Morse Code Dropped in VK - Media Release

[vk4kss]

Media Release No. 51 - 17 November 2003

ACA to end Morse code proficiency requirement for amateur radio operators

Australia’s amateur radio operators will no longer have to be skilled in Morse code from next year.

The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) announced today that it would discontinue the requirement for amateur radio operators to be proficient in Morse code from 1 January 2004.

The decision follows an extensive review of the amateur radio service which the ACA launched in August with the release of a discussion paper A Review of Amateur Service Regulation. The paper outlined current regulatory arrangements for the service, as well as proposing options for the future.

ACA Acting Chairman Dr Bob Horton said the ACA had received more than 1400 written submissions commenting on the issues set out in the paper and from public meetings arranged for amateur operators throughout Australia.

He said the decision to remove the Morse code proficiency requirement was made after considering public comments at the meetings and analysis of submissions.

“This extensive public consultation proved invaluable with more than 700 of Australia’s 14,000 licensed amateur operators attending to discuss the options in the discussion paper and to seek clarification on particular issues,” Dr Horton said.

“There was widespread support for the removal of the Morse code proficiency requirement at the meetings and throughout the submissions.

“The ACA has therefore decided to make interim changes to legislative instruments which, from the date of effect, will immediately allow access to privileges previously available only to those who satisfied Morse code proficiency requirements.

“Those changes will take effect on 1 January next year.”

Dr Horton said the ACA would amend the amateur radio licence conditions specified in the Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Amateur Licence) Determination No. 1 of 1997 to reflect this decision. The amendments will give:

holders of Intermediate and Limited Amateur licences access to the same frequency bands as Unrestricted Amateur licensees; and
holders of the Novice Limited Amateur licence access to the same frequency bands as Novice licensees.

The ACA also recognised that there was considerable concern in the amateur community about the ‘no interference’ proposal in the discussion paper.

“The ACA will carefully consider the views of the amateur community as it examines regulatory arrangements in this area. We remain committed to balancing the needs of the amateur community with those of the wider community,” he said.

“The ACA expects to announce more decisions about new regulatory arrangements for the amateur service before the end of the year. The amateur community will continue to be kept fully informed about the progress of the review and the implementation of new arrangements.”

Information about the review of amateur service regulation is available.

The Australian Communications Authority is a government regulator of telecommunications and radiocommunications

For more information contact:

Source - Australian Communications Agency - http://www.aca.gov.au/aca_hom....-51.htm (http://www.aca.gov.au/aca_home/media_releases/media_enquiries/2003/03-51.htm)


All media enquiries:
Geoff McMillen

Contact: paul.slocum@aca.gov.au

Paul Slocum
Acting Manager Space & Terrestrial Systems

Manager Communications

Telephone: (02) 6219 5257

Telephone: (03) 9963 6966

Facsimile: (02) 6219 5133

Mobile: 0408 152 471

[KE4GKA]

Its just a mater of time untill the "good old USA" will do away with the CW requirement......

X/KE4GKA, 73s.....

ED
W4ETB
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of North Carolina

[ai4ep]

Based on how fast the FCC is working to catch violaters on 10 meters, and other AMATEUR bands, it may be quite a while before the MORSE CODE requirement is eliminated in the U.S.A.....so all you folks who want the requirement eliminated, please hold your breath. Thank you for your cooperation.!! ~~~ kd4amg

[KQ6XA]

Congratulations to all the hams in Australia for saving the future of amateur radio on HF there.

Bonnie KQ6XA

[K8YS]

The list is growing!

To all those that do not like the FCC requirements, you now have a place you can MOVE TO.

[k1lwi]

its just mater of time untill the usa will do away with code no more cw bands open up for fone #how about doing away with testing qa just will be a fone #bands ham radio going to the dog #bye bye to ham radio http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[n9zxk]

This makes you wonder if the fcc will soon make up their minds. Are we going to be the only one that makes people do the code. I hope not. I know alot of the old times dont want it to go, but sooner or later its going.

I have said before, its a mode just like ssb, fm and so on. Let me ask this. How many new hams that learned it at 5 wpm learned it just to pass the test. I know of a few right here where i live.

Im not tring to start something. Just look all around us. Seems everyone is doing it.

Bonnie your right. this is going to save ham radio. Some say make the test harder. Why? Isnt it all about whats best for the art of radio. Maybe someone who didnt want to be a ham because of the code will someday learn and do the code......

[wu5e]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k1lwi @ Nov. 17 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its just mater of time untill the usa will do away with code no more cw bands open up for fone #how about doing away with testing qa just will be a fone #bands ham radio going to the dog #bye bye to ham radio http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Get a grip, the world is not coming to a end. I'm getting tried of all the cry baby's.

You sound like a Democrate



Jim
W5SSG

[KG4SZW]

Those repwubiclans can't spell good... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[n3jbh]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif ok i dont spell very well either. but thats not reason for this post. i simply wonder are we really advancing the art by snending code or shall i say morse code? i dont have problem with the guy,s that love code god bless them some my best ham freins dont even own a mic. but then i simply wonder if we are really being fair to the rest of the hobby by screening on code and no the science of radio it self?

lets come up with a plan that improves the art not the crying ok thank you/n3jbh http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n3jbh]

wow talk about my spelling no more them 807,s tonight sorry folk,s http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif doesnt any one proofread what they have put on the page any more ? I have seen better spelling from CB operators http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif or worse yet, the KIDS of cb operators

[N5RLR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n3jbh @ Nov. 17, 2003)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='color:orange'>...lets #come up with a plan that improves the art not the crying ok #thank you/n3jbh <!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif</span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
<span style='color:blue'>Exactly.

When I saw the topic on the front page,I knew instinctively what was going to be said about it, without even opening up the thread.

Let's compare: #Just because AM isn't as prevalent as it used to be, doesn't mean that it's a "dead" mode. #Far from it. #It's still used, and sounds great to me. #My CW proficiency isn't what it should be, but does this mean that the mode should go away? #No.

The die-hard CW ops should promote use of the mode, rather than whining about the possible/eventual elimination of Morse testing for the US license. #Experiment with it! #Show how it's done! #Whatever happened to "coherent CW," where a rig's transmit and receive oscillators, and perhaps a receive filter, are synchronized to a standard [WWV, 60-Hz power grid, etc.]? #That to me, is intriguing. #But, you don't hear about things like this. #Why?

Could it be that the CW guys are too busy bemoaning the loss of the requirement in other countries, and afraid for when/if it happens in the US?

I don't want to see it go either, for historical as well as technical reasons. #If it must, then, as others have said, there should be a compensating increase in the theory test(s). #Make 'em a little harder; add something on emergency power sources, for example .

Instead of being devisive, let's come togther. #Or else Amateur Radio as we know it will really go down the tubes.

Okay...[*clik*] [b]Soapbox Mode off... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif</span>

It couldn't happen here fast enough....

[n7wsb]

http://www.spellcheck.net/

A while back I was going to suggest a new bar (so to speak) for access to the hf bands and that was a spelling test. I also thought a swimming test was in order - as you never know when saving a life may mean swimming a mile during a flood or something.

After all - good spelling and grammar can mean life and death just as much as good radio communications especially when handeling traffic. You need to take notes as if the other operators life depended on it.

But after reading through several of these forums I decided it wouldn't be too nice to some of our disadvantaged hams.

[n0zu]

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>you cry babys out there might as well cry longer,


It will proubly be at least another year before there is a decision made in the good old USA.

So if you want to use the HF bands, It is not that hard to learn, it took me 2 years after I got my ham ticket to study and it took me from the time I started learning it, till the time I took my test about 2 month's.

Just listen to tapes, and read every thing you see in code and you will have it licked.

and if you do not want to learn it, then just sit back and keep crying till decide if they are going to drop it or not.</span>

[k1lwi]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5ssg @ Nov. 17 2003,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k1lwi @ Nov. 17 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its just mater of time untill the usa will do away with code no more cw bands open up for fone #how about doing away with testing qa just will be a fone #bands ham radio going to the dog #bye bye to ham radio http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Get a grip, the world is not coming to a end. I'm getting tried of all the cry baby's.

You sound like a Democrate



Jim
W5SSG[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
i like my cw just another mode but it is lots of fun sending code i can copy 50 wpm do not think doing away with cw test will get more in to ham radio why get in to ham with the inter net you need no ant no #rig and no rfi tvi so think ham radio is dieing only one will help is the CBER but not many CBER around the CB band here is dead good luck guys 73 #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[wa6usa]

Oh Well, There goes another one. I was hoping to work the VK's next time F layer opens on six meters. My question is, how is the VHF spectrum going to be utilized when the Morse Code requirement is lifted in the USA? Everyone running 6 & 2 meters for DX, and sporatic E openings will move to 20 meters where you can work the world with a Butternut buried in your backyard. hi

[WB9IFK]

What ever or when ever the FCC makes a decision some people will be unhappy. If and when they (FCC) drop the code requirement Ham Radio will not end as we know it today! I remember the great outburst there was when the code requirement was dropped for tech's. All we heard was the bands will be filled with CB nonsense! This did not happen! It is time for us all to grow up and move into the 21st century. I am not saying the use of code should be forbidden but remember it is just another mode like RTTY, SSB, Slow and Fast scan TV.
I have been a Ham for over 32 years. I started out as A 5WPM Tech. held that for over 15 years finally got code speed up to 13. and went to advanced. When they dropped code require to 5 I went to EXTRA. I have never used code on the air!!! Just learned it enough to get the Lic. Does this make me a bad operator I don't think so. I have worked in the Electronics Industry for over 40 Years and have held a Commercial Phone Lic. for longer than I have been a Ham. So I don't think the code makes we or anyone else a better operator!!!!!
Well I have put in my 2 cents on the subject. Now it's time to turn on the TS940S and my dual band 721 and have some fun playing Ham Radio. That's what it's all so to be about isn't.

73's
Rich WB9IFK

[kb6ssn]

WOW! What great news! I can't wait to hear an Australian 12 year old yelling BREAKER BREAKER in the microphone on 20 Meters! This will certainly save the hobby! Just like CB saved truck driving! ROTFLMAO!!!!

[KG4JYE]

WHY ARE ANY OF MY FELLOW NO CODE ADVOCATES CRYING??? Don't forget there is life ouside of HF...There are 16 large bands that you don't need anything more than a Technician license to use...Don't forget, an unused band still gets sold to the highest bidder, no matter what it is. ALL of us should be out there using the bands we have, ALL OF THEM.

Go sattelite, EME, Microwave...something to keep you off this board for days at a time reading 300 pages of posts by grumpy old men who don't want anything to change...PROGRESS IS CHANGE.

Peace, Love and 73

[KG4RYT]

The code, no code debate really excites the extreme on either side of the issue, but while we are argueing over the code/no code issue we find Ham radio dying a slow and painful death http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Many would say the no code techs are the problem with Ham radio, All i say is listen to 75m.
I would have to up grade to sound like those cb'ers.

[W0LC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Nov. 17 2003,18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Congratulations to all the hams in Australia for saving the future of amateur radio on HF there.

Bonnie KQ6XA[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, by all means! The code will definitely "kill" amateur radio! Hi!

[w4mdl]

Isn't it interesting to note that most of those who are so vociferously against the Morse Code requirement never met it.

Likewise, it appears many of those so strongly in favor of retaining the Morse Code requirement never learned to spell (or to use a "spell-checker"), nor did they learn punctuation or the proper use of apostrophes.

Let's be honest. The vast majority of the new breed of amateurs know very little about electronics. Hardly any read any books on the subject. Most just memorize answers to questions they don't even understand.

The argument against Morse Code has been: "Proficiency in Morse Code does not make one a better amateur radio operator."

The same argument can be made in this day of "plug 'n play" ham gear and pre-made antennas. When's the last time you talked to a new ham who had made his own h.f. or v.h.f. antenna? In the state to which amateur radio has evolved, there is really no reason for anyone to have to memorize fifty or more answers to questions about things with which they'll most probably never deal.

I hope someone has the foresight to file a Petition for Rulemaking soon...just as soon as Morse Code is eliminated...so we can get on with having a No Tech license.

Let's not fool around. Let's completely dismantle this pursuit as quickly as possible. Let's make it completely painless to get a license.

We are already hearing a steady influx of CB lingo on the ham bands. People are giving each other their "first personal" about one-third of the time. There really is not much difference between the Amateur Service and CB now, so let's not kid ourselves.

Let's get on with completely dumping Morse Code and then, the next logical step: dumping the technical test. Memorizing answers to questions proves nothing. And knowing the answers to those questions certainly does not make one a better amateur radio operator. There is no need to bar anyone from getting on the h.f. bands with 1,500 watts. It's practically to that point already.

10-4?

[g1yvr]

Communications specialist with B class licence since 87 could do morse at about 30WPM wouldn't take test out of principal ( they dont make me do a Latin test to go into a library) so why should I do a morse test to use the phone on HF? Morse will not die because it is of use where other modes cannot get through, interested people will listen and learn it anyway I may even get back into practice now I dont have to. The "no more morse test" will help our hobby and may even save it, as for people who don't own a mic perhaps they should take a re test before they are allowed to use phone! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif This is the only thing that has rekindled my interest in ham radio again hurah.

[aa1mn]

WC5RR,

Actually, a no code requirement will SAVE amateur radio.

And for those who lay claim that it will make it more like CB, all the better. I love CB, great group of people on the bands there, far better than most on the amateur airwaves by far.

Bonnie, I'm with you ... the sooner the code is gone the better it will be for all.

Chuck, AA1MN

[g1yvr]

grow up yah sad muppets. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

10-4...i say modumtate (sp checked) that signal b4 you put the fire in the wire! nicht that Cold Water test!

10-4 wasatech..used to one of them now an extra lite using modumtated r.f.

[w4dlh]

Our collective voice will determine the outcome of this debate. Lets keep it constructive. When we make comments about it "going to become like CB" we are attacking some of our fellow hams (technican). Who do you know in your local club that you talk to daily on a 2M repeater, that has a licence but has not mastered the code? Next time you are on 6M and make a contact in a distant state with a technican, you talking to one of those hams "without code".

Lets show the world we can have an intelligent conversation. Whatever the outcome.

[W0LC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Nov. 18 2003,07:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WC5RR,

Actually, a no code requirement will SAVE amateur radio.

And for those who lay claim that it will make it more like CB, #all the better. #I love CB, great group of people on the bands there, far better than most on the amateur airwaves by far.

Bonnie, I'm with you ... the sooner the code is gone the better it will be for all.

Chuck, AA1MN
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Once again, logic escapes the argument.

Doing away with code testing improves amateur radio. Huh?
I realize you are trolling, but try tuning into Channel 19. You want more of that on HF, have at it. I will be in the CW portion enjoying intelligent QSOs. Sorry.

In the words from one of Sammy Hagar's songs:

"I can't do, 5 WPM!"

[W0LC]

It seems that every time a media hit mentions a country deleting the code test element from their respective amateur licensing structure, a flame war begins in the forum. From individuals that hide behind aonymity (no callsign), the counter productive dribble is spewed the trolling and flaming begins.

Let's face it. The Feds, albeit slow in movement, will undoubtedly delete the code element testing as well, just to follow suit with everyone else.

Having a code element test doesn't make or break operators. It won't filter out the "undesireables", it won't keep good ops from going bad, it won't make 75 or 20 meters into an Eden of HF operating, it won't make 2 meters a haven free from repeater wars.

Personally, I don't understand the need for the deletion of a simple code test (5 wpm) that basically determines if one has some ability to copy code, just as a written test determines if one understands the basics of amateur radio (i.e. technology, rules and regulations, etc.).

Then again, I don't understand why the same individuals whine about having to learn something, anything as evidenced in many of the countless posts.

Just because I had to learn code, pass 20 wpm doesn't make me an El Supremo operator. Then again, obtaining a license via memorization of 50 questions won't make the HF portions of the bands any more pleasant to listen to in coming months.

If the powers to be decide to eliminate code testing, it will happen, no matter what. Those of us that use and enjoy CW will continue to do so. If the CW portions of the bands are reduced, then I suspect those that cherish SSB will have to contend with CW operation occurring much higher up the band with the SSB operation since it is already legal to do so. By gentlemen's agreement, which may be coming to an end, CW has contained itself in the lower portions of the bands. I hope that if the CW portions are affected, the forthcoming QRM of CW mixed in with SSB won't generate posts whining about the crowded band conditons, the QRMing, etc. So far, there has been sufficient (and more so) room for all to operate.

Let's just hope that our "powers to be" have more thought involved in this decision and enough foresight to see a future for amateur radio and not indirectly turn it into another CB debacle.

[aa1mn]

WC5RR,

On what basis are you making your statement that you know I'm "trolling"? Any facts to back that up?

Just as you cannot understand the need to eliminate the 5 WPM code requirement I cannot understand the need for it. Knowing code does not make an individual a better person or, for that matter, a better ham ... neither does showing proficiency on the written element either.

What makes a good person, and a good amateur radio operator, is something called "character", are you familiar with having character WC5RR or are you simply content to term those who have it as "trolls"?

Chuck, AA1MN

[k7fd]

You can add Australia to the list of mamby pamby losers...

But glad to see Africa still has some guts. In this world of 'me, too!', it's nice to see someone fight the tide.

73 John K7FD

[k7fd]

I'd rather see Ham Radio go down in a ball of flames than turn into a cesspool. But that's just my opinion.

Why save something that won't be worth saving?

73 John K7FD

[k5co]

Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with "no code"; why would I? I guess soon no one will have much respect for any ham; it will be much like CB.

Wouldn't it be nice if the good old USA was the one place where everyone knew that we earned our tickets/?

KD5PSH

[WT0A]

Actually, I agree with Bonnie, we need more ops from the cb ranks via no-code so we can hear many more echolink nodes ID on 60M.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wc5rr @ Nov. 18 2003,07:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the powers to be decide to eliminate code testing, it will happen, no matter what. #Those of us that use and enjoy CW will continue to do so. #If the CW portions of the bands are reduced, then I suspect those that cherish SSB will have to contend with CW operation occurring much higher up the band with the SSB operation since it is already legal to do so. #By gentlemen's agreement, which may be coming to an end, CW has contained itself in the lower portions of the bands. #I hope that if the CW portions are affected, the forthcoming QRM of CW mixed in with SSB won't generate posts whining about the crowded band conditons, the QRMing, etc. #So far, there has been sufficient (and more so) room for all to operate.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can tell you - it's going to be awful. The people who are pushing the hardest for elimination of the CW test will push even harder to eliminate any barriers that prevent them from talking at the very bottom of the bands. You can kiss your "Gentleman's Agreements" good-bye.

After that happens it'll be the Battle of the Linears and Whistlers with harmful interference to CW operators.

The level of mentality that strives for abolition of CW will be quite content to ruin every band available if given the chance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Nov. 17 2003,18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Congratulations to all the hams in Australia for saving the future of amateur radio on HF there.
Bonnie KQ6XA[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That is, without a doubt, the most repulsive statement i've ever read on QRZ.

[aa1mn]

KA0MNX,

Actually, Jason, your reply is the most repulsive statement I've read on QRZ.

Without a doubt.

Chuck, AA1MN

[kc9bai]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with "no code"; why would I?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Perfect example of an elmer helping the new hams..

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

[k0rpt]

Boy! What a thread of insults and bad comments from both sides of the CW war. I am glad I got into amateur radio even if all I wanted to do was to build repeaters and talk to a few locals. I really dont care to talk over sea's or even to make to many contacts outside of the area that I live. This is my option and I live with it and dont loose any sleep over any decision I have made concerning amateur radio. I can tell you that in my opinion, if HF and CW is filled with people with these attitudes and feelings towards "NO-Codes", then I want nothing to do with it even more.

I respect that others have worked for the code and have been successful in obtaining the extra privilages that go along with it however, this will not make them a better person or ham then I. It simply means that they have passed a test that I choose not to take. I dont mind code, as a matter of fact I do well at around 10 WPM but yet I am still a "NO-Code". This is again by choice.

I as well dont feel the requirement for CW should be eliminated. This is a mode that has been around for years and should stay this way for years to come. Who are we to change what has been? Are we more superior then those before us, I think not!

Good Luck to both side's!

Ed

[aa1mn]

K0RPT,

Ed, your post is a breath of fresh air.

However, in response to you question as to changing what has always been perhaps that is the best reason of all.

It's not a matter of being superior to those who came before us though, in some sense we are ... technology has progressed to the extent that CW is not need as the most efficient means of communications -- I'm not saying it should, or will, go away but that the code requirement should be elminated.

When progress ends, death begins.

Chuck, AA1MN

[n9lya]

I love it when I see this crap on qrz that means that there are atleast a few who are not on the air fighting!!!!!

Now if the FCC would only make casual conversations on HF illgeal..
QRZ do the same here on their site...


73 Jerry N9LYA

I hope no non-hams are reading qrz.. They will think all Hams are idiots...

[W0LC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Nov. 18 2003,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WC5RR,

On what basis are you making your statement that you know I'm "trolling"? #Any facts to back that up?

Just as you cannot understand the need to eliminate the 5 WPM code requirement I cannot understand the need for it. #Knowing code does not make an individual a better person or, for that matter, a better ham ... neither does showing proficiency on the written element either.

What makes a good person, and a good amateur radio operator, is something called "character", are you familiar with having character WC5RR or are you simply content to term those who have it as "trolls"?

Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, since you asked:

"Actually, a no code requirement will SAVE amateur radio.
And for those who lay claim that it will make it more like CB, all the better. I love CB, great group of people on the bands there, far better than most on the amateur airwaves by far."

Inflammatory remarks (no code, CB, great people the CBers, etc.) , sure appears you're trolling to me with bait like that. For whatever reason, you don't seem to enjoy amateur radio. Sorry to see/hear that.

I have to ask though. If you don't like the people on the "amateur airwaves" and like the CBers "far" better, why did you bother getting a license, or better yet, why are you still renewing your license? Just a question.

I never expected everyone in amateur radio to be perfect, as evidenced in the numerous posts and replies. I chose to enjoy the hobby however it came when I got into it.

LOL

[W0LC]

"Captain, the troll screens won't hold, we're down to 65% screens!"

Gotta love these topics and the retort that is inevitable. Have to wonder at times if we are actually living inside the Matrix. Too ridiculous to be real.

[N3TTN]

I don't want to fan any flames here, so if you respond with sarcasm and hostility, you will simply be ignored. If you want to respond with calm rational opinions, I will be glad to answer to the best of my ability.


I believe that what some of the more vocal code proponents fail to recognize is the considerable investment in time, money, energy, and technical know-how that goes into assembling a viable HF station. I think that the notion of a massive invasion by the "great unwashed" hordes of CB'ers, bent on ruining the HF bands for the hams that came before them is quite unrealistic. The cost of a good HF transceiver alone can run a thousand dollars or more, and the antennas tend to be large and rather expensive, in some case requiring a tower, we are not talking wire dipoles here fellas, remember....all the CB'ers know is big verticals and beams, they are going to want a massive tribander in their backyard. So, I think the cost alone is enough to put off all but the most determined CB'ers, and the other considerations are just an extra buffer to keep them at bay. Just my opinion.


73, N3TTN

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wasatech @ Nov. 18 2003,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Nov. 18 2003,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KA0MNX,

Actually, Jason, your reply is the most repulsive statement I've read on QRZ.

Without a doubt.

Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hi Chuck:

It's always good to get the "Kennedy" land perspective.
I'm sure you and the other fine people in "Kennedy" land are proud to be the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages! Way to go Massachusetts![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Man! That's cold!

[aa1mn]

Yes, KE4MUD, it is cold.

Mindless as well as I support neither Kennedy nor same-sex marriages.

Go figure, but thanks for your support or input however you wish to view it.

Chuck, AA1MN

[k0rpt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke4umd @ Nov. 18 2003,09:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wasatech @ Nov. 18 2003,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Nov. 18 2003,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KA0MNX,

Actually, Jason, your reply is the most repulsive statement I've read on QRZ.

Without a doubt.

Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hi Chuck:

It's always good to get the "Kennedy" land perspective.
I'm sure you and the other fine people in "Kennedy" land are proud to be the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages! Way to go Massachusetts![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Man! That's cold![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
_ #.... #._ #_ # .. ... # ..._ #. #._. #_ _ . _ # _._. #_ _ _ # ._.. _..

_._ #_ _ _ _ _ #._. #. _ _ . #_


Oop's fat fingerd the Y _._ _

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4GKA @ Nov. 17 2003,18:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its just a mater of time untill the "good old USA" will do away with the CW requirement......

X/KE4GKA, 73s.....

ED
W4ETB
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of North Carolina[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
From what I hear it will be a long time. The ARRL is planning on dragging its feet through the petitions to the FCC process, taking maximum advantage of time limits and dragging the thing out indefinately. They will be living up to their Archaic Radio Regressive League name. The preservation at all costs of the Morse requirement to upgrade isn't something they will be taking lightly. Every day the Code requirement remains in effect will be a victory for them.
Bill

[aa1mn]

[B]WC5RR,

Why is that any opinion you don't agree with is "inflamatory" or do you so lack the ability to tell the difference between opion and fact that you can't distinquish the two?

While I enjoy CB I also enjoy amateur radio ... there's quite a lot of very pleasant people in both bands and quite a few cranks such as yourself in each as well (note: this is an opinion, just wanted to point this out to you so you would be able to distinguish the two -- for all I know you're not a crank at all).

Furthermore, if my remarks (opinions) so inflame you, what do you care if I renew my license or not?

Yours,

Chuck, AA1MN http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5ssg @ Nov. 17 2003,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You sound like a Democrate



Jim
W5SSG[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is a democrate? Is it a French term?

[K2WH]

Never fear, the USA is here. I am firmly convinced, the USA, a leader in all worldly things and events will not be a follower in this short sighted movement.

Elimination of the code requirement is an issue with only a small group of hams/non-hams in this country simply for selfish reasons.

The code will not be dropped. The USA has always been a leader in this world. The USA will show the world, standards will prevail.

K2WH

[W0LC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N3TTN @ Nov. 18 2003,09:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't want to fan any flames here, so if you respond with sarcasm and hostility, you will simply be ignored. If you want to respond with calm rational opinions, I will be glad to answer to the best of my ability.


I believe that what some of the more vocal code proponents fail to recognize is the considerable investment in time, money, energy, and technical know-how that goes into assembling a viable HF station. I think that the notion of a massive invasion by the "great unwashed" hordes of CB'ers, bent on ruining the HF bands for the hams that came before them is quite unrealistic. The cost of a good HF transceiver alone can run a thousand dollars or more, and the antennas tend to be large and rather expensive, in some case requiring a tower, we are not talking wire dipoles here fellas, remember....all the CB'ers know is big verticals and beams, they are going to want a massive tribander in their backyard. So, I think the cost alone is enough to put off all but the most determined CB'ers, and the other considerations are just an extra buffer to keep them at bay. Just my opinion.


73, N3TTN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You are correct in some aspects there Scott.

However, if you look into some of the CB stations that I have seen, they do spend a large sum of money on their stations and are just as proud, albeit, some of the equipment is illegal to start with but with no enforcement, who cares?

There just are some individuals that for unknown reasons to you or I, are terribly scared of CW. That is fine, they don't have to use it, but how does anyone determine if you have the basic understanding of CW unless of course, there is a simple (which is the case today) test of 5 WPM? I don't think anyone could make that any easier. A written test isn't appropriate.

I don't get the big "fear factor" associated with CW.

Written tests today aren't like they use to be. Now you can buy "study guides" that have exact test questions or very close thereof, that all one has to do is memorize a particular answer, look for a particular clue, etc. in order to pass the exam. I think, gone are the days of actually "studying" anything (I see this in schools as well).

There are always going to be character assassins on here. That is inevitable. This is a hot button topic. Spewing "character" statements and other tripe only throws bait out for more flaming responses. Some individuals never seem to read the entire posts or replies. They are too busy typing it seems. Funny how 10 people can read the same thing and get different meanings! I suppose that is why men and women argue many times, lack of good communication skills.

My only concern is doing away with code testing in this country isn't Australia, Germany, etc. We have a very large population of amateurs. How this will "affect" us isn't the same cause and effect one might see in The Netherlands, Australis, etc. What concerns myself and others that have actually looked at the subject is where will it lead and for what reason(s)? I think there are other agendas at work here, more then meets the eye. Time will tell.

In the meantime, more effort should be spent on preserving our allocated resources as there are many factions out there looking to reduce our spectrum. The FCC is in the business of selling frequencies and making money. Amateur radio doesn't make them much money and as far as they are concerned, we are becoming more of a liability then an asset (not so with some of the local law enforcement communitied). Our spectrum is constantly under vying eyes, something more important then if one should study the code for a simple test.

I don't know where it will all lead, but I don't see this big influx of "newbees" into the hobby just because. I think that is a pipe dream.
CU and appreciate your attempting to bring the focus back. Doubt it will work!

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Nov. 18 2003,09:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Never fear, the USA is here. #I am firmly convinced, the USA, a leader in all worldly things and events will not be a follower in this short sighted movement.

Elimination of the code requirement is an issue with only a small group of hams/non-hams in this country simply for selfish reasons.

The code will not be dropped. #The USA has always been a leader in this world. #The USA will show the world, standards will prevail.

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Put the lid back on the polystyrene glue tube.

[K8YS]

You know what guys, they only way to increase the ranks of the Amateur Service is to GIVE THE LICENSE AWAY. A simple form, name, qth, add $14.50 if you want the call sign of your choice... and even then we will hear cry babies wanting more.

Look at history...

Before Incentive Licensing, the General and Extra were the same, why go for the Extra?
After Incentive Licensing, you had test for more privledges.. and the whiners started... blamed the ARRL, go back and read
73.

The Novice was 1 year, then 2 year, limited bands, limited equipment. I was the learners permit.

Then the Novice was "enhanced" because some suggested it would increase the numbers.

The FCC got out of the testing business, some suggested it would increase the numbers.

The Technician license was enhanced because some said it would increase the numbers.

The Tech test was shortened, made easier, some #suggested it would increase the numbers.

Then the code requirement was dropped for the Tech, some suggested it would increase the numbers.

Next the code requirement was reduced for ALL classes, some suggested it would increase the numbers.

If all these suggestions have been taken, we should have 1+ million licensed hams...

So, the logical conclusion is that an Amateur version of a mail order license is not going to work either...

oh, and before some wise ass points out spelling errors, I am doing this on my PDA.

[W0LC]

Too many facts Bob, don't want no facts!

Hi.

Yeah, that is how and what I remember also!

[KD7PKP]

Wow! Code/No Code as a political argument. Perhaps the powers that censored the recent movie about Reagan should get involved. They seemed to wield a rather large uninformed irrational stick. I'm not sure which side they would chose though.

[W0LC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD7PKP @ Nov. 18 2003,10:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow! Code/No Code as a political argument. Perhaps the powers that censored the recent movie about Reagan should get involved. They seemed to wield a rather large uninformed irrational stick. I'm not sure which side they would chose though.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That shouldn't matter John, as long as they "swing" it. They are bound to make contact with something!

[ke4pjw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8YS @ Nov. 17 2003,10:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at history...

Before Incentive Licensing, the General and Extra were the same, why go for the Extra?
After Incentive Licensing, you had test for more privledges.. and the whiners started... blamed the ARRL, go back and read
73.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, you had to test to get the privileges back that were taken from you by the FCC, if you were a General. Go back and re-read what happened.

It's a legitimate complaint, not whining.

[N3TTN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> You are correct in some aspects there Scott.


There are always going to be character assassins on here. That is inevitable. This is a hot button topic. Spewing "character" statements and other tripe only throws bait out for more flaming responses. Some individuals never seem to read the entire posts or replies. They are too busy typing it seems. Funny how 10 people can read the same thing and get different meanings! I suppose that is why men and women argue many times, lack of good communication skills.


In the meantime, more effort should be spent on preserving our allocated resources as there are many factions out there looking to reduce our spectrum. The FCC is in the business of selling frequencies and making money. Amateur radio doesn't make them much money and as far as they are concerned, we are becoming more of a liability then an asset (not so with some of the local law enforcement communitied). Our spectrum is constantly under vying eyes, something more important then if one should study the code for a simple test.

I don't know where it will all lead, but I don't see this big influx of "newbees" into the hobby just because. I think that is a pipe dream.
CU and appreciate your attempting to bring the focus back. Doubt it will work! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>



Hi Chris, thanks for your calm levelheaded response, it is much appreciated. Sorry about the "disclaimer" at the beginning of my last post, but I've grown weary of trying to reason with every flame artist that responds with: "You are too lazy and stupid to learn code" I think some people just can't understand that there is a real person behind the name and callsign, with their own unique set of circumstances, so thanks for not lumping me in with any particular group. I wholeheartedly agree with you that as amateurs we face far greater threats to the hobby than the code issue. No one knows where all of this will lead, but it is my fervent hope and desire that ham radio will survive, grow, and prosper in the future. The very best to you in your future endeavors.


73, N3TTN

[KG4RYT]

The tears fill our eyes.........Well not really http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Droping the code will help Amateur radio in the long run!!!

Quote:K8YS
"GIVE THE LICENSE AWAY" It sounds like 10M has been given away to Mexico as a CB band.

Why would you want to go to the HF bands? Between the Spanish speaking Cb'ers, and the outlaw freebanders from this forum, you would have to surmise, what is the use!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[K0RGR]

The concern that a change to the large U.S. ham population will have a greater impact than that of other countries has to be examined carefully.

First, go look at the worldwide ham populations.

The United States has roughly 1/4 of the world's amateurs. One half of the world's hams are Japanese. The important thing to note here is that Japan has had a no-code HF license for decades!

Germany and England together have about another 10% of the world's hams. If we throw in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the other European countries that have dropped the code requirement, over 70% of the world's hams already live in countries with no-code HF licenses.

Amateur Radio has been growing faster outside the U.S. than in the U.S. for a long time. The Japanese no-code HF license has created much of that growth, but so have the no-code VHF licenses popular in most of the world.

So, while the impact of U.S. no-coders will surely be felt, it will not necessarily be overwhelming. I would like to see the Techs get some real HF priveleges, but with significant power limitations, similar to Japan. I've heard all those 10 watters on the upper HF bands in a DX contest, and while it's great to hear the activity, it's scary to think what it would be if they were all running a KW.

I think the other thing that's central to this discussion is the question of dropping the code requirements altogether vs. granting HF priveleges to no-coders. I, a 'real' Extra who drew schematics on his exam, and a lot of my peers, want to see the entry licensees on HF. Restricting them to VHF is detrimental to the service. In order to preserve our traditions, we need to share some of them. That being said, I'm ambivalent about the General code test. As long as the Techs get some real, practical, useful HF priveleges to alleviate the current inequity in their priveleges, I don't care one way or the other about the General code test.

[W0LC]

Hi Scott,

Yes, I don't desire to respond to lame and stupid remarks. It is just a waste of key strokes to me!
As to the Code-No Code-Low Code debate, there will always be two sides. Those that learned it and use it and those that no longer want to use it combined with those that won't take the time to learn it.

I enjoy most aspects/modes of the hobby, and I was tested on just about all of them. It is sad that some find other radio services more enjoyable and bad mouth those that enjoy this hobby, but then again, that is what this hobby is all about; those that use it and those that abuse it.

I too don't know where this will all lead. I have my concerns about the intent and the validity of why there is so much fuss over a simple element in obtaining a license. Coupled with that, the affect it may or may not have on those that earned it (i.e. higher class license) via the higher code speed element test and more intense written exams "back when". I suppose they will have to deal with it when the time comes, if it does.

I can't figure out why anyone, anyone that is reasonably intelligent, would think that a simple code test will act as a "filter" in this hobby. How ridiculous! It certainly hasn't to date that I have noticed!

I know of many well known HF and VHF DXers/Contesters that for unknown reasons, became some of the most infamous individuals on the bands for abusing the hobby, many of which are no longer licensed (through action by the Feds). Perhaps they got into a debate such as this one and became disenchanted with the whole thing. Who knows!?

It seems though, that throughout all these "debates" one common thread exists. Character assassination.
If you won't agree with someone's tripe, then you begin to see flaming comments, name calling, etc. Not only is this immature and stupid, it gets old really fast. Just like HF, I "spin" the dial and ignore the ignorant!

Once again, I just hope that our powers to be represent the best for U.S. Amateurs and don't just play "follow the leader" in this action.

Hang in there and keep your shields up!

[W0LC]

K0RGR
"The concern that a change to the large U.S. ham population will have a greater impact than that of other countries has to be examined carefully."

That is very true.

Also worth noting, the U.S. Hams rank up there as being some of the rudest on the air during DXpeditions too. Don't know why, but I have my ideas. With the potential to turn the hobby into "anyone can get in with no effort" does concern me. I hope we are not heading down that road!

You mentioned something that made me think back to the days when as Novice Class op, entry level if you will, I was limited to 75 Watts, Crystal Control (cw) and no VHF. Only Technician Class, the next level up, began the VHF priv's (if I remember correctly).

I always thought that time frame being a Novice was invaluable and well worth the time. Kinda like obtaining a drivers learners permit, rather then sticking a 16 year old behind the wheel all by themself with no practical driving experience. It seemed to work in Amateur Radio but for unknown reasons, it went by the wayside. I worked with different antennas, shared ideas with friends that were Novices too, and visited and worked with those that were higher class ops. I learned more then, which I still consider very appreciative to have had that exposure!

I am not stating that because we were limited to CW back then it made us better ops, but I do believe it made us work and achieve more since there was incentive to upgrade. Oh well. Those were the good old days I suppose! Let's hope we don't digress instead by making everything "too easy".

"you know it don't come easy"

[k5co]

Actually, we probably do need a No-Code license. With a whole generation or more on Ritalin and Prozac, they do not function well enough to handle real ham radio.

KD5PSH http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wasatech @ Nov. 18 2003,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Nov. 18 2003,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KA0MNX,

Actually, Jason, your reply is the most repulsive statement I've read on QRZ.

Without a doubt.

Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hi Chuck:

It's always good to get the "Kennedy" land perspective.
I'm sure you and the other fine people in "Kennedy" land are proud to be the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages! Way to go Massachusetts![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
heh - yeah - well that's one reason i've been dragging my feet to ditch my 0 call and get a 1 call. #

If it weren't for the confusion of a W0 call in W1 land i'd stay with the W0 call.

[K2WH]

What you guys fail to understand, is the HISTORICAL record.

Historically, every move endorsed, enacted or declared by the FCC to supposedly increase the ranks of Ham Radio has not had the hoped for increase.

The removal of the code will bring the same dismal failure. #Therefore, looking at the historical record of attempts to enhance the rolls, I say the dropping of the code is unnecessary and will only fail like all the other attempts.

Finally, if this is reality, the code should remain as a part of the license exam. #BTW, I do not use code, never have (except for the exam) and #probably never will.

K2WH

[K0RGR]

I think it was the common experience of operating HF under less than optimal conditions that created the good ops.

And, I think we can recreate that environment for our newcomers today. I'm not in love with the FISTS petition but I think it's on the road to a decent compromise. I'd prefer to see the Novice bands abolished, and redeployed for better use, and give Novices and Techs LOW POWER access to the HF CW bands. I'd throw in 160 and all of 10 meters, all permitted modes, and digital on 30 meters.

In this way, we bring our newcomers into our midst. Heck, my computer sends very nice CW, if the tech wants to use his to copy me. I won't have any trouble copying his computer CW by ear if he keeps it under 25 WPM. I recently started playing with computer CW again, and the MIXW program does a very good job, when copying computer generated CW. It copies W1AW like teletype. It's fun to be copying in my head, but be able to get a 'second opinion' if I miss something.

I believe that in this manner, Techs will be exposed to CW, but more importantly, they will be exposed to the Brass Pounders and long time hams they won't find on 2 meters. And the hobby will once again be rooted in HF, where it should be.

[K2WH]

From K0RGR,

"I'd prefer to see Novices and Techs with LOW POWER access to the HF CW bands. I'd throw in 160 and all of 10 meters, all permitted modes, and digital on 30 meters."

Uh, isn't that what CB was supposed to be (except for the freqs), low power and limited range? #How long did it take for the illegal amps and antennas to make there way into the CB bands? The same thing will happen in the amateur radio service. I have no doubt. I'm sure the no code groups are already planning for this.

What you are advocating or suggesting, is similar to the original rules and regulations developed for the CB band but only on the amateur frequencies.

K2WH

[K0RGR]

Oh, in 1965 when I got my Novice, we had 2 meter phone priveleges.

Now, I had no idea what that really meant. But I can tell you that at the time, it was a great incentive for me to spend my summer learning the code so I could get on the air and 'talk' on 2 meters.

Fortunately, when my license arrived, I didn't have a working 2 meter rig, just my Dad's HF exciter, which fortunately ran less than 75 watts and could be crystal controlled.

I spent a lot of time in the garage that winter rebuilding a converted SCR-522 transmitter and building a new Nuvistor converter so I could get on with those two meter priveleges.
We put up a 1/4 wave spike on the chimney, and I could now 'talk'. I think I worked three people, total, on 2 meter AM that year.

The 2 meter priveleges were taken away during the first round of 'Novice Enhancement' because even way back then in 1968 we were having difficulty getting people to use their code enough to pass the 13 WPM General exam. This was blamed on the Novices having phone priveleges, of course.

Unfortunately, before long, this backfired. Soon. we heard complaints from people who 'just wanted to talk' on the radio and couldn't understand why they needed to learn Morse Code to do that. Eventually, the Novice was expanded to restore some voice priveleges, even 10 meters. This worked for a little while, but interest had again petered out before the creation of the no-code license. Then, interest in the Novice license dissolved.

Yes, I agree that all the changes meant to increase growth in the hobby have ultimately failed. There are only so many people drawn to this hobby in the first place. It seems a waste to exclude those who can't imagine themselves using Morse Code.

[K0RGR]

K2WH -


You don't make much sense. CB was never intended for hobby or recreational use in any way, shape, or form. It never required any kind of examination. With some minor tweaking, the current Tech exam is sufficient.

There is a valid concern that we'll be invaded, but I don't think it's a legitimate worry. Particularly if FCC adopts something like the FISTS proposal or what I've proposed. I would love to hear the invaders sending '10-4 Good Buddy' in CW or on PSK31.

Heck, if they ran less than 100 W, they'd be QRP compared to some of the freebanders. And if we give them all 10 meter priveleges, they can help us run the freebanders out of there. (Look elsewhere on this site for a note from Riley blessing this kind of activity!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. I'd rather hear licensed hams with less than perfect operating procedure than unlicensed goons on our bands.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Nov. 18 2003,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KA0MNX,

Actually, Jason, your reply is the most repulsive statement I've read on QRZ.

Without a doubt.

Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hey chuckie when I drove by your trailer house earlier I saw a bent over c.b. antenna next to the one time t.v. mast what gives? You are the repulsive one around here...Showanna Jones

[KC8OZJ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc9bai @ Nov. 18 2003,08:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with "no code"; why would I?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This sounds real good for Amateur Radio! This just makes me want to learn code so I can use phone on H.F. L.O.L. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Nov. 18 2003,14<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uh, isn't that what CB was supposed to be (except for the freqs), low power and limited range?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It doesn't seem that K0RGR was suggesting limited range.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
How long did it take for the illegal amps and antennas to make there way into the CB bands?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

About thirty years.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The same thing will happen in the amateur radio service. #I have no doubt. #I'm sure the no code groups are already planning for this.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't understand the parallel you're trying to draw. #The problem on CB was entirely due to people completely ignoring the rules. #If that problem was going to show up on HF, the structure of the licensing system wouldn't matter, as the people who want to go illegal would certainly not bother to get any sort of license.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
What you are advocating or suggesting, is similar to the original rules and regulations developed for the CB band but only on the amateur frequencies.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The rules of FRS/GMRS are about as similar to the original CB rules and regulations, and yet we see none of the excesses of CB on those systems.

The CB craze of the 70s was a one-time coincidence of technology, price, and poor planning. #It is unlikely to be duplicated by any non-commercial service in the future, especially given the trend of cell-phone providers trying to provide "walkie-talkie" services.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5PSH @ Nov. 18 2003,08:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with "no code"; why would I?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't suppose the observation that most of the service provided by the ham community is provided by no-code Technicians would change your mind?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I guess soon no one will have much respect for any ham; it will be much like CB.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If the people who don't care about rules wanted to come up onto the HF bands, what difference would the license structure make? #And yet, the CB Horde has not descended on the HF bands, except for 10m.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Wouldn't it be nice if the good old USA was the one place where everyone knew that we earned our tickets?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wouldn't it be nice if the the good old USA was one place that recognized that there's more than one way to earn a ticket?

[w6th]

... # # # # # # # #... # # # # # # # ..



What is happening? What is going on? #Is any thing new happening? Anything of new interest?

I have heard that the 10 meter band has been extended from 27.000 Mhz through to 29.999 mhz.

Congratulations Aussies, you have been reading Bonnie's mail and made your decision.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # #Smart move.

# # # # # # #Samuel F. B. Morse is history. #


# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ...

[kb9num]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5PSH @ Nov. 18 2003,08:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with "no code"; why would I? I guess soon no one will have much respect for any ham; it will be much like CB.

Wouldn't it be nice if the good old USA was the one place where everyone knew that we earned our tickets/?

KD5PSH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Frankly I don't have any respect for one who would make such a statement. Why would I? Using such a criteria to judge a person without taking any time to truly measure character indicates certain weakness.

[n9kpn]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ Nov. 18 2003,10:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5ssg @ Nov. 17 2003,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You sound like a Democrate



Jim
W5SSG[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is a democrate? Is it a French term?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Neither. #Just spelling it like Dan Quayle would.

(Sorry, Mr. Quayle, I could not pass this up.)

Have you seen this?

If GH # # stands for # #P # as in #Hiccough
If OUGH stands for # O #as in #Dough
If PHTH #stands for # T # as in #Phthisis
If EIGH # stands for #A #as in #Neighbour
If TTE # #stands for # T #as in #Gazette
If EAU # #stands for #O #as in #Plateau
then #POTATO could be spelled:

GHOUGHPHTHEIGHTTEEAU

Maybe in another revision of this board there will be an automatic spell checker. #This would be a much better feature than the SMILIES.

[aa1mn]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey chuckie when I drove by your trailer house earlier I saw a bent over c.b. antenna next to the one time t.v. mast what gives? #You are the repulsive one around here...Showanna Jones[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Is that really the best you could throw at me? #Then again, shouldn't "soontobeaham" be changed to "wanna be a ham but never will be a ham 'casue I'm to damn dumb to be one"?

Why don't you post your call sign, or don't you have one?

Chuck, AA1MN

[n9zxk]

Fight, fight, fight, even have one who wouldnt have any respect for a no coder. I ask why is that sir?? Some of you wonder why some of us so called no coders want a change. If you want respect, then you have to give respect. So be it

Does anyone know for sure by not having to pass a code test will keep people from wanting to do code. I have even seen here on qrz before that some people think this is putting a ban on code. Come on, get real. Just maybe the fcc knows what they are going to do. I dont know what the out come will be, but i know what i want it to be. Take the code away. Not for me, not for cb'ers but for ham radio itself.

[kd4mxe]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4JYEdave @ Nov. 18 2003,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WHY ARE ANY OF MY FELLOW NO CODE ADVOCATES CRYING??? # Don't forget there is life ouside of HF...There are 16 large bands that you don't need anything more than a Technician license to use...Don't forget, an unused band still gets sold to the highest bidder, no matter what it is. #ALL of us should be out there using the bands we have, ALL OF THEM.

Go sattelite, EME, Microwave...something to keep you off this board for days at a time reading 300 pages of posts by grumpy old men who don't want anything to change...PROGRESS IS CHANGE.

Peace, Love and 73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
dave you got it right , could not have said it better 73s biLL

[K2WH]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Nov. 17 2003,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Nov. 18 2003,14<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uh, isn't that what CB was supposed to be (except for the freqs), low power and limited range?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It doesn't seem that K0RGR was suggesting limited range.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
How long did it take for the illegal amps and antennas to make there way into the CB bands?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

About thirty years.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The same thing will happen in the amateur radio service. #I have no doubt. #I'm sure the no code groups are already planning for this.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't understand the parallel you're trying to draw. #The problem on CB was entirely due to people completely ignoring the rules. #If that problem was going to show up on HF, the structure of the licensing system wouldn't matter, as the people who want to go illegal would certainly not bother to get any sort of license.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
What you are advocating or suggesting, is similar to the original rules and regulations developed for the CB band but only on the amateur frequencies.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The rules of FRS/GMRS are about as similar to the original CB rules and regulations, and yet we see none of the excesses of CB on those systems.

The CB craze of the 70s was a one-time coincidence of technology, price, and poor planning. #It is unlikely to be duplicated by any non-commercial service in the future, especially given the trend of cell-phone providers trying to provide "walkie-talkie" services.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Low power suggests limited range to me (and please spare me the "work the world on 1/4 watt" mantra). #He may not be suggesting that but when the new ham finds out that he will be able to put a signal much further with higher power, he will do it whether allowed or not.

I started in CB in the early 60's, there were amps when I got in. #It didn't take 30 years.

The structure of the licensing system will not amount to a hill of beans in short order once the influx of new operators, fresh from CB starts. #Licensing will give them a feeling of legality and respectability. #Wolves in sheeps clothing.

FRS/GMRS are nothing like CB. #Owners of this equipment can only transmit short distances. #Hence, the reason for a seemingly well organized band. #I guarantee that if GMRS had a range of 1000's of miles you would have the same situation and garbage as 27mhz. #Mother nature keeping the rabble in line.

I disagree with your last statement completely. #27 mhz can be duplicated. It's only a F2 layer away.

Finally, I believe the newcomers who will join our ranks will follow the rules initially (just like CB). #Then illegalities will start (a little at a time), and then eventually, not give a damn about the rules with the FCC powerless to enforce anything.

Therefore, I see this as a real threat to our bands as much as BPL.

K2WH

[N1XHF]

Why are so many people so spiteful? We all know that code whether now or later will be dropped! Is there any reason why so many are taking it personal and are lashing out at everyone who has a different opinion? True even I get emotional over the subject but way too many people are getting to hot over something that has been coming for a long time. I'm sure that even the operators of old were a little skeptical when phone came about and just as upset when you no longer had to build a transmitter as a requirement. But do you know what?...........They got over it! You all should spend more time focusing on things like BPL and not so much about what is required and what is not, because if BPL goes into effect......You won't have no HF for CW!

[kd4mxe]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Nov. 18 2003,09:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">K0RPT,

Ed, your post is a breath of fresh air.

However, in response to you question as to changing what has always been perhaps that is the best reason of all.

It's not a matter of being superior to those who came before us though, in some sense we are ... technology has progressed to the extent that CW is not need as the most efficient means of communications -- I'm not saying it should, or will, go away but that the code requirement should be elminated.

When progress ends, death begins.

Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
chuck tell them code cry babies like it is 73s bill

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Nov. 18 2003,17:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Nov. 17 2003,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Low power suggests limited range to me (and please spare me the "work the world on 1/4 watt" mantra). #He may not be suggesting that but when the new ham finds out that he will be able to put a signal much further with higher power, he will do it whether allowed or not.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Does that happen today? #Do generals go to the extra band segments because of a rare DX or better propagation?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I started in CB in the early 60's, there were amps when I got in. #It didn't take 30 years.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

OK, 17 years, then.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The structure of the licensing system will not amount to a hill of beans in short order once the influx of new operators, fresh from CB starts. #Licensing will give them a feeling of legality and respectability. #Wolves in sheeps clothing.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Given that CB radio is a dying hobby, down from a peak of 10 million to a current estimated 1-2 hundred thousand, and that in the thirty years since the peak, that influx of operators has not generated the problems, what makes you think it will be different now?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
FRS/GMRS are nothing like CB. #Owners of this equipment can only transmit short distances. #Hence, the reason for a seemingly well organized band. #I guarantee that if GMRS had a range of 1000's of miles you would have the same situation and garbage as 27mhz. #Mother nature keeping the rabble in line.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So, then, you agree that CB was an unusual situation for a radio service? #The FCC made the mistake of picking a band with HF probagation characteristics for a service that they intended to be short distance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Finally, I believe the newcomers who will join our ranks will follow the rules initially (just like CB). #Then illegalities will start (a little at a time), and then eventually, not give a damn about the rules with the FCC powerless to enforce anything.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

People have been coming from CB to ARS for at least thirty years, and this doesn't seem to have happened. #What makes this point in time different?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Therefore, I see this as a real threat to our bands as much as BPL.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I agree on that. #I think that BPL will turn out to be about the same tempest-in-a-teapot that restructuring will. #(Yes, I know you didn't mean it that way.)

Marty[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[K0ZZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc9bai @ Nov. 18 2003,10:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with "no code"; why would I?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Perfect example of an elmer helping the new hams..

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
ya, your right ,a perfect example of why ROBERT shoud not show his ass, and man that thing is pimpely. i blame all this drop the code stuff on people like ROBERT who have failed to elmer someone.hell he probably told any one who asked for help to go screw themselves. posts like what this man has made really iritates the crap outta me. remember dear ROBERT you started as a tech to http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[K0ZZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5PSH @ Nov. 18 2003,15:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, we probably do need a No-Code license. With a whole generation or more on Ritalin and Prozac, they do not function well enough to handle real ham radio.

KD5PSH http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
there you go again, making comments like real ham radio. what in the world do you mean by that? are you implying that 6 through 1.2 is just play radio? ROBERT all you are doing is showing how intelligent you are, the more you post, the dumber you look http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

DE KC0QME http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K0RGR]

Once again, as to the issue of who is 'pushing' the no-code effort - please see the Editorial in the latest CQ magazine.

They report the results of their reader poll. 85% of those taking the poll were General and higher. Over 70% favored giving Techs some HF priveleges. Only a very slight majority thought that the General code test should remain. Oddly enough, the group most strongly in favor of dropping the code tests was the Extras!

Now, this poll was mostly among those who know code. What would the results have been if the proportion of no-coders matched that of the ham population?

So please, no more insults against the newcomers. It's crusty old guys like me, who had to send 20 WPM with a Navy pump-handle key for their Extra that are pushing for no-code. Why? We're selfish - we've invested a lot of time and money on Ham Radio, and we want to be sure there are lots of new people to talk to until we die. It's too darn hard to scare up a late night QSO on HF as it is.

[kb9lor]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0RGR @ Nov. 18 2003,14:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it was the common experience of operating HF under less than optimal conditions that created the good ops.

And, I think we can recreate that environment for our newcomers today. #I'm not in love with the FISTS petition but I think it's on the road to a decent compromise. I'd prefer to see the Novice bands abolished, and redeployed for better use, and give Novices and Techs LOW POWER access to the HF CW bands. I'd throw in 160 and all of 10 meters, all permitted modes, and digital on 30 meters.

In this way, we bring our newcomers into our midst. Heck, my computer sends very nice CW, if the tech wants to use his to copy me. I won't have any trouble copying his computer CW by ear if he keeps it under 25 WPM. I recently started playing with computer CW again, and the MIXW program does a very good job, when copying computer generated CW. It copies W1AW like teletype. It's fun to be copying in my head, but be able to get a 'second opinion' if I miss something.

I believe that in this manner, Techs will be exposed to CW, but more importantly, they will be exposed to the Brass Pounders and long time hams they won't find on 2 meters. And the hobby will once again be rooted in HF, where it should be.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
k0rgr
Am working on my code now, and would you e-mail me the info on your mixw program? I remember my father-in law(ka9ion) useing an old c64 with a kantronics interface, to do much the same thing yours does. I would really appreciate it!

binnie@seidata.com


Thanks,

73,

kb9lor

[G8RLD]

I cannot believe the ignorance being displayed in these posts. For someone to say "Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with no code; why would I?" is beyond belief. May I suggest that the qualification for operating HF is even a basic knowledge of spelling and grammar - I suspect that there would be plenty of space on the HF bands!

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cannot believe the ignorance being displayed in these posts. For someone to say "Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with no code; why would I?" is beyond belief. May I suggest that the qualification for operating HF is even a basic knowledge of spelling and grammar - I suspect that there would be plenty of space on the HF bands! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Very well put!

Dave
KG6JTB

[n0klu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (G8RLD @ Nov. 18 2003,22:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">......I cannot believe the ignorance being displayed in these posts. For someone to say "Frankly, I don't have any respect for Technicians with no code; why would I?" is beyond belief. ......[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And because of the following people who have on at least three differing occasions had nothing but foul and bad mouthed the no-code people and my suggestion is to stop QSO'ing them on HF untill they can have a civil keyboard...... here is my NO QSO list...
AA4VB "Extra"
TERRY G WINKLER
PO BOX 70480
FT BRAGG NC 28307

AA7HC "Extra"
VERNON L FRANKLIN, JR
33433 W. OLD. U.S. HWY 80, PO BOX 9
ARLINGTON AZ 85322

AE4FB "Extra"
MICHAEL D ADAMS
2711 BELAIRE CR
DORAVILLE GA 30340

AE4FB "Extra"
MICHAEL D ADAMS
2711 BELAIRE CR
DORAVILLE GA 30340


AF2Q "Extra"
Robert Lech
2350 Princeton Pike Apt 417
Lawrenceville NJ 08648

AG4RQ "Extra"
Mark M Oring
1301 SW 135th Ter J411
Pembroke Pines FL 33027

AG4YO "Extra"
Charles L Young, Jr
13805 Timbercreek Dr
Cantonment FL 32533

EI5JA "unknown"
Eamon G. Welsh
"Radharc Glan", 16 Ballycaseymore Hill,
Shannon, Co: Clare, IRELAND

K2WH "Extra"
William P Gerhold, Iii
63 Goldfinch Lane
Hewitt NJ 07421


K3QLZ "General"
GENE M LONG
1346 BACK MAITLAND RD
LEWISTOWN PA 17044

K5KDA "General"
Devon R Wroblewski
1816 Sharon Dr
Corinth TX 76210

K6UEY "Advanced"
ORVILLE J DALTON
2621 GROVE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95815

K6VB "Extra"
JAMES R SCHMIDT
5200 Maryland Ave.
LA CRESCENTA CA 91214

K7FD "Extra"
JOHN D NICHOLSON
PO BOX 418
SEAL ROCK OR 97376

K7PIG "Advanced"
RAYMOND J YAKESH
S 827 TWILIGHT DRIVE
SIERRA VISTA AZ 85635-3768

K7QXG "Extra"
ROBERT A PESCHKA
592 SE CYPRESS AVE
DALLAS OR 97338

W0JSB "General"
Previously: KA0MNX
Jason S Buchanan
2525 W 29th St
Joplin MO 64804

KD4LYH "Advanced"
JEFFREY D PEDERSON
6483 HOLIDAY DR
SPRING HILL FL 34606

KD5PSH "Extra"
Robert C Reynolds
440 CAMINO HERMOSA
CORRALES NM 87048

KD5SHK "Technician"
Lance J Cutter
353 Brown Rd
Booneville AR 72927

KD5WBJ "General"
Michael R Bufkin
305 W 3rd
Breckenridge TX 76424

KD7WHQ "Technican"
WILLIAM H MC CAFFERTY, II
36222 SE 46TH ST
FALL CITY WA 98024

KE4FSC "Technician"
MURRAY D SAMS
1140 B Hwy 4 W
CENTURY FL 32535

KE4VCS "Technician"
PEYTON E EVANS
720 Maiden Lane
Mount Airy NC 27030

KE4ZHN "Advanced"
RICHARD A BORGIOLI
2622 FAULKNER RD
ORLANDO FL 32810

KE6IRP "General"
Christopher J Evans
171 W San Antonio
San Clemente CA 92672

KF4JQD "General"
Andrew S Wellman
W 524 Huckleberry Street
Edgar WI 54426

KF6PYF "Technician"
George G Poulos
PO BOX 1191
Carmichael CA 95609-1191

KG4IQB "General"
Joseph D Pittman
619 Willow Lane
Birmingham AL 35206-1839

KG4OOA "General"
Robert D Kendig
8209 Royal Sand Cir 213
Tampa FL 33615



KG4ZUF "General"
Jeremiah A Smith
252 Poor Boy Rd
Murphy NC 28906

KG6JEV "General"
Steven D Peterson
PO BOX 66154
Hampton VA 23665-6154

KI4BBK "General"
William R Hunteman, Sr
2061 Antelope Pl
Virginia Beach VA 23456

KL7FZ "General"
STEPHEN E TOLLEY
PO BOX 878201
WASILLA AK 99687

KR4XH "Advanced"
DONALD R FALCONER
2818 N BROMPTON DRIVE
PEARLAND TX 77584

KV7V "Extra"
KELLY B ANDERSON
2420 E KENSINGTON AVE
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108

N0SCC "Extra"
PAUL D RAGSDALE, JR
83 METTLERVILLE LN
NEW DOUGLAS IL 62074

N0TTW "General"
Christopher S Salinas
1048 Langley Rd 7
Waterloo IA 50702-4204

N3MVF "Extra"
Gregory J Dober
109 Dinwiddie Dr
New Kensington PA 15068

N5BLM "General"
Brian L McElvy
103 Donelton St
Cumby TX 75433

N5BLM "General"
Brian L McElvy
103 Donelton St
Cumby TX 75433

N8CPA "Extra"
STEPHEN J STIRLING
3345 SMILEY RD
COLUMBUS OH 43221-4747

N8CPA "Extra"
STEPHEN J STIRLING
3345 SMILEY RD
COLUMBUS OH 43221-4747

N8ZUX "General"
Mark A Holman
1853 135th Ave
Hopkins MI 49328

NC5S "Extra"
WALTER E WOODSON, JR
PO BOX 61118
SAVANNAH GA 31420-1118

NJ1K "Extra"
THOMAS UHLMAN
601 Via Mountain Lane
Patrick Springs VA 24133

NY7Q "Extra"
Larry C Stokes
1110 W Colorado Ave
Nampa ID 83686-8164

W0ANT "General"
JOSEPH W LETO
1706 NE LOWELL COURT
ANKENY IA 50021

W0LTL "Extra"
MARLYN J ZONNEFELD
3020 N AMETHYST LN
TUCSON AZ 85749

W2LTB "General"
James A Mc Donnell, III
211 Habersham Court
Lexington KY 40517-1629

W5HTW "Extra"
EMMETT E BROOKS
67 Golden Valley Drive, PO BOX 768
Estancia NM 87016


W5USB "Extra"
ARTHUR M GRANDA, JR
10300 Golden Meadow #114
AUSTIN TX 78758

W5UX "Extra"
ROBERT W CARR
106 SWAN ST
BRUNSWICK GA 31523

W6TH "Extra"
VITO S CHIARAPPA
PO BOX 87
ROSAMOND CA 93560

WA4RQG "General"
MALCOLM J DAVIS
23 Robinson Creek Rd
Falkville AL 35622

WA7CS "Extra"
CARL R STRODE
4102 MEADOWSWEET ST
PASCO WA 99301

WB2TQC "Advanced"
JOHN H MINNERS
51 Fairview Avenue
Hudson NY 12534

WB4YAL "Extra"
JOHN M DOLAN
6800 Newark Road Apt. 5
Nashport OH 43830

WB9GKZ "Advanced"
PATRICK W KEOGH
3767 FAIRVIEW RD
GREEN BAY WI 54313

WC5RR "Extra"
Christopher B Hays
3824 Ridge Road
Weatherford TX 76087

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

[n0klu]

Good Hams will simply dissagree with you, but those on my No QSO List berate you and curse you and generally bad-mouth you if you dissagree with them.

I can accept one who dissagrees with me, but I will not even talk to/answer a CBer Jerk even if he/she knows code!

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

[KG4ZLB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We all know that code whether now or later will be dropped![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Thats really the point in a nutshell. If the FCC/ARRL had got their collective digits out of their collective butts a few months ago and delivered a timely decision, then we wouldnt all have to go through this "War and Peace" epic every time another country drops the requirement. Whether or not the requirement is dropped in the US, the FCC and ARRL should be heavily criticised for their inept and appalling feet dragging on this issue. I have just sat and read the 10 pages of this (mostly dross) thread, some comments humorous, some downright nasty and all this infighting is extremely detrimental. Not that I am into conspiracy theories (but we all know that Diana was assassinated) but by allowing this crazy situation to drag on, our old friend BPL is still marching ever closer - seems like someone somewhere would rather see the ham community fighting about code rather than BPL - I wonder why? Oh yes, money. All IMHO of course.

[k0rpt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd4mxe @ Nov. 18 2003,17:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Nov. 18 2003,09http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">K0RPT,

Ed, your post is a breath of fresh air.

However, in response to you question as to changing what has always been perhaps that is the best reason of all.

It's not a matter of being superior to those who came before us though, in some sense we are ... technology has progressed to the extent that CW is not need as the most efficient means of communications -- I'm not saying it should, or will, go away but that the code requirement should be elminated.

When progress ends, death begins.

Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
chuck #tell # them #code cry #babies # like # it # is # 73s # bill[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well we know some body didnt read the thread!

73's Bill....

Ed[CODE]

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb6ssn @ Nov. 18 2003,01:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WOW! What great news! I can't wait to hear an Australian 12 year old yelling BREAKER BREAKER in the microphone on 20 Meters! This will certainly save the hobby! Just like CB saved truck driving! ROTFLMAO!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Was that ever cb radio's intent? Somehow I just don't see people lining up to become truck drivers so they can talk on the cb radio.

[ah6gi]

please join the code-no code flamefest at groups.yahoo.com/group/codenocode

just tell us what you think There was once a proposal for a 15 WPM entry requirement.

13 WPM was thought to be to slow at one time.

I don't see a need to change the exam process. It's about right now except I'd like to see Extra go back to 20 WPM. Of course, I also think that no-code techs should have HF SSB privleges on 10, 15, 40, 75 meters at 100 watts.

If they want CW, they can have that too.

[KC0JTC]

It is sad that this issue brings out so much anger within the amateur radio. #The exclusionary attitude that is represented by many does more harm and is certainly not a means to promote this activity. #In the last ten years how many actual amateurs have they elmered into this avocation. #Why should they. #It is this kind of zealotry that alienates rather encourages new radio operators/technicians. #Why would anyone want participate in this activity. #When there are those out there that won't QSO with someone unless they got there license by passing a 20 wpm exam. #Maybe respond to that 13 wpm ham... # But GD, if I will ever talk with a 5 wpm extra. #
And there seems to be this obsession with CB'ers. #As I drive around the community there seems to be a lot of 11 meter mobile ant. out there. #I guess because when you want to, you can usually find a CB'er that will actually assist you. #Yes I know.... #they have a language that I don't understand.... but I didn't understand the ham language until I participated in it. #Oh, well, I forgot about all those hams that won't talk to you because you are a no code tech. #I can't generalize to all the hams.... in fact most of the hams I have gotten to work have been polite and have offered encouragement. #But then again I have heard a lot about you OM's out there that aren't nice and polite. #The ones that interfere with you. etc. #And jee they are OM's that have been around a long time. #Passed those 13 wpm and 20 wpm tests. #Passing them didn't seem to make them any more polite or receptive on phone than "them cb'ers".
I wouldn't go accusing others of bad operating unless my house was in order. #I guess you can find lids all through the license classes and it doesn't matter how many wpm you can copy.
Just a little observation, given all the "ad hominim" going on in here.
Will getting rid of code cause the hobby harm. #I don't know. #What is harming the hobby is the attitudes that hams express toward each other. #It is time that we started respecting each other regardless what standards we met to aquire our operating privileges. #After all those standards appear to change on a regular basis. #It is this like this. #What do they call a physician that was at the bottom of their class. #Doctor.

A ham

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W0YR @ Nov. 18 2003,06:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't it interesting to note that most of those who are so vociferously against the Morse Code requirement never met it. #

Likewise, it appears many of those so strongly in favor of retaining the Morse Code requirement never learned to spell (or to use a "spell-checker"), nor did they learn punctuation or the proper use of apostrophes. #

Let's be honest. #The vast majority of the new breed of amateurs know very little about electronics. #Hardly any read any books on the subject. #Most just memorize answers to questions they don't even understand. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I met the requirement and passed. I even sometime use morse code http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. I will say again as I have said before - I am a Morse Code advocate - however I support the removing of the requirement for a test to get on HF. Why? Because I think clubs and hams should be right now (and after they remove the requirement) training people on how to use code - not some test. We can do a better job than any test can anyhow.

I think people will adapt and become steadily better at code as time goes by with actual experience instead of studying to meet some wierd 15-18 word per minute code rate 5 wpm character rate. One could even argue that we would eventually have more morse code operators. Anyone who argues otherwise is practically admiting defeat in the sense that code is obsolete and no-one wants it anymore. I have a tad more faith in our new generation.

I also think I know more about electronics than many hams at the local club. Most of those guys got their advanced/extra long before I ever did - when the bar was raised so to speak. One of the local guys who repairs radios for a living (Joe Borsch - look him up on eham) has too much business - last time I was over there they were all hf rigs stacked on shelves waiting to be fixed. Which suggests to me people either lack electronics skill, or are too busy to repair their own radio.

The appliance operators are here to stay - there's more of em than any ham (in the US) would ever admit to probably.

[K8YS]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0klu @ Nov. 17 2003,21:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hey David, you are one sick puppy, now I see why you have been banned on eham.
Your list is long and quite distictive, you may do me a high honor and add my callsign to the list.

You still have NO CLUE.

Considering that the majority of those on your list hold a HF class license, the possibility of actually speaking to, or having the ability to ignore, is extremely LOW.

May I suggest that you follow the words of wisdom on my Hamvention name tag..

Just Shut Up And Learn The Code...

For if you did, you would no longer have a need to feel slighted or second class.

Be sure to spell my name correctly.

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



OO

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Nov. 18 2003,14:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uh, isn't that what CB was supposed to be (except for the freqs), low power and limited range? #How long did it take for the illegal amps and antennas to make there way into the CB bands? #The same thing will happen in the amateur radio service. #I have no doubt. #I'm sure the no code groups are already planning for this.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
One of the major differences for cb is that its actually a commercial band.

[w8znx]

stop it, stop it, stop it,

no code boys,
wait
u will get hf

camel's nose came under the tent
when tec tic went no code

to fellow cw ops
remember
the no code boys will be on fone

those that think nocode will save
ham radio

bull

will not change the fact that kids
do not care about,
not intrested in ham radio

lets realy go for it give gen class tic
with each 6 pack of Miller light

extra class tic with each bag of weed

note the last real ham will be running cw

mac

[n0klu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8YS @ Nov. 19 2003,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0klu @ Nov. 17 2003,21:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hey David, y