS will get their way, CW will continue to be a requirement and amateur radio wil die a slow and terrible death, or (2) like the rest of the world, CW will be recognized for what it is, a mode that should not be used as a barrier to licensure so that amateur radio can thrive and the amateur radio community can protect the frequency allocation.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So far historical data has shown that dropping the code probably won't lead to a major increase in hams. It didn't happen when the no-code Tech license was created so why should it happen if morse is dropped across the board.

Although some people harp on using code as a barrier, that is not a particularly good argument as anyone who wants to learn it can do so in a reasonable length of time if they choose the proper training methods. Besides it was never intended as a filter in the first place. It was and is a test of a basic radio skill.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2EY @ Sep. 02 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that the ham with Morse skills, even basic ones, has many more options in building radios than the ham who does not have those skills. Particularly on HF. Which serves to encourage hams to build. Which supports the bases and purposes of the ARS.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, Morse skills are useful. #Got it. #Totally agree.

BUT A TEST IS NOT REQUIRED TO GAIN MORSE SKILLS!! #The motivation to learn and use Morse code should come from within. #That desire--and implementing it--is a worthy goal and what makes a "complete amateur operator" (to use a phrase coined by someone else), not passing an arbitrary test.

Use of Morse code is totally optional. #So why require it? #Nobody has satisfactorily answered that question yet. #The #answer we keep getting is that we should keep Morse testing because a lot of hams like using it. #That just doesn't make sense.

I like and appreciate Morse code, too (even though I'm not very good at it yet), but I have yet to see a clear, logical (not emotional) argument for why it should be required. #I have seen clear, factual arguments to drop it (such as the NCI petition), and since many countries are now dropping it, the argument to drop it appears to be the dominant one. # That's a fact, not an opinion.

Ok mister W2DUG,
Here is your satisfactory answer,,,,,

Ham radio is NOT for everyone..... It is for those who love the art of radio communications and CW is at the heart of that art.... For those of you who just want to talk on the radio, use the radio services that were designed for that (ie. CB, FRS, GMRS, etc.) Do not try to make ham radio something it was not meant to be... It is for those who love expanding their knowledge and skills.... It is NOT a personal communications service and was never intended to be...

That simple DUG,,,,,,, It is NOT for everybody,,,, It IS for those who LOVE the ART of radio .... CW is the heart of radio ART......

Of course you WILL say, that is not a satisfactory answer, and you can call it anything you want, but it is what it is.... Ham radio is what it is and it is not for everyone.... Got that??? If ya can't cut the mustard, get outa the ham radio service......

Ha Ha and good bye....

de Tom NJ1K 73

[K2WH]

From W2DUG:

"Use of Morse code is totally optional. #So why require it? #Nobody has satisfactorily answered that question yet. #The #answer we keep getting is that we should keep Morse testing because a lot of hams like using it. #That just doesn't make sense."

Ok, I'll answer it. #It has been required and still needed because it is the only part of the testing procedure that in my opinion brings out the true character and commitment of a person. #It is a hurdle that only the sincere and dedicated are willing to jump over.

It eliminates those who really don't want to go through the bother (no commitment) to participate in this wonderful hobby known as amateur radio. #They can go to the HF frequencies known as 27mhz. #Code testing is not a requirement there and we all know the situation there.

It serves as a test of someones loyalty and understanding of amateur radio history and the preservation of amateur radios future. #Something I think you have forgotten.

Lastly, I cannot see or understand how so many want to eliminate the morse testing requirement. #I really don't think it is to bring in "New Blood". #There must be some other reason that I have not figured out yet. #I sincerely believe that the elimination of the morse requirement will be the death knell of amateur radio as we know it and with the influx of thousands of new HF operators will create a second service very similar to the 27mhz band.

K2WH

[kd5ivp]

CW, continous wave....which is not code, is the essence of radio. #It is the transmitting and receiving of rf energy in it's simplist form. # Morse code happens to be the most basic, current human interface with regard to communicating using continous wave. # Anyone calling themself a 'radio operator' should at least be required to know how to communicate using basic, simple, radio, whether they intend to use the mode or not. # #Everything starts with continous wave. #Period.
# # Thanks FISTS!

[N1RWC]

I got some more gasoline, let's take this site out with the CW debate like we did at e-Ham.net.

Fan the flames higher, higher, higher.

Hey Billy Bob, go get that dang Hot Dog Fork, so the Coppers think we is cookin'

73 Matt N1RWC

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KA3RFE, thank you for " REASON and a breath of fresh air. I was beginning to wonder if ALL Generals/Extras considered us Techs as trash or something!
I agree with your statement:
Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Even among those who are avid pro-coders, only a tiny minority have that attitude problem.

One of the nicest guys I know is the VE who administers our element 1 tests in my VE group. I would have just passed element 1 and walked away from code, as I suspect many do, if it hadn't been for his gentle encouragement.

While I personally disagree with the pro-coders on the usefulness of element 1, I certainly appreciate the history and tradition which causes them to be ardent about it; and I greatly respect the majority of those pro-coders here who express their opinion without denigrating their opposition.

[kd5ivp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5cue @ Sep. 02 2003,14:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the people stuck in stone ages,there no usa agency even use code any more,why should we?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
FAA uses Morse identifiers for nav aids. Listen to your police scanner, Morse is used there to identify various municiple stations. Dial around on your shortwave, outside the ham bands, you'll hear Morse used for ship traffic. Special Forces and Navy Seals learn Morse.

Fact is, whether you consider continous wave stone age or not, it is the most basic of radio. Everything starts there. It would make sense that a 'licensed radio operator' would know how to use the most simple and basic of radios effectively. Morse is the way that's done. Learning the radio art is best understood from the bottom up.
We become nothing more than untrained appliance users any other way.

[KF4GHK]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5ivp @ Sep. 02 2003,19http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CW, continous wave....which is not code, is the essence of radio. #It is the transmitting and receiving of rf energy in it's simplist form. # Morse code happens to be the most basic, current human interface with regard to communicating using continous wave. # Anyone calling themself a 'radio operator' should at least be required to know how to communicate using basic, simple, radio, whether they intend to use the mode or not. # #Everything starts with continous wave. #Period.
# # Thanks FISTS![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well said. #Oh, Im still waiting for KQ6XA to show how the petition falsely states that FISTS is the fastest growing club right now...

...

...

...
73 de Justin W3JGG ex KF4GHK
FISTS 9980/1461

[k7fd]

Our service provides emergency communications.

An emergency may present us with minimal resources.

Which mode works best with minimal resources?

When the going gets tough...the tough get CW.

Should it be required to get a ham ticket? Absolutely. #

73 John K7FD

[WA9SVD]

The FISTS petition has some good points, and some bad. But I fear FISTS and NCI, being diametrically opposed, will be battling well into the 23rd Century. What we need is a plan that will accomodate all, appease to some extent the fringe radicals on both sides, and DEFEAT BPL, because from the demonstrations and data available, even CW (Morse if you will) won't have a chance, unless the station is next door.

[Vegas]

I'm 100% for CW and a proud * FISTS* member # 4916.
The way I see it you can train a monkey to press a MIC button.
I takes skill to send and receive CW.
CW also is a nice mode because very little power is needed to work the world.
Look at my SST under my call.
When i'm outdoors on a nice weekend,I setup my AF2Q version on the PAC-12, work DX like crazy while other hams are indoors working echo link.
THATS A SKILL? ECHO LINK?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
It's more like an AOL chat room.
Remember when you were a kid and if you didn't eat your beans Mommy wouldn't let you go out and play.
I was doing 20+ WPM even before my Novice ticket arrived in the mail.
All it took was listening to W1AW an hour every night.
CW IS HERE TO STAY AND YOU WILL NEVER HEAR US PROFESSIONAL CW OP's AT 30+ WPM.
WHY?
BECAUSE YOU LACK THE MOST IMPORTANT SKILL IN HAM RADIO
Right now I have a ham in CA who needs a 2Q call for his certificate.
I got him last night but storms came through and QRN cut it short.
I know,
I could have called him on the phone and send CW with the tone pads LOL.
But the challenging skill is what keeps us professional CW OP's going and we love it.
I SUPPORT FIST AND EVERY THING THEIR DOING TO PRESERVE CW.
Bob
AF2Q http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Vegas]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0klu @ Sep. 01 2003,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA3RFE @ Sep. 02 2003,18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't care what the FCC does with this issue, frankly . It's not going to change my participation or my operating practices and I don't believe that the hams who have come into the hobby via the Technician tests are somehow less than human or something. That test is, after all, an entry-level, and our goal should be to welcome them and encourage them to keep on learning and perhaps show them that Morse is an enjoyable operating mode.

Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them? Wouldn't that go a long way to increase the numbers of good operators no matter which license they have?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
KA3RFE, thank you for " REASON and a breath of fresh air. I was beginning to wonder if ALL Generals/Extras considered us Techs as trash or something!
I agree with your statement:
Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them?

I just wish there were more of them out there, seems like th only ones are too far away to really be of much help.
73's and thanks again KA3RFE de N0KLU http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/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">Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them?
In your other post you put down CW.
Now you ask the other hams to elmer the techs.
I just want to say one thing.
Before the computer age I read books and built antennas,built kits and learned CW with no help from anyone.
You can be anything you want to be if you give it just a bit of *YOUR* time.
Bob
AF2Q http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[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

[n0klu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vegas @ Sep. 03 2003,00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0klu @ Sep. 01 2003,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA3RFE @ Sep. 02 2003,18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't care what the FCC does with this issue, frankly . It's not going to change my participation or my operating practices and I don't believe that the hams who have come into the hobby via the Technician tests are somehow less than human or something. That test is, after all, an entry-level, and our goal should be to welcome them and encourage them to keep on learning and perhaps show them that Morse is an enjoyable operating mode.

Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them? Wouldn't that go a long way to increase the numbers of good operators no matter which license they have?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
KA3RFE, thank you for " REASON and a breath of fresh air. I was beginning to wonder if ALL Generals/Extras considered us Techs as trash or something!
I agree with your statement:
Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them?

I just wish there were more of them out there, seems like th only ones are too far away to really be of much help.
73's and thanks again KA3RFE de N0KLU http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/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">Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them?
In your other post you put down CW.
Now you ask the other hams to elmer the techs.
I just want to say one thing.
Before the computer age I read books and built antennas,built kits and learned CW with no help from anyone.
You can be anything you want to be if you give it just a bit of *YOUR* time.
Bob
AF2Q http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mr.Vegas
If you look into my other posts were infact retailiation to the flamming I got from other "Know-Coders" who made comments like trailer trash, CB'er and other very derogitory remarks. makes one all warm and fuzzy don't it? when a rational comment is made I've followed with the comment that I will never use the code, so why should I learn something that will not further my knowledge of radio and radio propagation, antenna construction, experimentation, and so forth. I at least say I'll not use it rather than say I'll learn something never to be used again....kind of like learning to start the old John Dear tractor by the flywheel so I can turn the key and start the trractors of today. Morse code is a mode I'll not use, If it trips your trigger..go for it! I'd rather build my equipment that I'll use (BTW I'm building a 100W amp for 6m) I could buy the stuff probably cheaper but I choose to homebrew it....Is'nt that what the hobby is all about?

I appreciate you saying that I (we) Technicians are at least still human. we can get along untill we get treated as an animal or something, we tend to get allitle perturbed. My humble appologies for my previous "Flammings"

I leave the option open to me learning the code one day but as for now....I'd rather learn other technical information that I'll use. (I hate buying stuff I will never use, don't you?)

I have diligently practiced the code twice a day for just over a year and have accomplished 13 letters...not words, letters....too frustrating.

I'm proud you were able to learn the Code by yourself. But not everybody has the desire not the capability to do it alone. How much by the way is a "Bit of your time"? in my case over a year is obviously not enough.

Thank you for the civil comments and hope mine has also been at least as civil.

[N2EY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W2DUG @ Sep. 02 2003,18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2EY @ Sep. 02 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that the ham with Morse skills, even basic ones, has many more options in building radios than the ham who does not have those skills. Particularly on HF. Which serves to encourage hams to build. Which supports the bases and purposes of the ARS.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, Morse skills are useful. #Got it. #Totally agree.

BUT A TEST IS NOT REQUIRED TO GAIN MORSE SKILLS!! #The motivation to learn and use Morse code should come from within. #That desire--and implementing it--is a worthy goal and what makes a "complete amateur operator" (to use a phrase coined by someone else), not passing an arbitrary test.

Use of Morse code is totally optional. #So why require it? #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, fine.

Now let's apply that very same logic to the written test.

What is wrong with the following?

A TEST IS NOT REQUIRED TO GAIN TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE!! The motivation to learn and use radio/electronic theory should come from within. That desire--and implementing it--is a worthy goal and what makes a "complete amateur operator" (to use a phrase coined by someone else), not passing an arbitrary test.

Use of any mode or technology is totally optional. So why require any testing of it? If a ham only wants to use FM, why should he/she have to learn about SSB and FSK and PSK? If a ham only wants to *use* rigs, not build them, why should he/she have to learn all those symbols and formulas and such which have nothing to do with the safe and legal operation of a modern ham station?

For that matter, why should a ham have to learn the limits of bands he/she never intends to operate on?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[K2PG]

Hmmm...Let's see..."Class E switching amplifiers are not well suited for analog voice modes"? If that's the case, then why do most of the current crop of AM broadcast transmitters use Class E finals? Am I missing something here? I guess you never heard of Steve Cloutier (WA1QIX), an engineer who designs such transmitters and who has built several of them for use in the AM mode on 160, 75, and 40 meters. Time for you guys in FISTS (and I am a former member) to put away the Bencher paddles and Vibroplex bugs and pick up the theory books!

And why shouldn't our phone bands be expanded...or, better yet, why shouldn't government-mandated bandplans be eliminated altogether, giving us the same privileges that hams in the rest of the world enjoy? The congestion on the phone bands and the lack of activity on the former Novice CW/data bands tells me that it's high time for phone band expansion or subband deregulation.

I love to operate CW. But let's get real. It isn't 1934 anymore.

Phil Galasso K2PG
Broadcast Engineer

[k7fd]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vegas @ Sep. 02 2003,22:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Instead of putting Technicians down, why not Elmer them?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Elmering's a grand idea but I've found many of today's entrants into our hobby border on bums. Unshaven, unshowered, and sometimes a bit unsavory. You take your chances inviting these characters into your home. For some reason, ham radio of late is a magnet for for misfits...

Why is this?

73 John K7FD

[whsmith]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W2DUG @ Sep. 02 2003,18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2EY @ Sep. 02 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that the ham with Morse skills, even basic ones, has many more options in building radios than the ham who does not have those skills. Particularly on HF. Which serves to encourage hams to build. Which supports the bases and purposes of the ARS.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, Morse skills are useful. #Got it. #Totally agree.

BUT A TEST IS NOT REQUIRED TO GAIN MORSE SKILLS!! #The motivation to learn and use Morse code should come from within. #That desire--and implementing it--is a worthy goal and what makes a "complete amateur operator" (to use a phrase coined by someone else), not passing an arbitrary test.

Use of Morse code is totally optional. #So why require it? #Nobody has satisfactorily answered that question yet. #The #answer we keep getting is that we should keep Morse testing because a lot of hams like using it. #That just doesn't make sense.

I like and appreciate Morse code, too (even though I'm not very good at it yet), but I have yet to see a clear, logical (not emotional) argument for why it should be required. #I have seen clear, factual arguments to drop it (such as the NCI petition), and since many countries are now dropping it, the argument to drop it appears to be the dominant one. # That's a fact, not an opinion.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can't believe you can say that you haven't heard a clear argument for keeping a CW requirement. There are several good reasons to keep a CW requirement. The most basic reason, which is incontrovertible, is that CW can get a message through with the simplest equipment and under the worst conditions. How about the POW that sent a message by blinking his eyes,or the coal miner who tapped out a message for his rescuers. We really need to keep a CW requirement for the good of everyone.

[wb2tqc]

Hi Phil,
I'm still here http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Listen to the garbage that spews out of our Brother amateurs in the 80m Phone Sub-band. Listen to the 20 meter Phone Sub-band some nights. Listen to much of 2 meter repeater ops and then ask again why the Phone Sub-bands shouldn't be expanded. We should open up the CW sub-bands to Phone so that you guys can compete with the Europeans and Canadians to eliminate our ability to operate? And for what? For the kind of rubbish that's broadcast every day in the phone bands?
It's like I said before. You want the Phone Sub-bands expanded because you know what's coming once the CW requirement is eliminated. You want plenty of room available so that you can still escape the insanity that will probably be the result of this mistake. I don't think you should have it. I say remove the CW requirement at your own peril. If it's such a good thing to do then do it and let the no-code ops infiltrate the Phone Sub-bands. You will then have plenty of opportunity to Elmer them. You will get to see, first hand, if it was a good thing to do. Perhaps it will, indeed, be a good thing. Perhaps there will be no mirroring of the 11 meter band. Then I will help you entertain a proposition to expand the Phone Sub-bands. But until then, as some of our fore-fathers bannered "Don't Tread On Me" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

John (WB2TQC) FISTS #8690

[Simtechiii]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ecienki @ Sep. 02 2003,19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW, I just don't "buy" the argument that doing away with CW will turn the HF bands into CB land. That is an unfair analogy because the FCC totally did away with licensure for 11m. No one is advocating doing away with the radio theory part of amateur licensure.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yet... It's just a matter of time, my friend. One barrier at a time. Once the Morse "barrier" is removed, it be a matter of time before someone comes up with the half-baked idea to remove testing, or reduce to one operating class. Mark my words and just you wait and see. We are on our way to becoming like 11m. Once that happens, look for my gear on eBay.

73,

Steven / KG6JEV/4

[k8cpa]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wz8c @ Aug. 29 2003,17:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Extra Class:
Increase Morse Exam to 12-wpm and Increase Technical Skills
26. We recommend increasing the Morse exam to 12-wpm. We further
recommend that the written exam include knowledge of circuit design, information
theory, digital methods and encoding schemes, software-defined radio and a more
thorough knowledge of propagation and geophysics than currently appears on the
examination.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Are you guys on drugs... the idea of Amateur Radio is to ADVANCE, PROGRESS, Not go backward and regress!

you guys need lay off the Bog water man.


Advancement PEOPLE! ADVANCEMENT!

This is 2003, not 1950!

73 to all

-K8CPA Chuck

P.S. I am can copy 20 wpm and faster on a good day!

[wb2tqc]

The FCC has already practically done away with a license requirement for the Amateur bands. All you need to do is go out and buy the answers. Sit home and put your memory to work. Go take your test and there you are. A General class "Licensed" amateur. IMHO IF they are dead set on removing the Code Requirement then they better do something about testing for acceptance or this WILL be Low Band CBville. But only in the phone bands of course http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[wb2tqc]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k8cpa @ Sep. 03 2003,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We further recommend that the written exam include knowledge of circuit design, information theory, digital methods and encoding schemes, software-defined radio and a more thorough knowledge of propagation and geophysics than currently appears on the examination.

Are you guys on drugs... the idea of Amateur Radio is to ADVANCE, PROGRESS, Not go backward and regress!

you guys need lay off the Bog water man.


Advancement PEOPLE! ADVANCEMENT!

This is 2003, not 1950![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Chuck,
# # # # # #The only line that I can see as being regressive #regards increasing the Code speed. How can you have a problem with the rest of that quote. Should we just give it away? Do you feel that making the test harder would actually be detrimental?

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The most basic reason, which is incontrovertible, is that CW can get a message through with the simplest equipment and under the worst conditions. How about the POW that sent a message by blinking his eyes, or the coal miner who tapped out a message for his rescuers. We really need to keep a CW requirement for the good of everyone. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I think I just about fell out of my chair when reading this! Incontrovertible reason? HA! You are right about CW's characteristics, no one doubts that. However, Jeremiah Denton's famous 1966 blinking of "torture"
in Morse code to a TV camera crew as a POW in Viet Nam didn't hasten his return home. It made him a hero, but that is about it.

As for the trapped coal miners, where is the proof that one of the miners used Morse code? I couldn't substantiate this story in the press releases. How would it have changed the outcome? What is the difference between clanging two pieces of metal together in three short repetitions, and tapping out in code, "We are stuck down here, get us out"? Either way, it would be evident that the sound was man-made.

Once again, the PRO-CODE crowd can't seem to make a sensible argument to retain CW testing.

Dave
KG6JTB

[edisnc5s]

There is no one who can't learn 5 wpm morse code, only those who don't want to learn.

[wb2tqc]

He just did but you chose to ignore it.
"The most basic reason, which is incontrovertible, is that CW can get a message through with the simplest equipment and under the worst conditions."
The fact that you can pick apart his examples doesn't mean the basic statement isn't true. CW CAN be sent when almost nothing else can. Touch tones on a phone, key clicks from a dead mic, Blinking lights, venetian blinds, taping feet, etc, etc. In the case of the miner there is a BIG difference between three raps on a metal pole and "Hey there's 4 of us down here in section B4 with 4 feet of water rising. Don't use section 3 for rescue as it is filled with water."
CW is still a viable means of communications that in these turbulent times might be come more important than we know.

[KD7PKP]

It is good to see some pro-code threads. The FIST petition sounds like a very good idea and I support it. In my opinion, it was very rewarding to learn code, even at the 5 wpm speed. If the requirement were 12 wpm, I would have spent the time because I wanted the privileges. As I study for the extra exam it is fun to read some of the code-no-code threads. Just the spelling errors and flawed reasoning in the post’s helps me to sharpen my analytical skills. The bottom line is that I enjoy the hobby and will comply with the laws that are in effect. From reading this thread it appears to me that we may need a system to prohibit some people from entering our ranks unless they are able to exhibit some proficiency beyond Citizen Band skills, i.e. turn the radio on and talk.

[n5lf]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2PG @ Sep. 03 2003,06http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm...Let's see..."Class E switching amplifiers are not well suited for analog voice modes"? If that's the case, then why do most of the current crop of AM broadcast transmitters use Class E finals?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The current crop of AMATEUR kits running Class E are for CW, as are most of the prototypes being designed at Cal-Tech, where the modern Class E amp design revolution is centered.

As you must know, with Class E amps, you gain efficiency and therefore the finals run cooler, so you can use cheaper tubes or transistors with less need for cooling. #The tremendous gain and efficiency allows a NorCal 5 watt QRP CW rig to drive 300-500 watts at 90% efficiency! #Nothing short of amazing.

CW does not require linearity - AM and SSB do, as would any digital mode processed through an SSB rig - which is the common means these days of generating such a signal.

In order to make Class E amps usable for a mode needing linearity, additional stages and circuitry are needed - and they are rather more complex to design and sensitive to adjust. #So, that is not a beginner or intermediate-level design project. #It also increases the cost and may use harder to find parts.

[K4RLC]

-I support the FISTS petition.
If one doesn't want to learn cw, there are still plenty
of amateur radio priviledges available to them.
I've never heard a curse word, political or vindictive
or obscene or sexual talk on cw - like you hear on
75M phone (and the "net" on 14.275 - Riley, where
are you?).
-It is nice to know that civility, courtesy and good
fellowship, which is the early tradition of ham radio,
is still alive on cw.
ZUT es 73 de K4RLC

[ke0vh]

I support 5 wpm fully but only that. Those who are so inclined to use the mode will get as proficient