For No Coders Only

[K3STX]

I ask this serious question NOT to agitate pro-code people, and PLEASE pro-coders let’s just read the comments. Maybe it’s not serious and I’m an idiot, but here goes:

For the NO-CODERS out there (no-code test for HF access): Does the idea of doing away with the history and tradition of Morse code testing bother you at all? We all have read statements such as
QUOTE:
"Just allow those of us who don't care about code to leave it alone. Passing a code test in no way contributes to good manners and operating practices on the air."

Maybe us old guys are more obsessed with tradition than young guys. If THAT is what this is really about perhaps the dynamics of the arguments come more into focus (at least for me).

Seriously, this is not intended to infuriate. (I guess the Internet term is “flame”.) I am honestly wondering if no-coders are AWARE of the history but personally don’t see this as reason enough to keep the requirement. Perhaps pro-code types could just read for a while?

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

[mi3jdc]

Hi I am new to qrz but my opinion on the code test is below.

It does no harm for a beginner to have an introductry look at morse code, but if people don't want to use it why not just have the morse test as an add on to the licence for people who wish to use it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[G0MZS]

The only reason code is been debated is because a test was needed so Amateurs could use HF. It was not set in place because of its roots in communication history but so Amateurs did not cause interference to shipping, emergancy communications that was sent in morse.etc etc etc

It was not needed as a test because it will be the only mode left when all else fails, or an IQ test.

The reason for an Amateur to learn and be tested in morse is no longer relevant.

[K3STX]

But MZS, you ignored the question. Among all of the reasons cited for why code testing "could" be eliminated, does the idea that the TRADITION will die affect your position at all? Not the tradition of USING CW, but the tradition of testing for it. (You know, like all hams know/knew Morse code.) I KNOW why people want the requirement dropped; I'm not a complete idiot. I am wondering if the elimination of the tradition makes anyone sad except the OTs.

paul

[KC5ZQM]

Traditions are fine until they place an undue burden on someone. #I think someone said something like that a looong time ago in a faaar away place. #If I remember correctly, it was Jesus.

The elimination of Morse code testing does not mean the end of Morse code. #If it does, it will be because the pro-coders give up on it. #After the code testing requirement goes away, that's when the pro-coders need to get out and start promoting the code - elmering, teaching code classes, holding MCW nets on repeaters or 2M FM simplex, etc. #All the advantages of CW will still be there, they will just need some PR.

By the way, weren't hams using code BEFORE the govm't started the tests? #The tradition of Morse code in ham radio is in the using of it, not the testing. #Also, aren't you "tested" on the code every time you use it? #My skills as a drafter are tested every time I work on a drawing.

[G0MZS]

STX
I do not see the morse test as a tradition. Just a rule set in place to keep order in what was a world that used CW in many aspects of communication. Shipping moved on years ago.

[AE6IP]

It is an interesting question. My own position, based on my own experience, is that it is a tradition that is hampering the hobby rather than helping it, so it is time for it go.

I've been involved in radio, off and on, since the late '60s. I never bothered to get an amateur license because there was always something more interesting to do than learn Morse code.

I probably wouldn't have bothered to go after my license last year if the requirements were still stringent, because the benefit I would have gotten from a tech ticket wasn't worth the effort. Morse code was neither necessary for what I wanted to do with a transceiver, nor interesting to me.

Please note that in those 30 years, I never complained; I never asked for the rules to change; I simply ignored the hobby. When I did decide to get a ticket, I learned what I needed to know to do so.

So I spent those 30 years doing other things. Amateur radio was no loss to me, since I had plenty of fulfilling activites. But I was a loss to amateur radio.

I suppose that sounds egotistical, but it's not; it's a pragmatic observation. The ARRL lost a member; the EMCOMM community lost a volunteer; any number of contests lost a contestant; the hobby lost a participant who made his career out of innovation and creativity; US amateur radio lost an ambassador; and one more Elmer wasn't available. A drop in the bucket in a hobby with 2 million participants, but a drop that wasn't there.

I don't believe I'm alone in this. I do believe that more potential good hams have ignored the hobby because of the Morse code requirement than potential bad hams. I believe the freebanders and 11m invaders didn't bother with a license before, and won't bother with one now.

How can a tradition that deters good people more than bad be worth saving?

[KB9YCO]

"Does the idea of doing away with the history and tradition of Morse code testing bother you at all?" [K3STX]
"I am honestly wondering if no-coders are AWARE of the history but personally don’t see this as reason enough to keep the requirement." [K3STX]

I think you hit it on the head with your last statement. I am well aware of the history of CW and I have been listening and on radios for twenty years, since I was twelve. I don't see why one particular mode is the legal hinderance for upgrading. Especially a mode that is obsolete and barely used by anyone outside of the amateur band anymore. That being said I don't think there is anything wrong with CW and find it to be interesting as it is it's own language and it's always good to know another language. But people should be more offended by the technical aspects of the tests being easier. There should be more stress put on the learning of radio, electronics, and the rules and etitquette, not on one mode versus another.
I am a no code tech and have gotten a fair amount of condescending attitudes over that fact more than once. I'm not sure why there is a contingent out there so eager to knock new licensees ( I have been licensed for 3+ years now ) and make them out to be a step above CBers, but there is. The "I had to so you should too" attitude makes no sense to me. I've posted this before on QRZ but here goes again. Did they expect me to insist on the older and harder test when I went to get my license? I took the test available to be a part of amateur radio, I'm not sure what else I could've done. But some seem to think that's not enough; which is sad as amateur radio is still a small segment of the population and a dying breed at that. The numbers actually went up for the first time in many years when the testing struture changed, you'd think more people would be happy about that and try to encourage the younger and new amateurs to do more and upgrade instead of being haughty and pretentious.
Most no code techs I know are well aware of the history of CW. I just don't personally see why there isn't more emphasis put on testing the necessary knowledge to hold a higher class license as opposed to learning one particular mode.
Good post by the way, and don't worry about the extremists that will rail away over the smallest thing, the internet is full of them on every site. I think they just need something to be mad about and I guess that works for 'em. # 73
# # # # # # # # # #Brett - KB9YCO

[KI4BOO]

Strong traditions never die. They can become obscure, or limited in the number of people who practice them, but they NEVER die.

CW and Morse Code will never die. It will always be a widely used mode by Radio Amateurs worldwide. It is reliable, simple to transmit using cheap homemade equipment, and fun to operate using.

However, Morse Code doesn't do anything to promote the service. It doesn't serve as a filter to keep LIDS off of HF. It's not required to be able to reap the benefits of using the shortwave spectrum. It's another mode of communication.

Morse and using CW should be a choice that all hams are allowed to make. That way, those who wish to carry on the tradition (And there will be MANY, including myself), may do so. Those who don't feel compelled to take the time to learn shouldn't have to. They should be able to move on with their studies and experiments as an Amateur and upgrade their licenses.

I am almost positive that I can go right now and upgrade to General with flying colors. However, I have been trying to learn code, and it isnt clicking. So, I have to stay on VHF until I manage to learn enough of the code to upgrade.

So, I think the requirement to send and recieve code to upgrade should be dropped. Simple as that.

[kb9lor]

Gotta reply here, I have been around HAM radio for more than 16years, my father in law is a HAM ka9ion and he got me out of the CB state of mind and into ARS with the RTTY back in the day, was really cool listening to the CW and the interface converting the CW to letters on the computer screen, so I thought I would try HAM radio by getting my tech in 95. But, alas I am getting greedy and I want the HF, so I am gonna put the nose to the stone and get the code, so I can get on HF, Now I don't know if I will use the CW once I get my General, but At least I will know CW no matter if I am slow to send or recieve. So guess what I am trying to say is I am for keeping the Code, But keep it for the right reasons, If you want something, work for it, don't wait for a hand-out. but, what will I be called then being it only took 5wpm to get my general, then xtra? maybe a slow-code gen/xtra? anyways I hope it all works out, hate to see the ham community tore apart because of the debate.

73

Brian
kb9lor

[N7VQM]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3STX @ Oct. 07 2003,13:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does the idea of doing away with the history and tradition of Morse code testing bother you at all?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In all honesty, no. #Some traditions are important: #standing for the national anthem and your service song (if you have one), saluting an officer, celebrating important religious and secular events. #These kinds of traditions honor our history and show respect for our forefathers. #CW is not this kind of tradition.

CW is nothing more than a technological tradition, IMHO. #We have it because there was a time when it was all we had. #We have it because we, in our historical role as back-up emergency communicators, needed to be able to effectively and quickly communicate with the military. #

Niether is true now. #We have progressed from spark gaps, to AM through to digital modes. #The military no longer needs us. #We still use it because it's cheap and easy hardware-wise. #That's the only reason I can see to use CW now.

We don't need this tradition anymore to make us who we are so, I think it's time to let it go. We should focus on more important traditions like promoting international goodwill. #Letting go of CW doesn't mean we have to forget history. #Besides, I think that if CW is removed as a barrier to HF, you might just find a bunch more code enthusiasts than &quot;everyone&quot; predicts.

[KC5JSR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3STX @ Oct. 07 2003,13:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But MZS, you ignored the question. Among all of the reasons cited for why code testing &quot;could&quot; be eliminated, does the idea that the TRADITION will die affect your position at all? Not the tradition of USING CW, but the tradition of testing for it. (You know, like all hams know/knew Morse code.) I KNOW why people want the requirement dropped; I'm not a complete idiot. I am wondering if the elimination of the tradition makes anyone sad except the OTs.

paul[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Since I was a Boy Scout I always associated code with Amateur Radio and vice-versa. I'm not an old timer, but I do hate to see it Dumbed down and out. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

73.
John C.

[KG4PIC]

I see code as tradition, but I don't see why there has to be a test for it. I will try and learn it one of these days again if they pass no-code or not.

(I have given up on it for awhile after failing it a few times.)

[KC0QWW]

Chances are the code requirement will go away sooner or later. Use it or lose it. I rarely hear anyone using code. I enjoy listening when it's transmitted and send some myself. But, FM Voice is much easier. Is the world just getting lazy?

[KB9YCO]

&quot;If you want something, work for it, don't wait for a hand-out.&quot;
&quot;Is the world just getting lazy?&quot;

This would be why the importance of testing should be the issue. Make the tests appropriate for the class of license desired. Make sure amateurs know and understand the rules and technical aspects of their license status as opposed to worrying about one mode over another.
I never asked for a hand out or waited for the test to get easier to take it, I just took it to get a license. What else could I have done? Automatically upgrade and learn code right away so I can &quot;fit in&quot; and not be looked down on? Ridiculous.
The whole purpose of the license class system in the first place is to give people the choice of class they are ready for, or willing to take the time for. CW should not be the primary factor, and as many others have stated here, it will not prevent the &quot;undesireables&quot; from moving into HF.
Please get over this snooty look down your nose thing that seems to be so prevalent lately, not all no code techs are CBers or are looking for an easy way to get a license. As a matter of fact when I decide it's time for me to upgrade I will, regardless if there is a CW requirement or not.

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9lor @ Oct. 07 2003,20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyways I hope it all works out, hate to see the ham community tore apart because of the debate.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I doubt anything is being torn apart. Most active hams are probably on the air having fun, not thinking about code/no code.

[w9ass]

As much as I respect code and the (civil) operators that use it, I will not be emotional in seeing it eliminated from VE tests for HF..Reason? Code is outdated, and the advent and popularity of new digital modes/SSB has taken over the spotlight for the most part...Code is a part of amateur radio history, and that's just it: It's history.

I don't like to think of myself as a lazy no-code tech in any sense. I enjoy ham radio on all fronts, I just prefer voice operation and pacing myself in trying new things and experimenting. The constant pressure to upgrade by more seasoned hams (honey baked baby!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif not only irritates me, but it makes me feel that I have to appease most amateurs in order to be accepted. My goal is to take ham one day at a time and discover it's wonderful ins and outs as time progresses.

The reason for my vehement and sometimes angry posts is the constant flak I and a few other amateurs get for not upgrading. There happen to be a few local hams here on Chicago area repeaters (REAL JERKS) who put down no-coders as if they are scum and I am sick of their attacks. There is even one in particular on a local repeater (callsign withheld) that goes to great lengths to insult them on his personal website, comparing them to no-good welfare recipients and general miscreants. Not only is this elitist and stupid, but it is juvenile and inappropriate. And to make things worse, other hams find humor in it. Dumb Dumb Dumb!!!

Another reason: I have a poorly functioning HF receiver that works about as good as an 80-year old woman with Glaucoma and no legs. I have not been adequately exposed to HF, and I have never seen anyone make any DX contacts or seen/heard anything to really open my eyes to this supposedly great part of amateur radio. I really wish I just had an Elmer or someone who is supportive and knowledgeable (and likes to drink beer) to show me why this is all so great. Maybe then, I could foster a better attitude and not maintain the &quot;no-code, piss off&quot; mentality.

Until I upgrade, I am going to just have fun and enjoy having QSOs with friendly, non-judgemental hams. I have even gone as far as to say keep the code, and I mean that sincerely. I like a challenge, and I would also like to experience true ham radio minus an overbearing jerk factor.

In the words of W3SY: OUT.

73,

KC9DGM

[kc2jga]

After reading the No-code debates for the past 3 months, it seems to me that alot of people are thinking that CW will be banned altogether. That is not the case. I can see where CW played a major role in communications a long time ago when it came to emergencies, but as technology exploded over the past 20 years, agencies have become less dependant of CW. I completely understand why alot of the old timers want to keep CW around. Even if the requirement is dropped from testing, I'm sure you will still find hams still using CW. This kinda reminds me of something that happened 3 years ago in the Army. When Gen Shinseki wanted everyone to switch from the regular Army hat to the black beret, this made alot of the special forces groups very upset. The beret was a signifier as to who they were and how much it took to achieve them. For the rest of the Army, most of us didn't want the beret. They were too hot, difficult to put on, and made us feel like a bunch of french guys. As far as the CW issue here, I just don't see the justification for testing. A long time ago, yes. Now, nope, don't see a reason. Heck, they should switch from CW testing to Packet testing. Just my 2 cents worth.
73's
Mike

[kb9lor]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn6z @ Oct. 08 2003,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9lor @ Oct. 07 2003,20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyways I hope it all works out, hate to see the ham community tore apart because of the debate.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I doubt anything is being torn apart. #Most active hams are probably on the air having fun, not thinking about code/no code.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
kn6z,
I too would be in the shack on the radio, but not much out there on 50mhz or above, that is precisly(sp?) why I am working on my CW now, have all my HF equip ready to go, matter of fact I use my FT-757GXII built in oscillator to practice my CW. works real nice, owe that to my Father in law! Oh and I could use 6mtrs but, it doesn't interest me at this time. and nope don't much care for the packet,psk31 etc...anyways I say have a nice day!

Brian
kb9lor

[G0IYZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ Oct. 08 2003,09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;If you want something, work for it, don't wait for a hand-out.&quot;
&quot;Is the world just getting lazy?&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Couldn't agree more!

Let's face it, if you don't have to work towards something you don't tend to look after it.

I think we're all seeing this effect!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[kn6z]

Oh, I wasn't directing my remark at you, Brian. I have pointed out many times on this site that relatively few of us haunt the code debate threads. You certainly do not. The &quot;can't get enough code debate&quot; crowd probably is not representative of the ham community in general.

[KB9YCO]

Quote (KB9YCO @ Oct. 08 2003,09http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6)
&quot;If you want something, work for it, don't wait for a hand-out.&quot;
&quot;Is the world just getting lazy?&quot;

Couldn't agree more!

Let's face it, if you don't have to work towards something you don't tend to look after it. -G0IYZ-


That quote wasn't mine Chris. My point in quoting it was that the stress should be put into testing knowledge, not just CW. Make the test appropriate instead of making it easier and dropping CW. If they continue to make the tests easier and lessen the need for technical knowledge then I would also be in fear of amateur radio going to the birds. It isn't a hand out or being lazy if they insure that people know the facts and theory related to radio. Just because someone else before had to learn code, and it is now pretty much obsolete, has nothing to do with what you know about the rules and theory. I don't think they should drop CW and then make the test easier, I think they should make the testing the important part and stop concentrating on one mode. That was my point.

[ei5ja]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4PIC @ Oct. 08 2003,06:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(I have given up on it for awhile after failing it a few times.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Keep trying. It is how success is born in all things.
Knowledge and expertise is no burden.

73 and good luck with your next attempt
Ed

[kc8shp]

Hi, I didn't go through and read all the replies, but do want to post my response to the question....

Ham radio was started with CW..... I believe CW should always be a requirement to gain HF privledges... It's a tradition that should never be dropped...

I myself am having a VERY hard time learning code and, for the moment, have given up.... But I will learn it someday...

Chip
KC8SHP
Technician Class Ham...

[ae2ny]

Quote[/b] (KC5ZQM @ Oct. 07 2003,10:23)]Traditions are fine until they place an undue burden on someone. I think someone said something like that a looong time ago in a faaar away place. If I remember correctly, it was Jesus.
I'm sorry, I *AM* a Coder but I have to jump in here for a moment... *Jumps completely in with both feet*

BURDEN? Undue BURDEN? So because you think it's a burden, we should just abolish the code requirement for those who don't feel its relevance?

Good God, I'm 32, a Tech+ and even I know better than that. How selfish can you be? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif


Anthony - KI4VPR

P.S. So because it's a burden to vote, we'll just abolish the voting process, get rid of democracy, install a King and live a better life right? *shakes his head and just goes to another topic*

[KB1GYQ]

Quote[/b] (K3STX @ Oct. 07 2003,16:14)]I ask this serious question NOT to agitate pro-code people, and PLEASE pro-coders let’s just read the comments. Maybe it’s not serious and I’m an idiot, but here goes:

For the NO-CODERS out there (no-code test for HF access): Does the idea of doing away with the history and tradition of Morse code testing bother you at all?
This will be my first and last post to this thread....

Wanting the code test to go away and wanting use of the code to go away are two entirely different things. Although I very much want to see the goverment stop endorsing, and requiring, the religion that is morse code; I have no problem with those who desire to use it, and would stand with them should any proposal to the FCC come to my attention that would ban it's use.

out

[ky5u]

Had me going until I saw the date. Thought Marty was back with us! Seriously, isn't it time we welcomed Marty back? Heck, I disagree with 99% of what he says but having the debates was alot of fun.

Glen, if I started a poll to see who wanted to ask Marty back, would it be ok? I mean if it was say 70/30 would you guys let him back on?

[KD5OLK]

As a no-code tech, I can see where cw has its place in the ARS, but why do I need cw to do phone on ten meters if that is all I would like to have a general ticket for. And while we are at it as long as we have a code test to upgrade, why not have a test before you can use the digital packets?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[K9STH]

YO:

Nope!

He violated too many QRZ.com rules too many times! It wasn't his ideas that got him banned but his conduct.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] ]Does the idea of doing away with the history and tradition of Morse code testing bother you at all?
Absolutely none whatsoever. It is my biggest peave about amateur radio.

Quote[/b] ]Wanting the code test to go away and wanting use of the code to go away are two entirely different things. Although I very much want to see the goverment stop endorsing, and requiring, the religion that is morse code; I have no problem with those who desire to use it, and would stand with them should any proposal to the FCC come to my attention that would ban it's use.
BINGO!!

[ai4ep]

...and besides...I had to learn it to legally talk on HF, and if any one else wants to transmit legally on HF, they should learn morse code too !

Do you think you are better than all the others who had to do it ?

[ae2ny]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Nov. 22 2004,12:23)]...and besides...I had to learn it to legally talk on HF, and if any one else wants to transmit legally on HF, they should learn morse code too !

Do you think you are better than all the others who had to do it ?
Amen Brother!


KI4VPR/AG

[KF0RT]

I'll violate the premise a bit 'cuz I lean towards pro-code and have a piece of paper from the ARRL that says I could once copy at 20WPM.

It might be interesting to change all the rules based on modes of operation. Complicated, for sure, but what about a basic element that says you know basic radio theory. Wanna run SSB? Then you need to take the SSB element. Ditto any other mode. The basic test wouldn't grant any operating privaleges at all, but would be a prerequisite to modes. Pass the RTTY test, and you can operate RTTY. Ditto FM and satellite. The SSB test might include questions on frequency hogging and broadcasting.

Uh, no... not serious, just thinking aloud, as it were.

Haw.

73, Rob (KFØRT)

[AC4BB]

Quote[/b] (KC0QWW @ Oct. 08 2003,08:55)]Chances are the code requirement will go away sooner or later. Use it or lose it. I rarely hear anyone using code. I enjoy listening when it's transmitted and send some myself. But, FM Voice is much easier. Is the world just getting lazy?
You rarely hear code being transmitted.? Check to see if your rig is connected to the antenna and power. It's on everyday. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N1XHF]

I too believe that CW is an efficient mode of communications but don't believe that you should be tested on it for HF phone privileges.
I am not asking for a hand out, I could easily take both the general and extra class exams and pass them with flying colors so I also disagree with techs getting an automatic upgrade to general with out taking the written exam.
It does not make sense that a licensed ham (being a tech) does not even have 10 meter privileges, how logical is that? Does it make sense that a Cb'er has HF privileges on 27 mhz but a licensed ham can't use 28 mhz? I think it is ridiculous.

[KD6RFC]

Hi. I'm new to this site and this is my first post, but I wanted to weight in on this topic. I just renewed my license to avoid losing my call sign (the 2-year grace period was almost up). I originally got my tech plus license almost 12 years ago in preparation for moving to West Africa. I lived in The Republic of Guinea for a little over a year and my call sign was 3X0TT. By the way I would love to hear from anyone I DX'd during that time and traded QSL cards with.

My input on the code issue is practical and related to my time in Africa. There were times where voice simply did not reach the locations I wanted to contact from Africa (namely the West Coast of the U.S.). I had a Yaesu 747 with a Butternut multiband vertical running off a car batter trickle charged with a small solar panel (there was no electricity there). My tuner dropped me to around 70 W of power (probably because I didn't get the attenna installed just right to run best on 15 and 20 meters).

With that set up I was able to reach most of the world because of the lack of RF interference in that part of the world. I did have difficulty reaching friends and family in N. California and Oregon, however, and when conditions were not ideal code was the only means of getting through. Now I don't remember the reasons that code signals get through when voice doesn't, but it worked. If I hadn't learned code (I had gotten to 17 wpm in preparation for General class) I would not have been able to make those personal contacts that were so important to me.

I agree that the history and tradition of amature radio is important for us younger, inexperienced hams to learn. There is value in doing so. The history is rich and hams have played an important part of communication during various crises in the past. Even with the advent of cellular, amature radio will continue to be vital during disasters when cellular and other communication systems fail.

Well that is my input. I'm a ham that has never operated on my own in the U.S. I have never actively used my call sign KD6RFC. I know little about the technical aspects of amature radio. But I think code is important. I plan to become active again and get set up with equipment (which will take a little research again since operating in the States if far different that Africa where the Telecommunications Ministry let me write my own privileges :-) I just had to be sure I was not crossing over into non-ham frequencies and interfering with the BBC. I learned in time.

73, Ty- KD6RFC

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (N1XHF @ Nov. 24 2004,04:55)]It does not make sense that a licensed ham (being a tech) does not even have 10 meter privileges, how logical is that? Does it make sense that a Cb'er has HF privileges on 27 mhz but a licensed ham can't use 28 mhz? I think it is ridiculous.
When they gradually meter the no code privs on HF out over the next few years/decades. Each segment given will become the same wasteland that 2 meters has become. It will be in the minds of those who can operate elsewhere that: I'm not going to stoop that low by showing my presence there, and in time it will extend to all the new bands where no coders can operate.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]It will be in the minds of those who can operate elsewhere that: I'm not going to stoop that low by showing my presence there, and in time it will extend to all the new bands where no coders can operate.

Thats a cynical view. I'd be glad to chat with these new folks and I'd be happy to have a QSO with you anytime as well.

Hopefully you're not judging from things you read on QRZ. Like many folks, I enjoy jabbing a pointed stick into an eye or two here on QRZ just to see them wiggle. But if anyone on here seriously would not QSO with another person on the air, then they need to get a life.

73
Charlie

[w7act]

Code is nothing more than just another Mode of operation just like SSB, PSK31,RTTY,Hellscriber, Slowscan TV or any other form of Amaturer communications. #It should not be given special consideration as a criteria to operate in any spectrum of the Amaturer service, although I can see where there is an advantage allotting certian specific areas of the amaturer to use by specific modes I believe it is totally wrong to restrict a user from using areas of the service strictly on the Basis of whether he has or has not passed a "Code Test" you don't have to pass a "Digital Test" "Slowscan TV Test" "Packet Test" to operate on HF, VHF, UHF or any other operating area #in the service so why should code be the qualifiing criteria for operation in these areas?

[WB2WIK]

USZ, demonstration of code proficiency was an international (global) requirement for HF operating privileges for about 80 years and was only recently dropped as an ITU regulation. Now, it's up to the individual nations to decide whether to drop the requirement or not, and most have not as yet.

Probably they all will, eventually. But it could take several years.

In the meantime, as I've explained to students for 30+ years, consider learning the code as equivalent to demonstrating how to parallel park in the driving test. Some people absolutely never parallel park, and will go several blocks out of their way just to avoid it; my XYL stinks at it, and she's one of those. But she had to demonstrate how to do it for the driving instructor, once, even if she'll never use that skill again.

I think every State should have a requirement to demonstrate proficiency at using a manual transmission as part of the driving test. Most cars are "automatic" nowadays, but there are still plenty of stick shift vehicles out there, and you never know when you might need to drive one in an emergency. It would be a shame if your friend or loved one bled to death in your back seat because you couldn't figure out how to drive his car to the hospital. I'll bet that's happened once, somewhere, and that single event would be justification for the test.

WB2WIK/6

[K3STX]

USZ:

Code is indeed special, and not only because it is efficient. When Ham radio "began" nearly 100 years ago there was CW and there was AM. No PSK31, no RTTY, no Hellscrieber, no SSTV. Code and voice. Period. I guess the FCC assumes we know how to communicate with our voice. They test us for the radio theory required to understand how modulation works (for AM and SSB), and they test for an understanding of the International Morse code.

Alot of my emotion is over the idea that the TRADITION will die. Sure, people will still use it, but I would bet the farm that if the testing goes away so will the use of the mode.

Ask yourself, since one can get a General ticket passing a 5 wpm code test (as opposed to a 13 wpm code test) has the speed of CW on the air INCREASED or DECREASED? I'll answer it for you. It has decreased. It is currently PATHETIC!!

Those who say that CW testing won't affect the use of CW on the air probably also believe OJ didn't do it!

paul

and it never ceases to amaze me that the most vociferous opponents of code testing have never learned the code well enough to pass a code test.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]USZ: Code is nothing more than just another Mode of operation just like SSB, PSK31,RTTY,Hellscriber, Slowscan TV or any other form of Amaturer communications. ROFL. This is what Fred Maia and Carl Stevenson WANT to be the case. Do you know that Maia writes books and stands to make $$$ from the NCI position? Do you also know he's one of the authors of the NCVEC petition as well? Do you know that Mr. Stevenson is a prominent member of the IEEE standards body with a history of fighting to take away Amateur spectrum above 70cm? If NCI gets its way and NCTs flock to HF, the bands above 50 Mhz will be available for Mr. Stevenson to steal from Amateur Radio, won't they?

IMHO, if you're an NCI member (or NCVEC for that matter), you're a dupe in a much larger game. Wise up.

Sorry, Paul. I can even try to understand the no code position except when I see an NCI mushroom head repeating back what they were told to say. As you know I favor NCT HF access in their own band segment. But I would love it to be NCT HF access all except NCI members. LOL.

[WB2WIK]

Paul (STX) point of information:

When ham radio began nearly 100 years ago, there was spark, and it was code. CW came later, and AM came much later!

The first commercial AM broadcast in America was in 1921, and hams began using AM mostly after that. But even that was a good 12 years after hams were busy chatting using code.

Since the earliest hams didn't have or need any licenses, it's tough to predict exactly when it all started, but most seem to agree about 1909. In the pre-license days, "sparkies" mostly used their initials as "callsigns."

WB2WIK/6

[w7act]

Whether I belong to NCI or don't belong to NCI isn't the issue here and it has nothing to do with why I would like to see Code Testing dropped. For one thing over the years I have worked in high noise invironments and as a result I have a hearing disorder and am tone deaf to certain tones and under the best of circumstances it is dificult to pick up even the most perfect code transmissions, much less the transmissions of some of you "pro code" butchers. For your information I've tried taking code classes, doing the code tapes, using several code teaching computer programs but to no avail, but that's not the issue here. It's an issue of I had to do it so you have to do it.

That's OK, but your beliefs are differient than mine on the Code Issue and I'm sure it's not just on the "Code Issue". Like one of you said "I suppose you believe OJ didn't do it."

That's an insult. That's just like calling "sKerry" a "War Hero" instead of the "Traitorous War Criminal" he was and is.

[WB2WIK]

The subject has changed quite a bit, but what the heck.

I'd say to KC7USZ (or anyone else) if you've tried code classes and they "didn't work," there can only be two explanations for that: (1) You didn't work, so no class in the world would have; or (2) It wasn't a good class. #2 is pretty likely, from what I've seen. I've seen "code classes" where the "teacher" simply played tapes or equivalent and did little more than stand in front of a room of people who didn't know how to copy code, so when the classes were all finished, they still didn't know.

If the "teacher" tried to teach using code tapes or by having students listen to code, that definitely won't work, and it never did. It's no more effective than listening to tapes, or CDs, or a computer program, on your own.

The way to learn code is by using it, interactively, beginning with the first letter (usually an "e"). When you know six letters you can make entire sentences and send them back and forth, in a classroom "QSO," using keys and oscillators and partners. This is what does work, always, and it's what's always worked.

Trying to learn code by listening to it repeatedly is like trying to learn Latin by reading it repeatedly. Ain't gonna happen.

WB2WIK/6

[K0RGR]

For a basic code course, see the Files section of the HamRadioHelp group on Yahoo:

HamRadioHelp (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HamRadioHelpGroup/)

I built a little course using someone's freeware Morse Code program that is my best recollection of the old AMECO code course. This should teach you the alphabet and get you to 5 WPM. You can then use it to send your own text files to get your speed up beyond that. I've had a few folks use it successfully. See the 'readme' file.

No, I don't think CW will go away in my lifetime, though there might be a lot fewer of us doing it. I suspect it will slowly be replaced by digital stuff. But, there will always be those who will appreciate the simplicity of it. BPL might have a big impact on this whole area, however, so the entire question could be moot. We may be doing nothing but high-powered digital stuff on HF in 10 years, anyway, because it's the only way to get through the BPL and other Part 15 QRM.

Will CW eventually die? I don't think so, as long as there are still places where it is the best technology. For QRP portable use, it is the winner. For aurora on VHF, it is a necessity. If those things become unpopular or impossible, then CW may fade into history. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.

[ky5u]

USZ,

There are deaf Amateurs using PSK on HF. VEs will make accomodations for your type of problem. Pitch on practice programs can be varied. Where there is a will there is a way. Just do it.

I have hearing loss and tone deafness on my left side. What is worse, the damage causes a tone shift so a 750Hz tone in my right ear sounds like a 700Hz tone in my left ear, kinda like a doppler shift. Take an oscillator and generate a 750Hz tone and another and generate a 700Hz tone at the same time at the same level. That's what each CW note sounds like to me.

P.S. Loved the "sKerry" comment....LOL I agree and I'm glad to see you're not totally insane!!! LOL

[W8FAX]

If you can't hear Morse, you certainly are NOT going to hear SSB either..........

[N6UGY]

I had to learn the code, but never used it to communicate much except for upgrade practice. I think it sucks that I was forced to learn something I had no intention of useing on the air. But soon it will be like 8 track tapes, there will always be someone useing it, and everyone else will wonder why. I suppose some people like operating cw, and the rest of us will just have to put up with it, like contesting. Dennis Flora (N6UGY) Red Bluff, Calif.

[K3UD]

Well I have read all the responses on this thread and have found nothing new here.

The most interesting comments continue to be that the code test is ruining amateur radio, but other than the notion that it is keeping out some people who really want to be licensed, no one can give a coheasive answer as to why ham radio is being ruined by it.

To me, the obvious answer is that ham radio is ruined for those who do not want to learn the code. At some point will we hear that having to learn Ohm's Law is ruining ham radio for some people, or having to get out and go to a VE session is ruining it...and I could go on and on.

For several years NCI and other no code groups have been saying the they would support an increase in the technical knowledge that would be required in a written test of greatly expanded scope. I see some of the no coders here still support that idea and seem to be talking the talk and hopefully walking the walk.

I would hate to see the tradition of code testing go away but I could certainly live with it. It seems that the ARRL has essentially given up on it but I willing to bet that the FCC will not, and will retain the code testing requirement for General and Extra into the forseeable future.

73
George
K3UD

[ai4ep]

WEll, apparently at least the F C C has the foresight to see what CAN occur when the 5 wpm morse code requirement is dropped.

Perhaps the ARRL knows that too, but for the moment, wishes to increase membership, so it "likes " the other ideas.

[ai4ep]

You can also remember that the "no-coders " can legally transmit on HF on the citizens band, which requires NO license...so technically speaking, you are transmitting on HF ( any frequency UNDER 30 Mhz. ). Also you have a choice of 2 modes on the c b frequencies --- am & ssb.

Just wishing to help in what small ways I can.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Nov. 24 2004,11:59)]I think every State should have a requirement to demonstrate proficiency at using a manual transmission as part of the driving test. #Most cars are "automatic" nowadays, but there are still plenty of stick shift vehicles out there, and you never know when you might need to drive one in an emergency. #It would be a shame if your friend or loved one bled to death in your back seat because you couldn't figure out how to drive his car to the hospital. #I'll bet that's happened once, somewhere, and that single event would be justification for the test.

WB2WIK/6
This is the MINDSET that is causing the demise of A.R.

Dear Judge:
"I couldn't save the life of that woman who was bleeding to death because I couldn't drive a manual shift."
You people are lost in an artificial world of your own imagination. Just like the bird with its head in the sand and its butt sticking high in the sky, you are in your worst position.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] ]
Alot of my emotion is over the idea that the TRADITION will die. Sure, people will still use it, but I would bet the farm that if the testing goes away so will the use of the mode.

Ask yourself, since one can get a General ticket passing a 5 wpm code test (as opposed to a 13 wpm code test) has the speed of CW on the air INCREASED or DECREASED? I'll answer it for you. It has decreased. It is currently PATHETIC!!

Those who say that CW testing won't affect the use of CW on the air probably also believe OJ didn't do it!

paul

Paul: Would you be in favor of other things that are on the way out being required by law in order to preserve them? How about the use of mechanical calculators? I'm sure there would be reasons given by the faithful as to why they would be needed in an emergency.
Quote[/b] ]
and it never ceases to amaze me that the most vociferous opponents of code testing have never learned the code well enough to pass a code test.

And it never ceases to amaze me that some of the most manaical pro code supporters are those who never did, nor never will, pass a Morse proficiency test.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (N6UGY @ Nov. 25 2004,21:17)]I had to learn the code, but never used it to communicate much except for upgrade practice. I think it sucks that I was forced to learn something I had no intention of useing on the air. But soon it will be like 8 track tapes, there will always be someone useing it, and everyone else will wonder why. I suppose some people like operating cw, and the rest of us will just have to put up with it, like contesting. #Dennis Flora (N6UGY) Red Bluff, Calif.
WOW!! this one hit the nail dead on. Thanks for the winner post.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Nov. 26 2004,07:57)].

I would hate to see the tradition of code testing go away but I could certainly live with it. It seems that the ARRL has essentially given up on it but I willing to bet that the FCC will not, and will retain the code testing requirement for General and Extra into the forseeable future.

73
George
K3UD
Your only hope is that the FCC will not act in the near future...savor it now....because when they finally do act, after a long drawn out wait, the Morse requirement will be dropped entirely......and, it will be at least 15 yrs too late.

[ai4ep]

" For no coders only " is the title of this thread...I do NOT use morse code on 2 meters, or 6 meters or 440.....and all others who dont do that are ok to be here, too !!


But I CAN, if the need is there !! ( lol ) !!

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

[K3UD]

JTY,

If you are ever in Southwest Kentucky look me up and I will treat you to lunch.

Actually the original proposal for dropping the code requirement for Technician license was forwarded to the FCC almost 15 years ago.

While I don't think that the FCC will wait 15 years to act on the presently pending proposals concerning either the no code General or no code licensing entirely, I have the feeling, based on some rather recent FCC writings pointing out that they do not feel that 5WPM code test is a hardship for anyone wishing to obtain HF privileges in the Amateur Radio service allocations.

How this will play out as it concerns the so called "Beginner" license class proposed by the ARRL which WOULD grant HF privileges via a no code, easy entry level written test, remains to be seen.

BTW, I completely support the idea of a no code, easy written test "beginner class" license which carries with it all VHF+ privileges and a fair amount of HF privileges and modes, and is initially populated by existing Techs and Novices.

This would eliminate the Novice, Tech and Tech+ license and be THE entry way for amateur radio. I also support merging Advanced and Extra and retaining the code requirement for General and Extra class.

However, one can never tell and I will not be surprised at whatever happens with the FCC on this matter.

73
George
K3UD

[ke5ast]

I wanted to get the endorsement just so I could say "I did it". So I did, last week. I think that if anyone wants on the HF bands bad enough, they will do it. I listened to a cd in my truck on the way back and forth to work and thats all the studying I did. After hearing it for a while you catch on. Anyone that says they dont have time needs to turn off the stereo in their car and listen to code instead of sports talk in the morning on their way to work. There's plenty of time there nowdays sitting in traffic.

I see it as tradition also, and would hate to see it go. So,
I'm on the "keep testing side" But with that said, the ARRL probably would like to see more members and operators so it has more so called "pull" over the FCC. Thats part of the reason I see it leaving the testing scene soon. Then, they can get more operators in on their side. there my 2 cents.

[kc7jty]

UD:
Thanks for the lunch offer. Sounds good but I seldom get to your neck of the woods.

I honestly hope that either the Morse requirement remains for all HF...or is dropped entirely. The picking of nits will simply be a waste of time and a failure as well.

[kc7jty]

BTW: You pro coders better get with the official party line:
# # ##1 The "I had to pass it so you gotta pass it" mentality doesn't look or sound good. The polished pro coders would never admit to this one.
# # ##2 To suggest that the use of (or proficiency of use of) Morse has declined because of the dropping of the 13 & 20 wpm requirements more or less puts the requirement of Morse in the same boat as legislating morality. Certainly appealing to some but having a very unsavory appearance to the majority. It also admits you are loosing, this also is a no no.

[ai4ep]

How does JTY know ? He is just guessing ( hoping ) to jump in with a wise word or two then fall out in the mainstream !!

( lol ) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N1XHF]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Nov. 26 2004,12:36)]to jump in with a wise word or two then fall out in the mainstream !!

( lol ) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Upset because he's doing your job. Wise words and all?
Sometimes I wonder if you post just to take a poker to the fire.



To the point! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif