No code makes no sense: think about it

[wj9b]

Maybe nothing will save amateur radio as many of us "aging" amateurs have learned it, but doesn't that include the ARRL, and whatever future amateur radio will have? The basic arguement is old and probably means even less now but, for the sake of "good ole times," here it is again, fellow amateurs.

Many of us cw ops, like all of us, are aging but some of us have done well economically also. Why would some of us support any organization (ARRL) if it doesn't support us (CW ops) politically, a position that does not oppose other forms of interest in amateur radio. Pro CW (or pro "any mode" for that matter) isn't the same as anti-any other mode; afterall, what is required in any fraternity is the "lowest common position" that holds persons together, in this case, as amateurs. No one in the fraternity should be against any other mode or technique on political grounds--othewise, you wouldn't belong (after that we all have to learn tolerance of each others' interests). I guess we (hams) lost the struggle, i.e., to stick together.

For example, how are we going to help ARRL protect the spectrum, as cw ops, when cw itself isn't a required skill but cw parts of the spectrum exists (well, for now)? Even those without an interest in cw ought to be able to see the writing on the wall; first "they" came for cw ops--just a few guys using vacuum tubes and hand keys, then guys on packet (think of a suitable stereotype), EME, and etc., divided, the spectrum is taken away from all of us.

Now, who are "they?" (you and me?)--people who enjoy pushing "us versus them" ideologies and those of us who can't see through ideologies to preceive a spectrum weakened by "division and conquest."

Yes, "No Code" at all comes up short of an inclusive fraternity (3 wpm would have been better), and we all, FMers, SSB ops, RTTY guys, EME technocrats, you name it, we all should have objected--especially if you have lost all knowledge of code or never learned it as entry into your part of the spectrum, you-- especially you--should have protected the cw ops! Who is going to protect you?

Since we didn't object as a fraternity, then yes we loose cw eventually, but those who think they have won something may be in for a surprise. Our fellow hams, including those working inside the ARRL, will eventually see that we aging cw ops are part of them; either we are all in this spectrum together, or we will all be removed from it...one stereotyped mode, after another.

I wonder who is next?

73, will, wj9b, dit dit

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

editors, FYI, this was also submitted to eham.net and contesting. com.

[W1SK]

You bring up some great points Will. What I am curious about is when/how/where can we comment on the NPRM. Does anyone know? I think that the pro-code crowd (myself included) should really hammer the comments into the commission.


73,
Joe

[WB2WIK]

Reply comment period started today.

Comments may be filed electronically via:

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html

Reference WT Docket #05-235, and a separate comment form may be filed for each RM number on the heading of that docket.

WB2WIK/6

[N8CPA]

This is direct text in an email from WZ8C, President of FISTS:

"Hi FISTS,

FCC Update:

Apparently, they are accepting comments on the FCC proposal, even though it has not yet been published. It's up to you whether you want to wait or if
you want to file now. Please think through your comments before typing them, read through the document several times to make sure you understand what they are proposing.

To file a comment, go to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ - click on "submit a filing" on the list on the right side of the page. Type in 05-235 as the "Proceeding" and complete the form.

To read comments written by others, go to
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

or

to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ #

and click on "read comments"

Type in 05-235 as the Proceeding, and hit Enter. It will bring up a list of commenters, you can click on the ones you are interested in reading.

+++++++++++++
In the midst of this FCC bombshell, there is some good news. This info will be in the KN that should be mailed next week and the web page, but I wanted
to give you a heads up and get the word out. Please help by forwarding this info to your CW friends who may be interested, and also adding the info to your clubs contest calendar or web page."

I may post this as a separate thread. By the way, the KN above refers to the FISTS newletter, The KeyNote.

[K0RGR]

Blaming ARRL for this is like blaming the Titanic disaster on the iceberg.

FCC decided that the code test was no longer a valid requirement years ago when they eliminated the 20 and 13 WPM tests. This NPRM uses the same verbiage they used then, and just continues with the same line of thought. For them to have taken any other direction would have meant that they were reversing their previous decision - not something they were likely to do.

The way to keep CW alive now is to convince hams that it is something worth doing, since they will no longer be forced to do it in order to get a license. I don't think that is too difficult. If it is, then maybe we're wrong and CW isn't really all that great, after all. All the Techs I've talked to that have an interest in upgrading still plan to learn the code, whether they need it for the test or not. I believe the impact of this decision, if any, will not be felt for a very long time.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ July 22 2005,16:48)]K0RGR says:
Quote[/b] ]
All the Techs I've talked to that have an interest in upgrading still plan to learn the code, whether they need it for the test or not.


That's funny... Very few of the techs I run across are liars. - I wonder why the ones you talk to are?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif I dunno... Maybe if you talk to more techs you'll find an honest one.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Admin: HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Webmaster: HamPoll.Com (http://www.hampoll.com)
I don't know how accurate it is to say that many of the techs plan on taking the code test, but to insinuate the NCTs are liars is a bit harsh.

I frequently talk to a group of NCTs on the way to work at least three times per week. Of that group, 100% are absolutely gung-ho about amateur radio. Two are pretty good at figuring things out and have achieved some decent skills in making antennas, troubleshooting and radio theory. One picked up a few tattered textbooks on advanced radio and antenna theory at a hamfest and is calling me asking me calculus questions because he's not sure he remembers double and triple integrals and he's doing the bloody math.

If he's lying, he's doing a very good job guessing at the answers.

Charles, shall we talk about vector calculus?

[ai4ep]

if all these ideas pass...in about 5 - 7 years most of the " riff raff " on the cb will be transmitting on amateur bands...then ordinary folks can use C B like it originally was intended.

But then YOU have already thought of that...right ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[NV7Z]

I have never used slow scan TV on my radios, nor any kind of data for that matter. I also don't use CW very often. I like to talk. I would be hard pressed to demonstrate an ability to communicate using VHF with data. Dropping the test requirement does not mean the end of CW. It only means that CW will become optional for use. The way to protect the skill and the bands for the future is to use it. For me, look for me in the phone portion. 73's:)

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (NV7Z @ July 22 2005,22:55)]It only means that CW will become optional...
CW has been optional ever since the development of voice modes.

That it was a requirement for a license has never meant that it was a requirement for use.

I know many folks who obtained their licenses under the ancien regime, but who never used CW once they had the license in hand.

This whole issue has little to do with reason and everything to do with the unsavory nature of change.

[wa4brl]

Quote[/b] ]Dropping the test requirement does not mean the end of CW. The way to protect the skill and the bands for the future is to use it.
NV7Z: Of course you're right. Passing the code test never implied a requirement to poperate CW. YOUR major worry should logically be the inpact this has on the PHONE sub-bands. An influx of tens of thousands on new phone-only operators would really bind things up. Especially whan many of THEM will be less concerned with the traditions and techniques of Amateur Radio. The CW sub-bands will remain blissfully unmolested -- at least for now.

We need a beginner license with a direct focus on training and learning. The Novice license accomplished that in the past. I don't know if that path is the best one today, but we need to put SOMETHING in place with that kind of focus that will be as much fun as the Novice was. The Technician ticket certainly hasn't been it.

[w7hn]

I am w7hn, a 62 year old ham, retired to Florida from the Seattle area. #My ham experience began in the early 70s, before all of the changes began, such as no-code techs, etc.

My point of writing this and sending it out to as many Extra Class AROs is to save what prestige there is left in our licensing structure established long before I became a ham. #I believe the onslaught of new people who are of the “instant gratification”, “take a pill for everything” culture has been eroding our licensing structure to enable entry and advancement without putting out the effort. #In addition, eliminating the rewards of what we (those that did put out the effort) strived so hard to achieve.

This is what I am asking you to do: #Just add CW20 (in my case) to your call. #When ever you use your call, whether it be spoken or written, add your CWXX qualification. # CW5, CW13 and CW20. #Has nothing (now) to do with the license you hold. #It has everything to do with the CW expertise which was certified as to have been demonstrated. #Most hams are embarrassed to brag about their achievements. #The licensing structure was set up to acknowledge this without waiving your hand or shouting out loud how proud you were of your achievements, which you worked very hard for.

I think it’s time we (old farts) grab what energy, skill, perseverance we have left and make a stand. #We’ve allowed these changes to take place, when, in my opinion, we should have never let the ARRL talk (or bully) us into it. #

I don’t know why we (collectively) have allowed these change to happen. #My first conclusion is that us older folks don’t want to fight anymore. #My second conclusion is we are too easily convinced that our historical values are no longer desired by those coming into ham radio. #The latter may be true. #But I’ve seen our national education system succumbing in attempts to “dumb down”, and now the Amateur Radio system has followed suit.

Instead of insisting on improvement in basic skills, showing competence by achieving the several levels of licensing, we dumb down the (previously) necessary work and capabilities that have long been highly effective in elevating the intellectual structure in
Amateur Radio Operators.

I believe this (no-code hysteria) started with someone in New Zealand, followed by the UK, Canada, and now the ARRL. #I don’t know for sure, so don’t quote me on that. #What ever the origin, it started a (seemingly) continuous degradation of Amateur Radio as I have known it for the past 30+ years. #This is not about the argument of whether CW is right or wrong, bad or good, antiquated or usable. #It is about hard work, perseverance, achievement, and the recognition due.

[wa9cwx]

dit dit

[KI4GKW]

I know it's been said time and time again but i'll say it again.

Code doesn't make sence as a test. It's like asking people to do Packet or other digital modes as test. Maybe we should test people on SSB or FM practices? I'm opposed to it as a test.

Will I learn code? Yes. I want to use that DX-70 thats sitting in the shack once I get it fixed for something other than 6m. If things go as I have them planned I'll be on HF before Febuary.

Well that's just what I think and hat's what I'm going to stand by.

Paul

[n0ov]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 21 2005,15:04)]The way to keep CW alive now is to convince hams that it is something worth doing, since they will no longer be forced to do it in order to get a license. I don't think that is too difficult. If it is, then maybe we're wrong and CW isn't really all that great, after all. #All the Techs I've talked to that have an interest in upgrading still plan to learn the code, whether they need it for the test or not. I believe the impact of this decision, if any, will not be felt for a #very long time.
Thank you. Finally someone who hits the nail on the head.

A test will NEVER keep CW alive, it will take people using the mode to make contacts.

Everyone I have ever met had no intention of using CW to make any contacts UNTIL they met someone having fun using CW.

Face it folks, some times we're our own worst enemy

[w7hn]

NEW POST - INCLUDES FCC COMMENTS URL in regard to CW and our licensing structure (below)

I am w7hn, a 62 year old ham, retired to Florida from the Seattle area. #My ham experience began in the early 70s, before all of the changes began, such as no-code techs, etc.

My point of writing this and sending it out to as many Extra Class AROs is to save what prestige there is left in our licensing structure established long before I became a ham. #I believe the onslaught of new people who are of the “instant gratification”, “take a pill for everything” culture has been eroding our licensing structure to enable entry and advancement without putting out the effort. #In addition, eliminating the rewards of what we (those that did put out the effort) strived so hard to achieve.

This is what I am asking you to do: #Just add CW20 (in my case) to your call. #When ever you use your call, whether it be spoken or written, add your CWXX qualification. # CW5, CW13 and CW20. #Has nothing (now) to do with the license you hold. #It has everything to do with the CW expertise which was certified as to have been demonstrated. #Most hams are embarrassed to brag about their achievements. #The licensing structure was set up to acknowledge this without waiving your hand or shouting out loud how proud you were of your achievements, which you worked very hard for.

I think it’s time we (old farts) grab what energy, skill, perseverance we have left and make a stand. #We’ve allowed these changes to take place, when, in my opinion, we should have never let the ARRL talk (or bully) us into it. #

I don’t know why we (collectively) have allowed these change to happen. #My first conclusion is that us older folks don’t want to fight anymore. #My second conclusion is we are too easily convinced that our historical values are no longer desired by those coming into ham radio. #The latter may be true. #But I’ve seen our national education system succumbing in attempts to “dumb down”, and now the Amateur Radio system has followed suit.

Instead of insisting on improvement in basic skills, showing competence by achieving the several levels of licensing, we dumb down the (previously) necessary work and capabilities that have long been highly effective in elevating the intellectual structure in
Amateur Radio Operators.

I believe this (no-code hysteria) started with someone in New Zealand, followed by the UK, Canada, and now the ARRL. #I don’t know for sure, so don’t quote me on that. #What ever the origin, it started a (seemingly) continuous degradation of Amateur Radio as I have known it for the past 30+ years. #This is not about the argument of whether CW is right or wrong, bad or good, antiquated or usable. #It is about hard work, perseverance, achievement, and the recognition due.

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/ #- Fill out cover sheet --- use 05-235

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi - Attach file/type comments and then Send completed comment

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (wj9b @ July 22 2005,05:47)]Even those without an interest in cw ought to be able to see the writing on the wall; first "they" came for cw ops--just a few guys using vacuum tubes and hand keys, then guys on packet (think of a suitable stereotype), EME, and etc., divided, the spectrum is taken away from all of us.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but the HF spectrum isn't about to be taken away from amateur radio or sold to the highest bidder, that's a myth. If anything, we will eventually be deregulated by the FCC and the ARRL or other club left to self-administrate the hobby.

Maybe you're saying once certain modes within AR fall out of fashion, they will all fall ("the domino theory"). I don't see evidence of that happening either. If anything, fashion is cyclical. For example, AM and vacuum tubes are coming back into fashion now after 50 years.

As far as keeping minimal CW as a test requirement, I am for that, simply because amateur radio in the 21st century is more about tradition than exploration/discovery.

BTW - Whoever suggested a 3wpm CW requirement is a genius. Even 1wpm. It would serve to introduce thousands of people to CW, after which they could abandon it, or pursue it further.

[kf4lne]

Will this thing ever die?

[ab2m]

I never had to show proficiency in Pactor to get my license, but I use it.

I never had to show proficiency in SSB phone to get my license, but I use it.

I never had to show proficieny in EME to get my license, but one day I want to try it.

I had to show 20WPM CW proficiency to get my Extra, but I don't use it.

Why? Because I am not so terribly interested in CW to maintain 20WPM proficiency, but the few times I tried to make contacts at 5wpm I was ignored.

I could, in theory, do it all with my TNC.. But then I'd get slammed for not using a key(er).

If you want CW to be a part of the licensing requirements, then I suggest it should be part of the written test. Questions like "which of the following modes requires the least power and bandwidth" might be a good start.

If you want CW operators, then I suggest you elmer your little keys off.. The PSK crowd is. So is the packet crowd. And let's not bring up the IRLP/Echolink crowd, since "that's not radio" as I have heard it put. Get people to ENJOY the mode, and yes, that might mean that you have to make sub-lightspeed QSOs from time to time. As I said, the operating practices of my fellow hams contributed to my lack of interest in the mode. I could do 5wpm right now if it were an emergency, but since it's not, I've been experimenting in the modes I've been encouraged to try and welcomed into.


73, Joe AB2M

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (w1gfh @ Oct. 11 2005,12:26)][quote=wj9b,July 22 2005,05:47]
BTW - Whoever suggested a 3wpm CW requirement is a genius. #Even 1wpm. #It would serve to introduce thousands of people to CW, after which they could abandon it, or pursue it further.
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this statement. 5 WPM or slower is NOT in any way the same as 20 WPM or faster. In one case, you are listening to the different sounds that make up the letters, and painfully, with great effort, writing out each letter, one by one, until a word hopefully forms on the paper in front of you.

Morse doesn't really begin to work like it should until somewhere between 10-15 wpm. I firmly believe that this is the reason so many people in the past have complained about a "hump" they couldn't get over when studying for the old General requirment of 13 wpm. Because at that speed, the sounds are just starting to form words, instead of a loosly associated string of letters, and before that the elements that formed each letter!

Ask some of the "high-speed" boys that can copy upwards of 40 wpm, if they are listening to letters, or if certain strings of sounds form words to them. I'm sure you already know what the answer will be !

CW really can cut through where many other modes can't. Just set your narrow filter to "on" and listen to the qrm disappear !

73, Jim

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (w7hn @ Oct. 11 2005,09:37)]I am w7hn, a 62 year old ham, retired to Florida from the Seattle area. #My ham experience began in the early 70s, before all of the changes began, such as no-code techs, etc.

My point of writing this and sending it out to as many Extra Class AROs is to save what prestige there is left in our licensing structure established long before I became a ham. #I believe the onslaught of new people who are of the “instant gratification”, “take a pill for everything” culture has been eroding our licensing structure to enable entry and advancement without putting out the effort. #In addition, eliminating the rewards of what we (those that did put out the effort) strived so hard to achieve.

This is what I am asking you to do: #Just add CW20 (in my case) to your call. #When ever you use your call, whether it be spoken or written, add your CWXX qualification. # CW5, CW13 and CW20. #Has nothing (now) to do with the license you hold. #It has everything to do with the CW expertise which was certified as to have been demonstrated. #Most hams are embarrassed to brag about their achievements. #The licensing structure was set up to acknowledge this without waiving your hand or shouting out loud how proud you were of your achievements, which you worked very hard for.

I think it’s time we (old farts) grab what energy, skill, perseverance we have left and make a stand. #We’ve allowed these changes to take place, when, in my opinion, we should have never let the ARRL talk (or bully) us into it. #

I don’t know why we (collectively) have allowed these change to happen. #My first conclusion is that us older folks don’t want to fight anymore. #My second conclusion is we are too easily convinced that our historical values are no longer desired by those coming into ham radio. #The latter may be true. #But I’ve seen our national education system succumbing in attempts to “dumb down”, and now the Amateur Radio system has followed suit.

Instead of insisting on improvement in basic skills, showing competence by achieving the several levels of licensing, we dumb down the (previously) necessary work and capabilities that have long been highly effective in elevating the intellectual structure in
Amateur Radio Operators.

I believe this (no-code hysteria) started with someone in New Zealand, followed by the UK, Canada, and now the ARRL. #I don’t know for sure, so don’t quote me on that. #What ever the origin, it started a (seemingly) continuous degradation of Amateur Radio as I have known it for the past 30+ years. #This is not about the argument of whether CW is right or wrong, bad or good, antiquated or usable. #It is about hard work, perseverance, achievement, and the recognition due.
Wait a cotton picking minute. It wasn't the ARRL that started the NO CODE thing. It was the FCC! Get it right friend.

Ken

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 22 2005,17:04)]Blaming ARRL for this is like blaming the Titanic disaster on the iceberg.
Some things are worth repeating.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KI4GKW @ Oct. 11 2005,08:04)]I know it's been said time and time again but i'll say it again.

Code doesn't make sence as a test. It's like asking people to do Packet or other digital modes as test. Maybe we should test people on SSB or FM practices? I'm opposed to it as a test.

Will I learn code? Yes. I want to use that DX-70 thats sitting in the shack once I get it fixed for something other than 6m. If things go as I have them planned I'll be on HF before Febuary.

Well that's just what I think and hat's what I'm going to stand by.

Paul
Call: KI4GKW Class: Technician

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (kf4lne @ Oct. 11 2005,09:37)]Will this thing ever die?
Call: KF4LNE Class: Technician

[w1gfh]

[QUOTE=Quote ]Will this thing ever die?

http://www.suck.com/daily/97/08/08/e.gif

Probably not.

[w8amd]

Quote[/b] (w1gfh @ Oct. 12 2005,01:30)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 11 2005,15:59)]Quote[/b] ]Will this thing ever die?

Probably not.
http://www.suck.com/daily/97/08/08/e.gif
Not for a few decades.

[G8ADD]

This topic crops up again and again, and what do these recurrances have in common? (besides the arguments going word for word the same each time) Opinions. Just opinions. No facts.

There are a good number of countries around the world that have dropped the code requirements. How has that changed them? Are the new amateurs from these countries more like CBers than their predecessors of a few years ago? Are you hearing less CW from these countries?

Those who predict doom following inescapably from the demise of CW as a license requirement have a ready source of evidence. They have only to listen out for signals from countries such as the UK, and if they find that the quality of the new intakes has diminished then they can back up their opinions with some facts.

My opinion for what its worth is that CW will only survive if it deserves to survive. If it is really so good at getting through where other modes fail then the forthcoming sunspot minimum will be its chance to convince the new intakes around the world that it is worth the effort of mastering.

If your FCC drops the code test, it will be time to stop bewailing the loss of a rite of passage and start putting some effort into a hard sell to ensure the continuance of the mode. It doesn't matter if you are an OF or a young Turk on CW, if you believe in the mode then get out there and make some converts!

73

Brian G8ADD

[KC0NBW]

once again, only about 25 countries have dropped the code requirement. that is nowhere near "the rest of the world" or even "most of the world."

it is really time for the whiners to wake up and admit that the line " i just can't learn that darned morris code" is really pretty lame excuse for not being willing to learn more to get more privileges.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KC0NBW @ Oct. 12 2005,08:02)]once again, only about 25 countries have dropped the code requirement. that is nowhere near "the rest of the world" or even "most of the world."

it is really time for the whiners to wake up and admit that the line " i just can't learn that darned morris code" is really pretty lame excuse for not being willing to learn more to get more privileges.
Good point, and with Japan retaining the test, that means that if the USA keeps it, 90+% of the world's amateurs retain the test. It makes what the other countries have done irrelevent.

The fact is that the NCI arguments are also irrelevent. Katrina proved that there is still a need for trained CW operators, that Morse is a mode that gets through when no other mode does, removal of the test will do nothing to attract youth and technically inclined, Morse still is rellevent, use of morse code regularly does make a person a better operator, etc.

The FCC NPRM fails to take notice of what we have learned since 98-143, mainly because many things have happened since the NPRM was written. It will be interesting to see how they handle this. Ignore it? Perhaps.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (w1gfh @ Oct. 11 2005,22:30)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 11 2005,15:59)]Quote[/b] ]Will this thing ever die?

Probably not.
http://www.suck.com/daily/97/08/08/e.gif
Interesting that the quote above did not from from me. Not that I disagree, but in the interest of accuracy...

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Oct. 12 2005,07:37)]This topic crops up again and again, and what do these recurrances have in common? (besides the arguments going word for word the same each time) Opinions. Just opinions. No facts.

There are a good number of countries around the world that have dropped the code requirements. How has that changed them? Are the new amateurs from these countries more like CBers than their predecessors of a few years ago? Are you hearing less CW from these countries?

Those who predict doom following inescapably from the demise of CW as a license requirement have a ready source of evidence. They have only to listen out for signals from countries such as the UK, and if they find that the quality of the new intakes has diminished then they can back up their opinions with some facts.
I agree all this "demise of CW" doom and gloom is entirely opinion-based and not factual. However I am not sure you can use other countries results to predict what will or will not happen in the USA. *For example: the number of homicides per 100,000 population is only 1.6 in the EU, compared to 5.6 for the USA. A great many cultural and social factors make the USA unique from Japanese or British society.

My unscientific non-fact-based opinion is that CW usage by US hams has declined in the last decade or so. I attribute this not to lowered testing standards, but to a generalized trend in operating "fashion" and an aging ham population. On the plus side, QRP (largely a CW-based pursuit) has attained a steadily-growing cult status. CW may never again represent such a significant percentage of ham operation as it did, say, in the 1950's, but IMO it won't completly die out either.




*Source:# Barclay, Gordon & Cynthia Tavares, "International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001," Home Office Bulletin 12/03 (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, October 24, 2003), p. 3.

[KC0NBW]

Quote[/b] (w1gfh @ Oct. 12 2005,08:32)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Oct. 12 2005,07:37)]This topic crops up again and again, and what do these recurrances have in common? (besides the arguments going word for word the same each time) Opinions. Just opinions. No facts.

There are a good number of countries around the world that have dropped the code requirements. How has that changed them? Are the new amateurs from these countries more like CBers than their predecessors of a few years ago? Are you hearing less CW from these countries?

Those who predict doom following inescapably from the demise of CW as a license requirement have a ready source of evidence. They have only to listen out for signals from countries such as the UK, and if they find that the quality of the new intakes has diminished then they can back up their opinions with some facts.
I agree all this "demise of CW" doom and gloom is entirely opinion-based and not factual. However I am not sure you can use other countries results to predict what will or will not happen in the USA. *For example: the number of homicides per 100,000 population is only 1.6 in the EU, compared to 5.6 for the USA. A great many cultural and social factors make the USA unique from Japanese or British society.

My unscientific non-fact-based opinion is that CW usage by US hams has declined in the last decade or so. I attribute this not to lowered testing standards, but to a generalized trend in operating "fashion" and an aging ham population. On the plus side, QRP (largely a CW-based pursuit) has attained a steadily-growing cult status. CW may never again represent such a significant percentage of ham operation as it did, say, in the 1950's, but IMO it won't completly die out either.




*Source:# Barclay, Gordon & Cynthia Tavares, "International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001," Home Office Bulletin 12/03 (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, October 24, 2003), p. 3.
how come that the english police are now carrying guns and the latest thing is to ban all the pointy kitchen knives because of tremendous number of crimes being committed with them in england ?

[k4kro]

All this CW talk is useless with the new wi-fi technologies emerging. Five years from now there will be things we can't imagine today. Just look back at the past five years and it becomes clear. HF radio will become less important for commercial services and only be useful to radio tech types. Look at the abandonment by shortwave broadcasters. They know that the internet is a better, cheaper way to distribute their programming. We need to be more concerned with preserving and expanding our microwave allocations before the ARRL is asked to submit a bid for our continued use of this spectrum.

CW will always be with us and will be used by those who
freely choose to do so. There shouldn't be any forced testing for any mode. Thousands of hams are using PSK-31 and there isn't a test for that. IMHO there should only be one license class with a test for the legal and safety aspects of amateur radio. If hams want know how radios work or how to construct a dipole let them read about it or look it up on the net. Your licensed tenure would determine what type of call sign you get. 2X3 for 5 years or less, 1X3 for 5 - 10 years, 2X2 for 10 - 15 years and 2X1 and 1X2 for 15+ years. This might help to put a stop to unwarranted elitism amongst hams.

Don't worry about this proposal leading to a CB-type of deterioration of our hobby. After all, what is stopping it from happening now? Anyone can go out and buy the equipment to bootleg any band they want. Our goal should be making amateur radio more attractive to those who are serious about learning it and using it. This is the over all way to preserve CW and amateur radio as a whole.


Actual thought and little emotionalism were used to create this post http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 12 2005,10:28)]All this CW talk is useless with the new wi-fi technologies emerging. Five years from now there will be things we can't imagine today. Just look back at the past five years and it becomes clear. HF radio will become less important for commercial services and only be useful to radio tech types. Look at the abandonment by shortwave broadcasters. They know that the internet is a better, cheaper way to distribute their programming. We need to be more concerned with preserving and expanding our microwave allocations before the ARRL is asked to submit a bid for our continued use of this spectrum.

CW will always be with us and will be used by those who
freely choose to do so. There shouldn't be any forced testing for any mode. Thousands of hams are using PSK-31 and there isn't a test for that. IMHO there should only be one license class with a test for the legal and safety aspects of amateur radio. If hams want know how radios work or how to construct a dipole let them read about it or look it up on the net. Your licensed tenure would determine what type of call sign you get. 2X3 for 5 years or less, 1X3 for 5 - 10 years, 2X2 for 10 - 15 years and 2X1 and 1X2 for 15+ years. This might help to put a stop to unwarranted elitism amongst hams.

Don't worry about this proposal leading to a CB-type of deterioration of our hobby. After all, what is stopping it from happening now? Anyone can go out and buy the equipment to bootleg any band they want. Our goal should be making amateur radio more attractive to those who are serious about learning it and using it. This is the over all way to preserve CW and amateur radio as a whole.


Actual thought and little emotionalism were used to create this post http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Call: N4UJF Class: Technician

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 12 2005,13:36)]Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 12 2005,10:28)]All this CW talk is useless with the new wi-fi technologies emerging. Five years from now there will be things we can't imagine today. Just look back at the past five years and it becomes clear. HF radio will become less important for commercial services and only be useful to radio tech types. Look at the abandonment by shortwave broadcasters. They know that the internet is a better, cheaper way to distribute their programming. We need to be more concerned with preserving and expanding our microwave allocations before the ARRL is asked to submit a bid for our continued use of this spectrum.

CW will always be with us and will be used by those who
freely choose to do so. There shouldn't be any forced testing for any mode. Thousands of hams are using PSK-31 and there isn't a test for that. IMHO there should only be one license class with a test for the legal and safety aspects of amateur radio. If hams want know how radios work or how to construct a dipole let them read about it or look it up on the net. Your licensed tenure would determine what type of call sign you get. 2X3 for 5 years or less, 1X3 for 5 - 10 years, 2X2 for 10 - 15 years and 2X1 and 1X2 for 15+ years. This might help to put a stop to unwarranted elitism amongst hams.

Don't worry about this proposal leading to a CB-type of deterioration of our hobby. After all, what is stopping it from happening now? Anyone can go out and buy the equipment to bootleg any band they want. Our goal should be making amateur radio more attractive to those who are serious about learning it and using it. This is the over all way to preserve CW and amateur radio as a whole.


Actual thought and little emotionalism were used to create this post http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Call: N4UJF Class: Technician
I see we're still using this tactic to dismiss opinions that don't agree with yours.

Doesn't invalidate the opinon, Charlie, despite what you may think.

[k4kro]

Tech + and proud of it!

[N8CPA]

Military intelligence is not the oxymoron it's purported to be. According to a letter in November QST, Navy MARS lifted its ban on CW to pass Katrina traffic. And unlike the NPRM, MARS actually banned the use the mode about 10 years ago. Its last use on MARS frequencies was during Armed Forces Day of '96.

That MARS would even temporarily rescind the ban indicates the value of the mode. MARS is not about fun, it is about passing traffic.

As far as valid opinions about the requirement, crediting the opinion of someone who does not know code is like crediting the opinion of an illiterate criticizing a dictionary. That doesn't make sense!

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Oct. 12 2005,11:11)]I see we're still using this tactic to dismiss opinions that don't agree with yours.

Doesn't invalidate the opinon, Charlie, despite what you may think.
Pointing out the sterotype arguments of our beloved Technician Class Amateurs is the simple purpose. Consider it a footnote. The validity of the opinion is in the mind of the reader.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 12 2005,21:03)]The validity of the opinion is in the mind of the reader.
Actually, the validity of the opinion, is the opinion of the reader.

An opinion is simply that; an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one.

Nobody says you have to agree with it.

I think you've made it clear that you don't.

I don't see the point in badgering it to death, other than to pee in someone's pool.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Oct. 12 2005,18:56)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 12 2005,21:03)]The validity of the opinion is in the mind of the reader.
Actually, the validity of the opinion, is the opinion of the reader.

An opinion is simply that; an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one.

Nobody says you have to agree with it.

I think you've made it clear that you don't.

I don't see the point in badgering it to death, other than to pee in someone's pool.
What validates an opinion? Nothing. Facts rule. The trick is finding proof.

Was it Socrates who said that without proof, the best you could hope to have is a true opinion?

There are still people about who hold the opinion that the Earth is flat. Others hold the opinion that the moon landings were a fraud. Millions of people hold the opinion that the USA is evil. Are tyhese "valid" opinions? The holders think so.

The whole trouble with this debate is that it largely consists of people making sweeping but unsubstantiated statements. Doomsayers and denigrators are having a field day and obscuring any verifiable facts that might have come to light. The one constant that I think I can see is that those who are passionate supporters of CW the mode are anxious that dropping CW the test will lead to the decline and eventual extinction of the mode that they love. My opinion after examining the facts is that the provable advantages of CW as a mode will ensure its survival.

73

Brian G8ADD (ex "B" license)

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Oct. 12 2005,07:37)]My opinion for what its worth is that CW will only survive if it deserves to survive. If it is really so good at getting through where other modes fail then the forthcoming sunspot minimum will be its chance to convince the new intakes around the world that it is worth the effort of mastering.
hey! #HEy! #HEEYYY!!!!!

Absolutely NO talking SENSE in regards to this topic!
Sheesh.... #

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] ] Doomsayers and denigrators are having a field day

On another, totally unrelated note, does "having a field day" having anything to do with AR field day?

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Oct. 13 2005,02:27)]Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Oct. 12 2005,18:56)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 12 2005,21:03)]The validity of the opinion is in the mind of the reader.
Actually, the validity of the opinion, is the opinion of the reader.

An opinion is simply that; an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one.

Nobody says you have to agree with it.

I think you've made it clear that you don't.

I don't see the point in badgering it to death, other than to pee in someone's pool.
What validates an opinion? Nothing. Facts rule. The trick is finding proof.

Was it Socrates who said that without proof, the best you could hope to have is a true opinion?

There are still people about who hold the opinion that the Earth is flat. Others hold the opinion that the moon landings were a fraud. Millions of people hold the opinion that the USA is evil. Are tyhese "valid" opinions? The holders think so.

The whole trouble with this debate is that it largely consists of people making sweeping but unsubstantiated statements. Doomsayers and denigrators are having a field day and obscuring any verifiable facts that might have come to light. The one constant that I think I can see is that those who are passionate supporters of CW the mode are anxious that dropping CW the test will lead to the decline and eventual extinction of the mode that they love. My opinion after examining the facts is that the provable advantages of CW as a mode will ensure its survival.

73

Brian G8ADD (ex "B" license)
Be careful, you may scare jja off the end of his flat earth...

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 13 2005,12:41)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Oct. 13 2005,02:27)]Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Oct. 12 2005,18:56)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 12 2005,21:03)]The validity of the opinion is in the mind of the reader.
Actually, the validity of the opinion, is the opinion of the reader.

An opinion is simply that; an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one.

Nobody says you have to agree with it.

I think you've made it clear that you don't.

I don't see the point in badgering it to death, other than to pee in someone's pool.
What validates an opinion? Nothing. Facts rule. The trick is finding proof.

Was it Socrates who said that without proof, the best you could hope to have is a true opinion?

There are still people about who hold the opinion that the Earth is flat. Others hold the opinion that the moon landings were a fraud. Millions of people hold the opinion that the USA is evil. Are tyhese "valid" opinions? The holders think so.

The whole trouble with this debate is that it largely consists of people making sweeping but unsubstantiated statements. Doomsayers and denigrators are having a field day and obscuring any verifiable facts that might have come to light. The one constant that I think I can see is that those who are passionate supporters of CW the mode are anxious that dropping CW the test will lead to the decline and eventual extinction of the mode that they love. My opinion after examining the facts is that the provable advantages of CW as a mode will ensure its survival.

73

Brian G8ADD (ex "B" license)
Be careful, you may scare jja off the end of his flat earth...
You assume I care if code goes or stays.

I don't.

[k4kro]

One of the major problems of this debate is the "old-timers" are simply afraid of the future. I know I am. All this new technology coming so fast it is kind of bewildering. We have to face the fact that the rest of the communications world has passed us by, gone over the next ridge and crossed the state line. And guess what #.... #it's being done license-free! I am concerned that amateur radio will soon be dismissed as out-dated and useless by those who don't know or care. If we don't stay current with the state of the art and do something to attract new people who really want to be a part amateur radio then we will soon be banished to the cornfield along with the code/no code argument. It already happened to one of our bands. Someone decided that licenses, rules and enforcement simply weren't needed. As soon as the disaster-related hoopla dies down we can go back to being just a bunch of kooky, old white guys who like to play radio. And no - the general public doesn't care. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]The NCT: One of the major problems of this debate is the "old-timers" are simply afraid of the future.
LOL!! Let's see... My favorite mode is CW, and I have been a computer programmer since 1978. I wrote the first drivers for the touch screens that many PCs/computers use in the early to mid 80's. I did the same for PC computer controlled cash drawers in the mid 80's. I worked on standards bodies to develop digital voice specifications for a major industry in the USA, and I am currently an officer in the largest communications company of its kind in the USA. All the technology people in 3 states work for me. The future looks pretty good as far as I am concerned. Looks like you were kinda wrong, doesn't it?

Quote[/b] ] The NCT: If we don't stay current with the state of the art and do something to attract new people who really want to be a part amateur radio then we will soon be banished to the cornfield along with the code/no code argument. Ok, perhaps you'd like to give me a couple of things ( besides your fatuous CW conclusions) that are state of the art we should be doing to attract new people. Please be specific. Also, how does no code access to HF relate to hi-tech and/or new technology to attract potential amateurs? Two simple questions.

[k4kro]

Quote[/b] ][My favorite mode is CW, and I have been a computer programmer since 1978. #I wrote the first drivers for the touch screens that many PCs/computers use in the early to mid 80's. #I did the same for PC computer controlled cash drawers in the mid 80's. I worked on standards bodies to develop digital voice specifications for a major industry in the USA, and I am currently an officer in the largest communications company of its kind in the USA. # All the technology people in 3 states work for me. The future looks pretty good as far as I am concerned.

WOW! You are certainly full of yourself. Now I understand why you look down on the rest us with such disdain.


Quote[/b] ]Ok, perhaps you'd like to give me a couple of things ( besides your fatuous CW conclusions) that are state of the art we should be doing to attract new people. #Please be specific.

Fatuous, in your eyes I'm sure. The only CW conclusion I made was that if nobody is here to use it then it will die off along with the rest of the hobby. CW testing is damning evidence that we are mired in the past and isn't doing anything to attract new people. We can no longer ignore the new modes that give access to the internet. And we need to eliminate forced testing for "sacred cow" modes.


Quote[/b] ]Also, how does no code access to HF relate to hi-tech and/or new technology to attract potential amateurs?

It doesn't. Who said it did? I can only hope that some of the new recruits will learn CW and use it of their own free will. I know this is a big issue for you. Imagine having to co-exist with those lowly no-code types. Well, there goes the neighborhood!

I wish you had taken the time to read my previous posts on this topic instead of quickly dismissing them as anti-CW comments from some lowly Tech+. But that isn't your style, right?

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 13 2005,11:31)]I am concerned that amateur radio will soon be dismissed as out-dated and useless by those who don't know or care. If we don't stay current with the state of the art and do something to attract new people who really want to be a part amateur radio then we will soon be banished to the cornfield along with the code/no code argument. It already happened to one of our bands. Someone decided that licenses, rules and enforcement simply weren't needed. As soon as the disaster-related hoopla dies down we can go back to being just a bunch of kooky, old white guys who like to play radio. And no - the general public doesn't care. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I hear what you're saying but I have a different outlook. Amateur radio can thrive as a "retro" hobby quite nicely. People ride horses and drive coaches, sailing has a huge following, fencing is an Olympic sport - I could go on but I'm sure you get the point. More and more people are using AM purely for the delight of using a heritage mode - and before anybody jumps in on that one, I do not regard CW as a heritage mode, ancient though it is!

When it comes to more advanced technologies people tend to dip into the ones that fit in with their mindset and ignore the others. I find packet a bore and PSK mildly interesting but am prepared to exercise my aging grey matter to master digital SSTV. As long as there are people prepared to devise new modes and devices then there will be something to enthuse those who MUST ride the wave front. For the rest of us, sadly the menu of possibilities is far longer than the amount of time available to take advantage of them in.

I suspect that amateur radio has got more survival capability than many of us are prepared to give it credit for.

73

Brian G8ADD

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 13 2005,11:31)]If we don't stay current with the state of the art and do something to attract new people who really want to be a part amateur radio then we will soon be banished to the cornfield along with the code/no code argument. It already happened to one of our bands.
I hear this argument all the time, but I really do think it's misinformed. What if other heritage-mode pastimes fretted and worried this way?

....Sailing enthusiasts.... ("If we don't do something to attract the power-boat crowd, we're doomed! They'll take away our right to use the waterways!")

....Horseback riders.... ("We need to get our numbers back up to what they were 100 years ago! Let's try and communicate the value of horsemanship to young automobile drivers!")

....Fencers.... ("We must convince the general public that we're not behind the times, or they'll ban our sport!")

I agree with G8ADD, there is no need to do a frantic "extreme makeover" of ham radio, it will survive on its own merits. Don't ignore the new technologies, but don't let them take precedence either. ("Amateur Radio: Just Like The Internet, Only You Need To Take A Test To Use It") Besides, no matter how much IT and voIP you try to cover it up with -- it's still radio.

[k4kro]

G8ADD and W1GFH,

You are absolutely right, and I agree with you. The only problem is that when outsiders at the FCC decide that we are taking up too much valuable space with our hobby then we run the risk of losing spectrum or reasonable regulation. As you know, there is a precedent.
I am not against any mode, just the forced testing. We are all in this voluntarily. I am against the license class elitism and band segment segregation that we currently have.

As for other hobbies like sailing, fishing and fencing, you don't need a license from a federal agency to participate. What if we had different classes of hobby fishermen who had segregated rights to certain bodies of water and insisted that everyone had to demonstrate their ability to tie flies in order to get permission to fish? Not exactly my idea of fun.

Thanks for your well-reasoned input here.

[K7FE]

I like flying as a hobby. #I think the government should eliminate testing so that I can fly multiengine jets. #It's not fair that others can fly them just because they took a test. #I really want it.............I do, I do! #The hobby would grow faster and more planes would be sold it they dropped the testing requirement. #Pilots would have more clout because of the increased number of pilots. #It does not mean you don't know how to fly just because you did not take a test.

I already have my wings, they came in a Corn Flakes box.

[k4kro]

Quote[/b] ]K7FE Posted on Oct. 14 2005,13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like flying as a hobby. #I think the government should eliminate testing so that I can fly multiengine jets. #It's not fair that others can fly them just because they took a test. #I really want it.............I do, I do! #The hobby would grow faster and more planes would be sold it they dropped the testing requirement. #Pilots would have more clout because of the increased number of pilots. #It does not mean you don't know how to fly just because you did not take a test.

I already have my wings, they came in a Corn Flakes box.


This isn't a valid argument. Pilot testing is a matter of public safety. CW testing is a matter of #__.
You think of something to fill in the blank because I couldn't think of anything fair and reasonable.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]The NCT: WOW! You are certainly full of yourself. Now I understand why you look down on the rest us with such disdain.

Smoke screen. Your premise about "old-timers" being afraid of the future didn't hold water. But nice try.

Quote[/b] ]The NCT: CW testing is damning evidence that we are mired in the past and isn't doing anything to attract new people. We can no longer ignore the new modes that give access to the internet. And we need to eliminate forced testing for "sacred cow" modes.

Ok, let me rephrase the question. The only thing CW testing does is keep people off of HF who don't pass the test. What new modes that give amateurs access to the internet are you proposing for HF? What "state of the art" thing/mode is the CW test preventing people from using?

Quote[/b] ]The NCT: Imagine having to co-exist with those lowly no-code types. Well, there goes the neighborhood!

I wish you had taken the time to read my previous posts on this topic instead of quickly dismissing them as anti-CW comments from some lowly Tech+. But that isn't your style, right?

ROFL!

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,09:59)]G8ADD and W1GFH,

You are absolutely right, and I agree with you. The only problem is that when outsiders at the FCC decide that we are taking up too much valuable space with our hobby then we run the risk of losing spectrum or reasonable regulation.

As you know, there is a precedent.
I am not against any mode, just the forced testing. We are all in this voluntarily. I am against the license class elitism and band segment segregation that we currently have.

As for other hobbies like sailing, fishing and fencing, you don't need a license from a federal agency to participate. What if we had different classes of hobby fishermen who had segregated rights to certain bodies of water and insisted that everyone had to demonstrate their ability to tie flies in order to get permission to fish? Not exactly my idea of fun.

Thanks for your well-reasoned input here.
As for our losing spectrum, granted UHF and above is possibly vulnerable, but I don't think anyone is after 160 thru 2 meters. And there are International agreements to contend with. Someone can't just unilaterally decide that 20 meters is now for the exclusive use of Microsoft or some other high bidder.

Re: segregation by license classes. That all came about with incentive licensing in the early 60's(?). I believe the intent was to encourage development of skilled operators with the carrot and stick of more privileges.

[K7FE]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,11:01)]Quote[/b] ]K7FE Posted on Oct. 14 2005,13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like flying as a hobby. #I think the government should eliminate testing so that I can fly multiengine jets. #It's not fair that others can fly them just because they took a test. #I really want it.............I do, I do! #The hobby would grow faster and more planes would be sold it they dropped the testing requirement. #Pilots would have more clout because of the increased number of pilots. #It does not mean you don't know how to fly just because you did not take a test.

I already have my wings, they came in a Corn Flakes box.


This isn't a valid argument. Pilot testing is a matter of public safety. CW testing is a matter of #__.
You think of something to fill in the blank because I couldn't think of anything fair and reasonable.
My tongue in cheek remarks were really aimed at "complete deregulation of amateur radio hopefuls". #First you dumb down the test, then you whack parts of it off, and then you eliminate it completely. #Thus would be born the no test, no license required, radio ham. #I do feel that if you are licensed to use it it only makes sense to be tested on it. #Test candidates must answer questions on ATV, satellite, HF or modes that they may never want to use so why be tested on them? #Well the answer is, you might want to use them someday and since you are licensed for those privileges, one should know something about them.

I don't think what you or I say will effect the outcome of Morse Code with the FCC, they have their mind made up and are only going thru the formalities required to drop it.

73,
Terry, K7FE

[k4kro]

Quote[/b] ]AG4YO Posted on Oct. 14 2005,15:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let me rephrase the question. #The only thing CW testing does is keep people off of HF who don't pass the test. What new modes that give amateurs access to the internet are you proposing for HF? #What "state of the art" thing/mode is the CW test preventing people from using?

The answers are "none" and "none". Why do you insist on reading something into this that isn't there? My comments have nothing to do with HF other than to remove restrictions on who can use it. Once again I must implore you to read my posts without your prejudice. Why can't you admit that you just don't like "no-coders and Tech+'s on YOUR HF bands?

OBTW: It isn't nice of you to ammend quotes just to get in a thinly-veiled insult.

[af2cw]

Quote[/b] ]I am not against any mode, just the forced testing. We are all in this voluntarily. I am against the license class elitism and band segment segregation that we currently have.
You are correct, we are in this voluntarily, which at the present time has rules that some don't care for. #Many came before that didn't like the rules, but in order to use the spectrum they wanted to use, and the modes they wanted to use, they had to do what was required by those rules.

As was stated before, the band segment segregation is more of the carrot and stick. #If one wants more spectrum to operate, then one needs to do what is/was required to upgrade to get the use of that spectrum.

So judging by what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you are for one class of license. #One test, one license and everyone can operate all of the bands as they see fit. #Which either means "reducing the complexity of the question pool" further or make it harder. #It can't be made harder or there will be complaints that the exam is too hard for those truly qualified individuals who would otherwise further the radio art. #Where did I hear that one before?

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,13:56)]Quote[/b] ]AG4YO Posted on Oct. 14 2005,15:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let me rephrase the question. The only thing CW testing does is keep people off of HF who don't pass the test. What new modes that give amateurs access to the internet are you proposing for HF? What "state of the art" thing/mode is the CW test preventing people from using?

The answers are "none" and "none". Why do you insist on reading something into this that isn't there? My comments have nothing to do with HF other than to remove restrictions on who can use it. Once again I must implore you to read my posts without your prejudice. Why can't you admit that you just don't like "no-coders and Tech+'s on YOUR HF bands?

OBTW: It isn't nice of you to ammend quotes just to get in a thinly-veiled insult.
Oh, I understand now... Telegraphy testing doesn't hurt anything, you just don't want it personally so we should dump it. Here all the time I thought you had some noble or logical reason when all the time it was license class resentment. Thanks for clearing that up!

And please accept my apology for getting your rank incorrect.

[k4kro]

KG2HG,

You are correct. Thanks for actually paying attention. The carrot and stick approach was a miserable failure. I don't know why, but it lead to a decimation of our ranks and the subsequent failure of most of the amateur radio equipment manufacturers of the time. Just remember who was responsible for the idea.

Quote[/b] ] ........ we are in this voluntarily, which at the present time has rules that some don't care for. #Many came before that didn't like the rules, but in order to use the spectrum they wanted to use, and the modes they wanted to use, they had to do what was required by those rules.


But who supported the rule changes in accordance with the wishes of the majority of it's members? It wasn't me. I have to deal with it just like you do. With what is left now could total deregulation be that far away? It is my opinion that some good could actually come from the eminent demise of CW testing.

Quote[/b] ] you are for one class of license. #One test, one license and everyone can operate all of the bands as they see fit. #Which either means "reducing the complexity of the question pool" further or make it harder. #It can't be made harder or there will be complaints that the exam is too hard for those truly qualified individuals who would otherwise further the radio art. #Where did I hear that one before?

How easier could the current test be? How relevant can the Extra class test be if nine year olds can drill on it and pass? I only stated my opinion that the test should only be concerned with the legal and safety aspects. No matter how easy or hard you make it complainers and cheaters will give you grief. Remember, there were companies that prospective upgraders would pay to help them 'cheat' on the test. The FCC stopped it by publishing the questions and answers. Look at the mess in Puerto Rico where the only reason to upgrade was so you could become a VEC and sell more upgrades to others and on and on ...... #If you eliminate the barriers to utilization of the HF bands you can eliminate the perceived need to cheat. The only thing these restrictions do now is promote HF band spectrum segregation and license class elitism. It wasn't intended to do this but that's all it accomplishes now.


Quotes edited for brevity only

[af2cw]

Quote[/b] ]The only thing these restrictions do now is promote HF band spectrum segregation and license class elitism. It wasn't intended to do this but that's all it accomplishes now

The segregation was primarily, in my opinion, meant to be used as a stepping stone of sorts. #One needed to mature, or gain experience. #License class elitism is only
in the minds of those that believe it is there, mostly because they wish to have what they don't have. And I'll go on to say that some, not all, do not wish to put in the effort required to obtain the next level of competency.

Quote[/b] ]No matter how easy or hard you make it complainers and cheaters will give you grief.

Exactly, so reducing the code to 5wpm was not good enough, and the complainers still complain. #Now it's remove the code testing. #Next will be banning code from the air, then AM so those that believe it is antiquated can have more spectrum. #This is the new wave in operators I guess. #As for younger folks passing the exams, of course it's a cake walk. #Publish the questions and answers and anyone can learn enough to pass the test. #Now the question becomes, do they understand what they "studied" to pass the test? #And since the alphabet, punctuations, pro-signs and numbers are publicly available, most if not all individuals should be able to "study" the code and pass the test.

Quote[/b] ]If you eliminate the barriers to utilization of the HF bands you can eliminate the perceived need to cheat.

Those that cheat are not serious about amateur radio. #They just want what others have and will do what's needed to get it. That's plain and simple. #The so called barriers are only perceived ones. #Most intelligent individuals consider upgrading as challenges. #I know I did. I've heard the excuses of why one can't learn the code, or why they haven't upgraded yet. #I'm sure there are more individuals that have gone through the exact same thing and have been able to accomplish their upgrades. #Does it mean those that did upgrade were better suited to do so? #That they are better overall because they did upgrade? #No, it doesn't. #It only means that these individuals did what they needed to do to obtain that which they wanted, a simple concept really.

[k4kro]

AG4YO wrote....

Quote[/b] ]Oh, I understand now... Telegraphy testing doesn't hurt anything, you just don't want it personally so we should dump it. #Here all the time I thought you had some noble or logical reason when all the time it was license class resentment. Thanks for clearing that up!


It is my opinion that eliminating CW testing couldn't #make things any much worse than they are now. It's possible that some benefit could come from it. Anyway, I don't make the decisions around here, I just live with them.

Class resentment never occcurred to me. I never asked for or received anything for free from amateur radio. I never believed in free lunches. But I am offended by the haughty attitudes displayed by some of our "upper-classmen" towards "lower-classmen". It's rude and shows a lack of sophistication. It is ironic that I may be upgraded to General whether I like it not, before I get a chance to take the test. If it happens then I will start preparing for the Extra exam immediately.

I never was in favor of eliminating CW testing or adding new modes until recent events led me to re-examine my position.

Thank you for your apology and please accept my apology for any undeserved remarks I may have made.

[ky5u]

Well, there should be a distinction between requirements with value and those for mere class stratification. I believe telegraphy testing has value beyond the bitterness of class envy or hazing.

We could say that the internet you laude might be more responsible for you feeling like a second class citizen than the telegraphy test. QRZ is not Amateur Radio, but yet we're all here with the thrusts and parry of opinion differences. You assumed alot from my messages. That's on you, not me. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

No apologies needed to me fer shur.

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,15:47)]The carrot and stick approach was a miserable failure. I don't know why, but it lead to a decimation of our ranks and the subsequent failure of most of the amateur radio equipment manufacturers of the time. Just remember who was responsible for the idea.
I'm not sure whose idea Incentive Licensing was. The ARRL's? From what I read, there was a lot of griping over it in the 1950's-60's. Mostly from hams who suddenly lost privileges as the result of the stratification.

I don't recall any decimation of ham ranks as a result of it. I don't recall equipment manufacturers going out of business due to Incentive Licensing, either. Around that time, the postwar business boom was beginning to cool off, and many companies quietly folded or abandoned the ham radio market, while a number of new ones sprung up to take their place.

Personally, I never felt any resentment about Incentive Licensing. As a kid looking to get into ham radio, I had nothing to lose and everything to gain. "More effort, more privileges" made sense and seemed fair.

I suppose that is idea that has outlived its usefulness. We honestly don't need to encourage the development of a pool of skilled and knowledgable operators any longer. Superhetrodyne-troubleshooting-savvy, 20 wpm CW-skilled hams are no longer sought by Uncle Sam as they were during the Cold War. The need today is for a single-class test, more like a drivers license test. (Do you understand how to obey the rules? Can you keep from causing harmful interference? etc.)

However, no single test can give you actual operating experience. That's why I believe an entry level ("learners permit") class license is still useful, perhaps with a mandatory 3 to 6 month time span.

A very detailed discussion of this issue is available at

http://www.wm7d.net/az_proj/az_html/arrl_restructuring.html

I found it worthwhile reading.

[KC0NBW]

Quote[/b] (w1gfh @ Oct. 15 2005,10:10)]Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,15:47)]The carrot and stick approach was a miserable failure. I don't know why, but it lead to a decimation of our ranks and the subsequent failure of most of the amateur radio equipment manufacturers of the time. Just remember who was responsible for the idea.
I'm not sure whose idea Incentive Licensing was. The ARRL's? From what I read, there was a lot of griping over it in the 1950's-60's. Mostly from hams who suddenly lost privileges as the result of the stratification.

I don't recall any decimation of ham ranks as a result of it. I don't recall equipment manufacturers going out of business due to Incentive Licensing, either. Around that time, the postwar business boom was beginning to cool off, and many companies quietly folded or abandoned the ham radio market, while a number of new ones sprung up to take their place.

Personally, I never felt any resentment about Incentive Licensing. As a kid looking to get into ham radio, I had nothing to lose and everything to gain. "More effort, more privileges" made sense and seemed fair.

I suppose that is idea that has outlived its usefulness. We honestly don't need to encourage the development of a pool of skilled and knowledgable operators any longer. Superhetrodyne-troubleshooting-savvy, 20 wpm CW-skilled hams are no longer sought by Uncle Sam as they were during the Cold War. The need today is for a single-class test, more like a drivers license test. (Do you understand how to obey the rules? Can you keep from causing harmful interference? etc.)

However, no single test can give you actual operating experience. That's why I believe an entry level ("learners permit") class license is still useful, perhaps with a mandatory 3 to 6 month time span.

A very detailed discussion of this issue is available at

http://www.wm7d.net/az_proj/az_html/arrl_restructuring.html

I found it worthwhile reading.
the original novice ticket was for 1 year, non renewable, then you were expected to move up to the general or possibly the conditional depending on your proximity to a fcc test site.

then they created the technician for people that were basically only interested in vhf and up primarily for remote control of model boats, airplanes etc.

the arrl was the driving force behind incentive licencing which took effect in 1967 and made a bigger mess out of ham radio than it was worth.

i would like to see a new structure of a code free entry level with limited hf privileges(including the present tech privileges) and the general class with code for all other privileges.

the people that hold advanced and extra tickets would retain them but no new ones would be issued.

the no coders would have some hf access but they would still have to pass element 1 to get full privileges

[KB9YCO]

I still don't understand why people get so fired up about code, yet they don't say anything about the quality and style of THE TEST for an amateur license. Eliminating code itself won't reduce the quality of amateur operators, eliminating a need for actual knowledge beyond simple memorization tests may. If we have enough licensed hams to justify the bands that we currently have, AND USE, then I don't think the encroachment by other interests will come from a lack of code, it will come from the usual coporate and/or governmental reasons. Quoting myself from another thread here: "...the change in amateur radio comes not from the dropping of code, but from the drop in quality of testing for actual knowledge. Code testing only tests for a knowledge of code, not an overall knowledge of radio, eletronics, amateur practices and behavior, etc. Code alone will not make ham radio CB, lack of quality testing will by bringing in more operators that don't have at least a modicum of how amateur radio works, huge difference. If you're truly concerned about the quality of new operators than it's the TEST that's important, not just one facet, that being code."
Just had to say so again, the quality and knowledge of amateur operators seems much more important than code in the full scheme of things, yet people time and again get upset about code alone.

[af2cw]

Quote[/b] ]11. We believe that the present system discourages many potential
applicants, and thus unnecessarily limits the growth of Amateur radio in
this country. The examination for the present entry level license (the
Technician Class license) is substantially more complex than was the case
for the Novice exam. While it is true that some individuals do not find
this more rigorous exam a problem, many, if not most, newcomers to Amateur
Radio are not formally trained in or familiar with the engineering skills
implied by the present exam. The precise numbers of persons who are turned
away by the complexities of the current Technician exam can never be known,
but there is no question that they exist. The basic question seems to be:
AWould Amateur Radio in our country be better off if these other potential
applicants had obtained licenses or not?@ Most respondents would indicate
an affirmative response. Which then leads to an immediate follow up query
of the form: AHow can we modify the present system to attract as many
qualified applicants as possible?@


Quote[/b] ]13. The current entry level exam is overly complex. Contrast the former
Novice license study guide with the present Technician Class study guide.
Again, using the ARRL text, titled ANow You're Talking, @ the study
materials for the current entry level license consist of 166 (that's one
hundred and sixty six) pages of text, covering 10 subject areas, plus
another 80 pages of pool questions and answers, plus several additional
pages of appendix, including several charts and graphs, a glossary and more.
That's more than 250 pages of information to be learned before attempting
the exam. It's no wonder that potential applicants become discouraged.
They are presented with study materials that are (on the surface) more than
60 times the complexity of the original Novice license, and a much larger
exam. While some additional questions clearly are necessary because of the
permitted modes and other privileges, much of the information is nether
necessary nor appropriate for an inexperienced applicant.


These quotes provided by the NCVEC concerning the license restructuring. #Which can be found here (http://www.rrsta.com/rain/ncvec.html)

The tests will not get any harder than they are already. #Judging from the comments filed by the NCVEC they will get easier.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 15 2005,11:43)]I still don't understand why people get so fired up about code, yet they don't say anything about the quality and style of THE TEST for an amateur license. Eliminating code itself won't reduce the quality of amateur operators, eliminating a need for actual knowledge beyond simple memorization tests may. If we have enough licensed hams to justify the bands that we currently have, AND USE, then I don't think the encroachment by other interests will come from a lack of code, it will come from the usual coporate and/or governmental reasons. Quoting myself from another thread here: "...the change in amateur radio comes not from the dropping of code, but from the drop in quality of testing for actual knowledge. Code testing only tests for a knowledge of code, not an overall knowledge of radio, eletronics, amateur practices and behavior, etc. Code alone will not make ham radio CB, lack of quality testing will by bringing in more operators that don't have at least a modicum of how amateur radio works, huge difference. If you're truly concerned about the quality of new operators than it's the TEST that's important, not just one facet, that being code."
Just had to say so again, the quality and knowledge of amateur operators seems much more important than code in the full scheme of things, yet people time and again get upset about code alone.
To answer your question about why the emphasis on telegrphy testing:

1. See Rich's quotes above.

2. If I am not mistaken, Fred Maia of NCI is on the committee.

3. The NCVEC should be impartial but they have become political.

4. The FCC refuses to rescue testing from the "give away" NVEC.

5. Giving out the answers before the test means people memorize and don't learn.

6. The FCC mandates telegraphy testing and the NCVEC can't stand that they don't have control.

7. Interesting to review the folks on QRZ who are the most militant about code removal usually have a call lookup that reads something like-

Call: KB9YCO Class: Technician

So until there is a mechanism to allow good representative testing, we have to use the only filter we have. Worry not, the FCC will rule soon and you'll be on HF with all the real amateurs. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[k4kro]

The problem with 'incentive licensing" was that you had a time limit to upgrade or be "drummed-out" of the corps. You didn't have the option to remain as a Novice.
You would be terminated with no chance of appeal. They forgot that some are not as obsessed with upgrading as others. Also, you had to pass a 13 WPM CW test to get the incentive of phone modes. What kind of sense did that make? No telling how many great CW operators we lost with that debacle. CW was the only mode available to Novices back then. And we wonder why there is an anti-CW bias in the ranks. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[af2cw]

Quote[/b] ]Also, you had to pass a 13 WPM CW test to get the incentive of phone modes.

The incentive was to work for the HF spectrum of the General class operators if one wanted it bad enough. #Now it is give everything away, now THAT'S incentive.

If one is happy working VHF/UHF and has no "intentions" of upgrading, that's fine. #Those that want to upgrade with minimal effort shouldn't have it handed to them with no effort at all. #Judging by the NCVEC, it will be even easier, and no amount of questions filed with them to make the tests harder will be used, IMHO.

Also let's not forget the super hard 20wpm code test for Extra. Yeah, that was rough (not).

Post edit:

Quote[/b] ]They forgot that some are not as obsessed with upgrading as others.

It's not an obsession to upgrade, maybe it is the willingness to learn? #To better ones self? #Nah, it HAS to be an obsession, to be an ELITIST. #Of course looking at some that have upgraded and the questions asked, they didn't learn much of anything, but lets not go there shall we.

[AA0CX]

1) Nature abhors a vacuum.
2) Elements move from a high concentration to a low concentration.

These two truisms should be a guide in predicting what will happen if a CW exam is no longer a requirement for HF operation.

Once the voice bands get so packed...people will WANT to learn CW so they can move to the less-congested portions of the bands. #That's my take on it, anway. #

Plus...as others have said many times...CW will NEVER die! #There will always be people out there who love the art and want to practice it. #Others, will discover it!

[k4kro]

We need to be a little more tolerant and understanding here. After all, this is a hobby. Not all hams need or want to upgrade. And if they did, why should they be required to do it on some arbitrary schedule? #We don't all have the same level of cognition or place amateur radio at the same level of importance in our life. And it isn't the business of any other ham to worry about it.

There are those among us who look down upon those with lower class licenses and treat them like rabble. They get a little thrill from looking up your call before deciding if your opinion is valid based upon your license class or the date when you were licensed. They take offense when someone from the "ghetto" of amateur radio dares to express a different point of view. It's a good thing that your race and religion aren't listed on your license because, judging from some of posts I've seen on "QRZ Forum", they would use that to chastise, too. Just in case they hadn't noticed, they aren't making any friends or winning support for their cause.

The CW testing policy debate has been with us for a long time and it looks like it will end soon. That well-known organization that claims that it knows what is best for amateur radio, while representing approximately 22% of all licensees, will induce the FCC to once again see things their way. This means that approximately 11% of all licensees will decide the outcome of this argument.* #Maybe if more of us had tried to create a friendlier atmosphere in amateur radio the outcome would have been different.



* Sources: arrl.org and qrz.com

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 15 2005,21:50)]We need to be a little more tolerant and understanding here. After all, this is a hobby. Not all hams need or want to upgrade. And if they did, why should they be required to do it on some arbitrary schedule? We don't all have the same level of cognition or place amateur radio at the same level of importance in our life. And it isn't the business of any other ham to worry about it.

There are those among us who look down upon those with lower class licenses and treat them like rabble. They get a little thrill from looking up your call before deciding if your opinion is valid based upon your license class or the date when you were licensed. They take offense when someone from the "ghetto" of amateur radio dares to express a different point of view. It's a good thing that your race and religion aren't listed on your license because, judging from some of posts I've seen on "QRZ Forum", they would use that to chastise, too. Just in case they hadn't noticed, they aren't making any friends or winning support for their cause.

The CW testing policy debate has been with us for a long time and it looks like it will end soon. That well-known organization that claims that it knows what is best for amateur radio, while representing approximately 22% of all licensees, will induce the FCC to once again see things their way. This means that approximately 11% of all licensees will decide the outcome of this argument.* Maybe if more of us had tried to create a friendlier atmosphere in amateur radio the outcome would have been different.



* Sources: arrl.org and qrz.com
When I talk to people on the air, I never look up license class. But when on QRZ and see a glaringly silly response concerning cw testing, I do look up the class. And guess what? 9 out of 10 times it is a Technician Class Amateur.

There is the old joke about the scientist that pulls the wings off of a fly and tells the fly to fly. When it does not, he writes in his lab notes, "When you pull the wings off of a fly, they go deaf." Technicians see support of telegraphy testing by a majority of those who passed the test as a desire to maintain a hazing ritual. Like the scientist above, they miss the point entirely. I could easily name several "no coders" here who took the test, passed, and are now quietly pro code. What changed?

If Technicians are looked down upon, it is for supporting something that benefits them at the expense of a greater good. It is for being under achievers and not seeing an issue with it. If that makes you angry, then I am sorry. Because the real message to you is that if you are a Technician today and upgrade after the requirement is removed, you will still be and always be a second class citizen. You can't legislate respect.

Yesterday I watched "A Man For All Seasons" which cronicled the life of Sir Thomas Moore, a Catholic who would not approve of King Henry's taking over the Church of England so he could get a divorce. In the movie, Sir Thomas had a young friend who wanted into the "court" badly. When Moore refused to make it easy for the young man, the young guy hooked up with Cromwell who was trying to "get" something on Sir Thomas. In the end, it was this young man who lied and gave false witness against Sir Thomas in exchange for an appointment to the court by Cromwell. The young man had his appointment, but was now very unhappy at what he had to do to get it.

I could not help but think of NCTs. NCts could work and be accepted into the hobby as equals, or they could give false witness along with others to get the rules changed so they can be promoted. Like the young man above, getting something by not working for it or lying to themselves to get it will not make them happy.

So when you (UJF) say, "Maybe if more of us had tried to create a friendlier atmosphere in amateur radio the outcome would have been different", I respond that maybe if more people had just quit whining and passed test we would not be arguing either. Every other thing I hear from Technicians about no time, etc. is just an excuse.

P.S. I use "you" to mean NCTs here, not necessarily UJF.

[WA0LYK]

CW .... CW
It's tooooo hard to learn. It's too antiquated. It's not high tech. You don't need to know cw to operate radios and amplifiers- look at CB and WiFi. It's keeping good people out of ham radio that could advance the art of radio. We don't test on other modes, why cw. We need more hams so lets make it easier. Only the old farts who are against change and are white, male, and elitists want to keep it. CW doesn't predict operating skill.

Have I covered most everything? Now for the future!

The TESTS .... The TESTS
They're tooooo hard to learn. You don't need to know theory to operate radios and amplifiers - look at CB and WiFi. We don't test on new computer technology so why test for electronic theory. It's keeping good people out of ham radio that could advance the art of radio. We need more hams so lets make it easier. Only the old farts who are against change and are white, male, and elitists want to keep it. The theory tests don't predict operating skill.

Have I covered most everything? Did I miss anything?

Those using these arguments will soon see the fallacy of them when the theory testing is next to be placed under assault. Then when the no-code HF operators find the bands overrun by folks who didn't pass the same quality of testing that they did - the shoe will be on the other foot! It will also be very interesting to see if they embrace the same arguments for removing theory tests.

Jim
WA0LYK

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 15 2005,14:50)]...Interesting to review the folks on QRZ who are the #most militant about code removal usually have a call lookup that reads something like- #

Call: KB9YCO Class: Technician

So until there is a mechanism to allow good representative testing, we have to use the only filter we have. Worry not, the FCC will rule soon and you'll be on HF with all the real amateurs. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Funny, I've never advocated removal of code testing, I've just always maintained that it isn't as important as actual testing of knowledge. Thanks for the baseless insult that adds to the stereotype about technicians though. (Which is funny since I'm one of the few techs I know that has studied code just to do it, and continue to tell others that learning MORE about what is used in amateur radio is a GOOD thing regardless of license class. Why not expand your listening possibilities as much as possible?)
Also, I agree with your statement that it's the only current filter available, but that doesn't make it sensible in terms of proper testing of actual knowledge, nor will it encourage others to stress the importance of a test that reflects actual knowledge as opposed to simple memorization type tests (which if you think about it without prejudice is all a code test is.) Continuing to prosper a notion that code testing makes for 'better' operators will never allow changes in testing to occur, though as someone else pointed out it doesn't look like sensical testing will happen anytime soon, if ever.
I also think it's ridiculous to make the statement that if you aren't into HF (nowhere I could currently use it right now anyway, apartment, no car, etc.) that you aren't a 'real ham', radio is radio is radio, you use it for the purposes of communication. Another assinine statement that fosters a mostly inaccurate stereotype (sorry).
So before you go declaring anyone 'militant' at least know who you're talking about. In this case you were wrong.

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] ]...NCts could work and be accepted into the hobby as equals, or they could give false witness along with others to get the rules changed so they can be promoted. #Like the young man above, getting something by not working for it or lying to themselves to get it will not make them happy.

Another inaccurate statement, take a look at WHO has asked for the structure changes. It isn't techs or new licensees, it's long time ARRL and similar group members (hell, even the VEC representative group got in on it!) Blaming techs or new people that are interested is not only counter-productive, it's inaccurate.

[ve2nsm]

Still feeding the troll?

[kd7msc]

Make the written tests harder. Give a very limited hf privilages to beginners. Give them a place to use cw. Keep the code alive. Be a good elmer. Have fun! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Oct. 16 2005,15:11)]Still feeding the troll?
Trolling is argumentative, so far (for now anyway) it seems like this has been an interesting discussion. Check your internet nerd dictionary on trolling, big difference though I know code is the amateur equivalent of a religious debate so it tends to eventually lead to the same lack of concensus.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 16 2005,16:20)]Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Oct. 16 2005,15:11)]Still feeding the troll?
Trolling is argumentative, so far (for now anyway) it seems like this has been an interesting discussion. Check your internet nerd dictionary on trolling, big difference though I know code is the amateur equivalent of a religious debate so it tends to eventually lead to the same lack of concensus.
Well, should have said "still having that useless discussion?"

And NO I haven't read the entire thread, are you out of your mind? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 16 2005,12:38)]Quote[/b] ]...NCts could work and be accepted into the hobby as equals, or they could give false witness along with others to get the rules changed so they can be promoted. Like the young man above, getting something by not working for it or lying to themselves to get it will not make them happy.

Another inaccurate statement, take a look at WHO has asked for the structure changes. It isn't techs or new licensees, it's long time ARRL and similar group members (hell, even the VEC representative group got in on it!) Blaming techs or new people that are interested is not only counter-productive, it's inaccurate.
Don't obfuscate. Go to the comments on NPRM 05-235 and read the comments. Check the license classes. And on using your call as an example as a "Technician", yes you have been the artful dodger. But not being specific about keeping the test is as good as being against it. Where is your comment to the FCC on 05-235?

Hello Sirs,
When is this going to Stop?
There is an Nprm thread that has Debated this subject to Death and still going!

28 Countries around the World No longer have a Morse Code Test for HF Fact.

Now Someone Please Tell me how this has Effected HF in a Detrimental Way?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Because folks HF Propagates and IF your Fears where True then you would Already know about it listening to HF?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Before you do the Bashing, I studied and learned CW after the test requirement had gone, Because I wanted to, Does this make me a Better OP? Answer NO.

Stop talking like this subject Only affects the USA and Listen on HF to those other 28 Countries that you proberly Communicate with and then tell me Removing Morse Code as a Test is Detrimental to HF?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
73s de Samantha 2e1dau

Edit:
I expect you still have Plenty of CW Contacts with Amateurs in those 28 Countries?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
CW Dead? I Think NOT
CW Likely to Die because the USA Removes the Test Requirement? I Think NOT!

[k4kro]

As far as I am concerned the code issue was over a long time ago. This issue even pre-dates my tenure as an Amateur Radio licensee. The "Domino Effect" has been in play for at least 20 years now and the CW tests as well as the exams have been gutted. This has been done in an attempt to create a "league expansion" so to speak. What this really means is a cash flow expansion. An additional 1000 licensees easily generates a new revenue stream of about $100,000. And that figure doesn't include the first PL-259 or any other equipment a new licensee would purchase. I won't even get into that because equipment sales is a legitimate commercial enterprise and isn't germane to this discussion.

I had been a CW testing proponent up until recently. I changed my mind because the issue is so out-dated and boring as well as being a detraction and distraction to Amateur Radio. The damage has already been done and it is time to realize this and move along to bigger and hopefully better things. There isn't much left to sacrifice in the persuit of revenue enhancement anyway. It probably won't be long before the FCC comes to the conclusion that Amateur Radio is worth an admission fee and applies the same policy to us as it does to almost all other radio services. It will come down to how much money a person is willing to spend in order to participate in Amateur Radio. Where did we hear that before? How much money would you spend to keep your license? Maybe you should think about it for awhile.

Right now Wal-Mart and thousands of other retailers are selling pairs of GMRS radios for less than $40. And they sell more of them than you can imagine. There is a license application included in each package that should be submitted to the FCC along with an $80. fee. How many purchasers do you think are sending in that $80. fee or even bother to look at the application? What if the FCC decides to take the easy and profitable way out and deregulate Amateur Radio to the point that all you need is a copy of the rules, $250. and a "type accepted" transceiver? Would you pay it? The FCC knows that you will pay to keep your call sign or get a better one. They also know that those who are dedicated and serious about Amateur Radio will pay. Guess who WON'T be paying. The ignorant, lazy and mis-adjusted types that are well known for their activities on our band that was given to them by the FCC. Suddenly, "FREEBAND" takes on a whole new meaning and I am sure we all know how well the FCC deals with "enforcement". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (2e1dau @ Oct. 16 2005,14:24)]Hello Sirs,
When is this going to Stop?
There is an Nprm thread that has Debated this subject to Death and still going!

28 Countries around the World No longer have a Morse Code Test for HF Fact.

Now Someone Please Tell me how this has Effected HF in a Detrimental Way?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Because folks HF Propagates and IF your Fears where True then you would Already know about it listening to HF?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Before you do the Bashing, I studied and learned CW after the test requirement had gone, Because I wanted to, Does this make me a Better OP? Answer NO.

Stop talking like this subject Only affects the USA and Listen on HF to those other 28 Countries that you proberly Communicate with and then tell me Removing Morse Code as a Test is Detrimental to HF?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
73s de Samantha 2e1dau
It has not effected the US in a significant way for a small number of countries to ax the requirement. A full 90% of world amateurs still have the requirement. There is no comparison with the US and other countries where behavior on HF is concerned. Just look at American CB Radio. And that now becomes the gene pool for the codeless ticket.

As far as studying and learning CW and it not making you a better operator, might I suggest using it as a primary mode for a year. THEN tell me if you are a better operator.

In this case Samantha, your long nose protrudes into your neighbor's porridge. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 16 2005,22:38)]Quote[/b] (2e1dau @ Oct. 16 2005,14:24)]Hello Sirs,
When is this going to Stop?
There is an Nprm thread that has Debated this subject to Death and still going!

28 Countries around the World No longer have a Morse Code Test for HF Fact.

Now Someone Please Tell me how this has Effected HF in a Detrimental Way?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Because folks HF Propagates and IF your Fears where True then you would Already know about it listening to HF?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Before you do the Bashing, I studied and learned CW after the test requirement had gone, Because I wanted to, Does this make me a Better OP? Answer NO.

Stop talking like this subject Only affects the USA and Listen on HF to those other 28 Countries that you proberly Communicate with and then tell me Removing Morse Code as a Test is Detrimental to HF?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
73s de Samantha 2e1dau
It has not effected the US in a significant way for a small number of countries to ax the requirement. A full 90% of world amateurs still have the requirement. There is no comparison with the US and other countries where behavior on HF is concerned. #Just look at American CB Radio. #And that now becomes the gene pool for the codeless ticket.

As far as studying and learning CW and it not making you a better operator, might I suggest using it as a primary mode for a year. THEN tell me if you are a better operator.

In this case Samantha, your long nose protrudes into your neighbor's porridge. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Hello Charlie,
How nice to meet up with you again!
Did I say how long I have been a user of CW?
The test requirement has been gone here for about 3 years.

90% of Amateurs still have to take a CW test you say?
Where did you get this figure from?

Well those Countries that have Already dropped the test make up a large portion of the Amateur Community, The U.K for Instance and now your neighbours in Canada.

But you tell me Charlie How All this has Affected HF in a Detrimental way?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Without All the B.S?
73s de Samantha 2e1dau

[ky5u]

UJF,

You said in our previous conversation that there is nothing modern or internet related that can be done on HF. And you are correct. Not enough bandwidth to get anything meaningful in data speed unless you consume the whole 20 meter band for one or two connections. The new whiz band things you propose all can be done on frequencies authorized in the current NCT ticket. You confirm your only issue with CW is that it is outdated and boring. So for this selfish reasoning you decide that testing should be abolished? LOL!!

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 16 2005,22:38)]There is no comparison with the US and other countries where behavior on HF is concerned. #Just look at American CB Radio. #And that now becomes the gene pool for the codeless ticket.
Hello Charlie,
What are you saying?
Are you saying that American Amateurs are Not so good Ops as the rest of the World? Interesting!
But I guess the Rest of the World is following this subject with Interest and they will make their own minds up.
73s de Samantha 2e1dau

[ky5u]

Samantha,

The US and Japan have the majority of Amateurs in the world. Add to this the other countries that have kept the test in some form and that adds up to about 90% of the Amateur population.

So with such a small number of people on HF that are under a no code system, the effect on HF is insignificant. And what other countries have done thus far has had NO effect on HF in the US.

And the BS comment?

Hello Sirs,
Although the posts made to Qrz are mostly from USA Amateurs, Thousands of Amateurs Worldwide Register with QRZ.com for your Benefit and that of everyone else,
And I guess they Also read the Forums??
So you guys are in the Spotlight at the moment and we Watch with Interest!
In addition, if by some Bizarre reason the test requirement for Morse Code being dropped Affects USA Amateurs differently than the Rest of the World, And then we have the Option to point our Beams in a Different Direction!!
73s de Samantha 2e1dau

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 16 2005,23:08)]So with such a small number of people on HF that are under a no code system, the effect on HF is insignificant. And what other countries have done thus far has had NO effect on HF in the US.

And the BS comment?
Hello Charlie,
NO EFFECT you say on the USA?

I Rest my Case.

So all those Amateurs on HF having took No Morse Code Test has Not resulted in Lids on HF or the Problems that people Fear?

No more than Normal!!

I`m sure Plenty of USA Amateurs have Spoken to or Communicated using CW with many Amateurs around the World who have Not taken a Morse Code test to use HF!
73s de Samantha 2e1dau

Edit:
Charlie, Some say my Nose is Cute and Not as long as others!

[af2cw]

Actually Samantha only 14.58% of the total countries recognized by the IARU have dropped the code testing. #Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans really. #You can do the math by looking up all the figures on the IARU web site.

If you wish I can even break it down by population as well. #The total number of amateur radio stations in the world, as of 2000 is 2,789,720 and the total number of amateur stations in countries that have dropped CW testing is estimated to be 331,152 or approximately 11.87%.

Again, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 16 2005,16:20)]Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Oct. 16 2005,15:11)]Still feeding the troll?
Trolling is argumentative, so far (for now anyway) it seems like this has been an interesting discussion. Check your internet nerd dictionary on trolling, big difference though I know code is the amateur equivalent of a religious debate so it tends to eventually lead to the same lack of concensus.
Quote[/b] ]Well, should have said "still having that useless discussion?"

And NO I haven't read the entire thread, are you out of your mind? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Agreed, needless to say it is a topic that can be debated forever and will never come to any conclusion, the equivalent of arguing religion or political philosophy. Doesn't mean it isn't still fun sometimes though. Certainly nothing will be done as result of our debates here, but it can still be interesting, and once in awhile some even make a new point, once in awhile.

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 16 2005,12:38)]Quote[/b] ]...NCts could work and be accepted into the hobby as equals, or they could give false witness along with others to get the rules changed so they can be promoted. #Like the young man above, getting something by not working for it or lying to themselves to get it will not make them happy.

Another inaccurate statement, take a look at WHO has asked for the structure changes. It isn't techs or new licensees, it's long time ARRL and similar group members (hell, even the VEC representative group got in on it!) Blaming techs or new people that are interested is not only counter-productive, it's inaccurate.
Quote[/b] ]Don't obfuscate. #Go to the comments on NPRM 05-235 and read the comments. #Check the license classes. #And on using your call as an example as a "Technician", yes you have been the artful dodger. #But not being specific about keeping the test is as good as being against it. #Where is your comment to the FCC on 05-235?

That's the point though, basing all technicians on what some have said in the comments, or here, is not necessarily a true reflection of all techs. I get your point, and I don't disagree that there are some out there that just want the auto-upgrade, I know a few, but my point has always been that code is much, much less important than the quality of realistic knowledge testing and playing the blame game adds nothing. You're right, I haven't commented this time, perhaps I will, though I wonder if it will make any difference for any side. I'm not trying to sound complacent on this issue but the FCC will do what it wants regardless. I've commented before, maybe I will again, but I still think the issue has more to do with knowledge overall than code.
I still take issue with the fact that people want to blame techs instead of looking at the core reasons, and the actual people that started these proposals in the first place, without generalizing everyone. I refer back to one of your previous posts that are a perfect example of blaming those that didn't necessarily have anything to do with changes.
Quote[/b] ]If Technicians are looked down upon, it is for supporting something that benefits them at the expense of a greater good. It is for being under achievers and not seeing an issue with it. # If that makes you angry, then I am sorry. #Because the real message to you is that if you are a Technician today and upgrade after the requirement is removed, you will still be and always be a second class citizen. You can't legislate respect. #

Code alone does not demonstrate a better or more knowledgeable operator, yet you point the finger at "Technicians" with no regard to exceptions (you will never convince me that the majority of techs want a free-ride, are lazy, or not knowledgeable about radio and electronics, it's just not truthful in this age of so many distractions when most people getting into radio have an interest in radio), then on top of that condescend to them for a decision that some current or new licensees in the future may have been completely unaware of.
Do