Statement from SPAR [Archive]

w5alt

08-24-2005, 01:17 PM

SPAR's Preliminary Comment to the FCC NPRM 05-235

The Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio (SPAR) believes in both the advancement of the radio art and the preservation of traditional modes of operation. One should and must not be exclusive of the other. The action suggested in the NPRM (05-235) issued by the Commission is yet another step on the path to mediocrity by failing to recognize the existing contribution made by the operators of telegraphy to the evolving Amateur Service. It serves as an encouragement to those who desire to see the demise of CW as a mode and who also covet for voice or digital use the bandplan frequencies specified for most CW operation.

The Commission received a wide variety of petitions from groups and individuals motivated by perceived shortfalls in the FCC Rules. In this regulatory context, when people are satisfied with the existing Rules the Commission would hear nothing. Therefore, it becomes unreliable to use a tally of such petitions to draw conclusions about preferences "most amateurs" may have about maintaining a telegraphy requirement.

We believe that although the telegraphy test might have been viewed as an impediment to new applicants, there was enough middle ground available to craft a solution more agreeable to all parties. While we may learn to agree with removal of telegraphy testing for the General Class license, there has been no reason shown, evidence presented, or examples of anyone hurt by the retention of telegraphy testing for the Extra Class.

SPAR will continue to evaluate the NPRM and post formal comments to the Commission. It is acknowledged that our membership covers a group of dedicated amateurs with a wide range of interests and opinions. SPAR members unite in one common goal, the end to the erosion of the Amateur Radio Service by those who would minimize the requirements necessary for advancement within and entry into the Service.

kc7jty

08-29-2005, 05:23 PM

Morse use will have to stand or fall on its own merits alone. No longer will it be forced onto a continually increasing population who have no interest in it.
Just like a devoted true man of God.....when it comes time for death why are they afraid to meet their maker? If Morse is so wonderfull and full of joy why are so many concerned about the requirement being dropped? Won't it survive anyway?

K1VSK

08-29-2005, 05:42 PM

Unfortunatley, it will not stand on it's merits alone as the conventional trend of most standards often fall prey to mediocrity. True standards of accomplishment like the morse requirement may fall to meet the lowest common denominator of expectation unless we somehow succeed in maintaining if not raise our expectation of people. Rather than eliminate the morse requirment, we may do well to increase the standards of proficiency before the current class of amateur operators become nothing more than appliance operators.

af2cw

08-29-2005, 05:49 PM

With the small number of countries as well as licensed
stations that have removed Morse code testing as a
requirement, why should the U.S. follow them? #Out of
all the countries only 12% have dropped the Morse code
requirement. #Out of all the licensed stations in the world
that equates to only a mere 11%. #Not very impressive
numbers. #

If it must be removed, remove it for the entry license to
HF, maybe even General. #It should still remain for the
Amateur Extra class license IMHO.

kc7jty

08-29-2005, 05:54 PM

After the US drops the requirement the rest of the world will follow in short order.

af2cw

08-29-2005, 05:56 PM

It seems the U.S. is following others instead of being a
leader as it says it is.

KA3RFE

08-29-2005, 06:29 PM

Snorrrrrre snorrrrre.......

K2WH

08-29-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote[/b] (kg2hg @ Aug. 29 2005,06:56)]It seems the U.S. is following others instead of being a
leader as it says it is.
Exactly right and I always believed the USA, a leader of the free world would shun the rest of the worlds countries dropping morse and stand alone by keeping the code.

But, the politicians in Washington have won the day as usual.

K2WH

n4zou

08-29-2005, 09:07 PM

The problem associated with lessoning of technical requirements of any license of any type and local and national associations involved with the service comes when the new and lower qualified persons who would not normally put fourth a effort to obtain the technically challenging license start applying and obtaining these low standard licenses. These persons simply do not support local or national associations. Examples of this are the ARRL and RSGB. They try and increase their member base by lessoning of technical requirements and the only result is a corresponding drop in their membership numbers. As the technical requirements have been lowered so has the number of paying members of these associations. Look at the results in your local club. Check the number of amateurs in the local population and then check your club numbers. Of this number of amateurs how many do you have that actually show up for meetings or events? How many show up to help out at the clubs repeater site? Do you still operate field day? Sure, you have a few people show up and everyone that shows up has a higher technical level of expertise than the "typical" club member that put fourth the minimum effort to obtain a license. Not only do these individuals put fourth a minimal effort they typically cause problems as well. They only show up to "vote down" something that they would have problems participating in due to their "minimal effort" attitude. Pretty soon even the people that work hard to support the national and local efforts get tired of the minimalist attitudes and quit. The minimalist among us is working to make our hobby nothing but an easy to obtain and play with toy.

k7ov

08-29-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Aug. 29 2005,10:23)]No longer will it be forced onto a continually increasing population who have no interest in it.
Just like a devoted true man of God.....when it comes time for death why are they afraid to meet their maker? If Morse is so wonderfull and full of joy why are so many concerned about the requirement being dropped? Won't it survive anyway?
Your right! From now on, instead of the code being a requirement, you will have to prove proficiency in Data communications. You will have to be able to design and implement a network based on radio data equipment and provide email and web browsing via RF links. So, now we all will be computer experts as well as RF experts. Code will no longer be allowed on the Amateur bands, and while we're at it, analog voice communications is here-by forbidden. ( You might have to learn about electronics).

NOT!

Your comment about meeting our maker makes no sense to me. I don't remember ever being taught while growing up that death was a "good thing"! I don't know anyone who is not at least a little bit afraid of what is beyond death and thus strenuosly hang on to life. Many people have theories, but no one knows for sure what lies beyond.

As for CW, the only people really afraid of it are those too lazy to study for it. Everyone is sure of what comes after CW. Some will use it, and others will not.

If you've ever been to colledge, then you know that you are required to study many things you will never use again and some that you will. But to get the degree, you have a right of passage. Removing CW requirements is the same as telling colledge students that from now on you don't have study English in order to get an engineering degree because you will be designing things, not writing books. And if you need to write something, just send it to the tech writer and he will do it for you. And, after all, the only people using English these days are North Americans and Brits. Or if that is not enough for you then maybe we can delete the requirement for one of the other degree requirments so that you can get you degree more easily. After all, no one uses that other "junk" anyway right?

Or could it be that some people are just not diciplined enough to get the degree! Or maybe the same people are not diciplined enough to get an Amateur license!

If you want something bad enough you will work for it. But just like there is no shortage of people who drop out of colledge and never get their degree, the same mental attitude pervades our hobby. We are a technical hobby wich requires some knowledge of Electronic engineering and the operational modes that we can acheive with that dicipline. It is about time people wake up and realize that although we need to make room for new methods and modes, we need to keep the easier modes, such as CW protected and available for any licensed amateur to use. Just like you have to prove that you know how to design and build a basic antenna or know ohm's law, you should be required to show some knowledge of CW or morse code. It's all part of the game gents. And if you don't want to study to learn a little bit of all aspects of Amateur Radio, then maybe another hobby is better for you.

73,

Mike - K7OV

K4JF

08-30-2005, 01:30 AM

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 29 2005,14:11)]And, after all, the only people using English these days are North Americans and Brits.
73, Mike - K7OV
Uhhh, not quite. Don't forget the Aussies. And don't forget the airlines - English is the official language of every air traffic control in the world.

In addition, English is the most widely spoken second language in the world. Almost all Europeans speak or at least understand it.

That's one reason CW in English works so well.........

But in my career I sure wished more engineers had studied English - it is hard to get a technical point across if the command of the language is lacking. Many times I had to struggle to understand what he meant. (Look how many people on here type "your" when they mean "you're"... where did that come from? The two words do not sound alike)

N6IQ

08-30-2005, 01:38 AM

Most of us in my age group (60s) are alive today because of medical advances & computers creating medicines, assisting in research, etc. Progress is unstopable. Long live amateur radio with the CW bands intact BUT DROP THE CODE.
N6IQ

k4kyv

08-30-2005, 02:03 AM

Quote[/b] (N6IQ @ Aug. 29 2005,18:38)]Long live amateur radio with the CW bands intact BUT DROP THE CODE.
I would prefer to keep the 5/13/20 wpm code requirements, but eliminate subbands altogether, or at least reduce the cw-only segments to the bottom 50 khz or so of each band. There is a lot of idle spectrum, especially on 80m due to our subband structure. Often under the most congested conditons, there are vast swaths of unoccupied spectrum below 3700 kHz.

Since the FCC has done away with the Novice class, I would suggest creating an entry-level version of the General, with no code test, but with full power and frequency privileges but limited to CW only.

Is the code requirement for amateur radio very different from foreign language, algebra and other academic requirements to graduate from high school, even though most students will not use this knowledge once they leave school?

If the code requirement is dropped, getting new hams to learn Morse will be about like getting Americans to learn a foreign language before travelling abroad. As the old timers die off, Morse will evetually become a lost art.

I believe it is in the public interest to maintain a pool of individuals with some competence in telegraphy, and amateur radio with a Morse requirement is the easiest way to accomplish this.

KQ6XA

08-30-2005, 03:05 AM

Morse is History.

ky1v

08-30-2005, 03:26 AM

I have a brilliant idea. This should make all the no-code people happy. We'll compromise!

Drop Morse testing in exchange for making all ham bands CW only.

Hey, no test required. Just get on and operate.

David ~ KY1V

ws4y

08-30-2005, 03:46 AM

Hey David....KY1V that is a terrific idea.
I could go along with that. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

kb3mng

08-30-2005, 06:29 AM

Quote[/b] (ky1v @ Aug. 29 2005,20:26)]I have a brilliant idea. This should make all the no-code people happy. We'll compromise!

Drop Morse testing in exchange for making all ham bands CW only.

Hey, no test required. Just get on and operate.

David ~ KY1V
I think you're going for humorous irony, so I'm going to follow on with a little more good humour.

A few weeks ago, I had a chance to flip through a copy of the radio amateur handbook from about 1924 or thereabouts, and guess what? The conditions you are describing are very close to what existed then.

The de-facto state was that amateurs used morse code almost exclusively. They used a lot of spark gap transmitters, though you were required to use a clean oscillator in some bands.

If I understood the regulations properly, it worked like this: If you lived more than a certain distance from the nearest FCC testing facility, you could get your license by merely asserting that you know the regulations and were capable of morse code at 13 wpm. You would then be issued a "second class" license, which was the same as a "first class" license except that you didn't get tested.

The one hitch with a second class license was that if the FCC wanted to, they could require you to take the test and give you a first class license if you passed. I don't recall seeing any mention of how often the FCC actually did this. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

( b.t.w. Neither class of operator was permitted to operate their transmitter during hours when local church services were being conducted. )

At the time, a lot of CW was actually sent as MCW, though I didn't see that term used anywhere. A spark gap transmitter has a buzzer that makes a lot of sparks, resulting in very wide band noise, which you would then filter with a tuned circuit set for your desired transmit frequency. When the key is down, the RF is switched on and off at the frequency of the buzzer, so what you actually have is an AM signal carrying just the buzzer frequency.

Hmm... you know, a spark gap transmitter is a lot simpler to build than a crystal controlled QRP rig, and it is possible to build an AM crystal detector out of a rusty razor blade.

But the FCC already prohibits the use of spark gap transmitters! THEY HAVE PROHIBITIED THE SIMPLEST RADIO EQUIPMENT YOU CAN USE!!! WHERE WILL WE BE IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY???
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

KC9CAU

08-30-2005, 07:07 AM

i have said it on every other morse code post and i will say it again keep code or drop code I DONT CARE but the way some of you people bash and trash no code techs makes me sick hams are susposed to be kind and cortous oh fyi before you look up my call i will save you the trouble i am a NO CODE TECH BUT AM WORKING ON CHANGING THAT i have studyed code for a year and tryed the test but failed i will study more and i will eventuly pass

P.S.
The Amateur's Code

The Radio Amateur is:

Considerate... Never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others

Loyal... Offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local
clubs, through which Amateur radio in the United States is represented
nationally and internationally.

Progressive... With the knowledge abreast of science, a well built and
efficient station and operation above reproach.

Friendly... Slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the Amateur spirit.

Balanced... Radio is a avocation, never interfering with the duties owed to
family, job, school, or community.

Patriotic... Station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

-.- -.-. ----. -.-. .- ..-

kb3mng

08-30-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Aug. 24 2005,06:17)]The Commission received a wide variety of petitions from groups and individuals motivated by perceived shortfalls in the FCC Rules. In this regulatory context, when people are satisfied with the existing Rules the Commission would hear nothing. Therefore, it becomes unreliable to use a tally of such petitions to draw conclusions about preferences "most amateurs" may have about maintaining a telegraphy requirement.
In a more serious note than my last comment:

The single most disappointing thing about the set of comments is the sheer volume of one-liners. At this point, if you are going to post a comment of "I think you should keep the code" or "I think you should drop the code", you're wasting your time and the FCC's time. They already know that a lot of people hold both those views.

It's not a vote. The real point is whether you have something SUBSTANTIVE to say in your comment.

What the pro-code advocates need right now is a set of really compelling arguments in favor of keeping the code requirement.

In constructing your argument, be sure to list your premises. That is, what do you assume is true that is relevant to your argument. An important step is to show how you know those premises are true. No matter how strong your argument is, it means nothing if it is based on invalid premises.

Show what the benefits of your position are, and explain how your position results in those benefits. Avoid getting emotional about it. Just lay out the facts.

For example, don't call me a liar when I say that morse code is very hard to learn. Just explain why it is so important to have morse code that the world would be a better place if you revoke my amateur radio license. If you can make an argument that convinces me of that, the FCC should be no problem.

(I do not believe such a convincing argument exists.)

I've read a great number of the comments filed with the FCC and posted on QRZ.com. I assert that I've read with an open mind, but come away unconvinced by the pro-code argument. At the moment, the best argument I can think of in favor of any code requirement goes something like this:

- A lot of radio amateurs have an emotional attachment to the morse code requirement. A lot more dislike the code requirement equally strongly.

- The argument over morse code is very divisive within the amateur community.

- The incremental changes from General to Extra class are insignificant enough that it doesn't matter if substantial numbers of licensees do not upgrade to that license.

- We can partially satisfy the pro-code faction by retaining the code requirement for Extra class. That "partial victory" for the pro-coders will help heal the schism. [ I'm not at all sure I believe this part of the argument, but maybe some pro-coders could flesh it out. Would you feel less hostile to no-code Generals if there was still a code requirement for Extras? What about other pro-coders? ]

- Therefore, we should retain a morse code requirement for the Extra class.

I note that this is entirely a political argument based on trying to compromise between strongly held but mutually contradictory opinions. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Politics is about getting along with each other, regardless of whether you agree or not.

So what about it? Does keeping the code requirement for Extras help heal the schism?

kb7uxe

08-30-2005, 07:29 AM

CW is like "RoundUp" or "Diazinon" for ham radio,,, http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
it keeps the "weeds" and "bugs" at bay......

w0tdh

08-30-2005, 11:50 AM

The FCC has sold out Ham Radio by backing BPL.
Now they are selling out the only thing that seperates the Hams from the Geeks.
The basic buliding blocks of becoming a Ham Radio Operator have not changed. Those wanting to become a "Ham" need to prove themselves. The most basic of the building blocks is CW. Proof that you can communicate when "All Else Fails" is what its all about. You can send "Code" with a rock on a wall, if need be.
Blink your eyes, blink a light....."Tell" someone what needs to told in times of emergencies/disasters when all power is out. " Communicate" when all other forms of communications fail.

This is what we are all about Ladies es Gentlemen.

Our total worth to society is the ability to "Communicate"

CW is the most stable method of communications we will ever have.

The "I want it now" crowd may now leave the room.

I have had it with those who refuse to accept the resposibilty of learning the Code.

You don't have to like it!

Just demonstrate you can be of worth in time of need.

Yes, in my humble opinion, if you can not send es receive Code......you are not worth a plug nickle.

CB, FRS es the like are right up your alley.

By the way, Have you served your Country?

If not, just remember "Freedom is not free"

Tom - KØPJG

k7ov

08-30-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Aug. 29 2005,18:30)]Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 29 2005,14:11)]And, after all, the only people using English these days are North Americans and Brits.
73, Mike - K7OV
Uhhh, not quite. #Don't forget the Aussies. #And don't forget the airlines - English is the official language of every air traffic control in the world.

In addition, English is the most widely spoken second language in the world. #Almost all Europeans speak or at least understand it.

That's one reason CW in English works so well.........

But in my career I sure wished more engineers had studied English - it is hard to get a technical point across if the command of the language is lacking. #Many times I had to struggle to understand what he meant. #(Look how many people on here type "your" when they mean "you're"... where did that come from? The two words do not sound alike)
Thank you for the correction, but I know all of that. My comment was an attempt at deliberate mistatement in order to make a point.

73,

Mike - K7OV

K4JF

08-30-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 30 2005,04:56)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Aug. 29 2005,18:30)]Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 29 2005,14:11)]And, after all, the only people using English these days are North Americans and Brits.
73, Mike - K7OV
Uhhh, not quite. #Don't forget the Aussies. #And don't forget the airlines - English is the official language of every air traffic control in the world.

In addition, English is the most widely spoken second language in the world. #Almost all Europeans speak or at least understand it.

That's one reason CW in English works so well.........

But in my career I sure wished more engineers had studied English - it is hard to get a technical point across if the command of the language is lacking. #Many times I had to struggle to understand what he meant. #(Look how many people on here type "your" when they mean "you're"... where did that come from? The two words do not sound alike)
Thank you for the correction, but I know all of that. My #comment was an attempt at deliberate mistatement in order to make a point.

73,

Mike - K7OV
Ok, Mike. Thanks for the positive response. I had a wee point to make myself..... >chuckle<

K1MH

08-30-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Aug. 29 2005,18:30)]Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 29 2005,14:11)]And, after all, the only people using English these days are North Americans and Brits.
73, Mike - K7OV
Uhhh, not quite. #Don't forget the Aussies. #And don't forget the airlines - English is the official language of every air traffic control in the world.

In addition, English is the most widely spoken second language in the world. #Almost all Europeans speak or at least understand it.

That's one reason CW in English works so well.........

But in my career I sure wished more engineers had studied English - it is hard to get a technical point across if the command of the language is lacking. #Many times I had to struggle to understand what he meant. #(Look how many people on here type "your" when they mean "you're"... where did that come from? The two words do not sound alike)
Actually the language being used by younger generation in the European Union countries is English.

Mike- K1MH

W2CO

08-30-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote[/b] (K0PJG @ Aug. 29 2005,22:50)]The FCC has sold out Ham Radio by backing BPL.
Now they are selling out the only thing that seperates the Hams from the Geeks.
The basic buliding blocks of becoming a Ham Radio Operator have not changed. Those wanting to become a "Ham" need to prove themselves. The most basic of the building blocks is CW. Proof that you can communicate when "All Else Fails" is what its all about. You can send "Code" with a rock on a wall, if need be.
Blink your eyes, blink a light....."Tell" someone what needs to told in times of emergencies/disasters when all power is out. " Communicate" when all other forms of communications fail.

This is what we are all about Ladies es Gentlemen.

Our total worth to society is the ability to "Communicate"

CW is the most stable method of communications we will ever have. #

The #"I want it now" #crowd may now leave the room.

I have had it with those who refuse to accept the resposibilty of learning the Code.

You don't have to like it!

Just demonstrate you can be of worth in time of need.

Yes, in my humble opinion, if you can not send es receive Code......you are not worth a plug nickle.

CB, FRS es the like are right up your alley.

By the way, Have you served your Country?

If not, just remember "Freedom is not free"

Tom - KØPJG
I couldn't agree more. But the fact is that mostly the younger people of today especially are lazy and have been brought up with a lack of discipline which is showing big time. This I believe to be the direct result of todays and yesterdays dumbing down of the public school system, I did not say private schools only public schools are in such a wreck now a days, which is where 98% of these dimwits came from. Why they don't even give homework anymore and when the kid is real bad they just suspend him/her for a couple of weeks. Then they come back as if nothing ever happened. Well in Ham radio this mentality is growing in exponential numbers and I know these are the ones who are pushing for this crap. As I've said before "You can ruin the phone bands for all I care but if you want to be in the Extra CW bands, you need to be competent in the art or else you're not there at all.

k5co

08-30-2005, 03:23 PM

SPAR has the right idea; where do I sign up?

KD5PSH

n1uq

08-30-2005, 04:15 PM

Hay Tom, Yes, I did serve my country and I volunteered, not waiting to be drafted. Did you wait to be drafted? Don't bother to answer as it has nothing to do with the discussion of code vs. no code. It's just a lame attempted by you to insult those who don't agree with your diatribe.

I waited a long time to become licensed because I couldn't master the "CODE". I won't bother to waste my time in an attempt to explain why here. It's become clear to me that the coders lack the intelligence to understand and grasp what's being said.

I'm about ready to tear up my license and join those who don't want anything to do with the "GODS" of code. Ham radio should be ashamed of itself by giving the “GODS”, who are spewing the seeds of hate and insults, the attention that they crave. Why would anyone want to get involved with the trash that comes forth from these “GODS”.

For all who look upon this site to gain an insight to ham radio, my advice is "don't bother". There is far more advanced areas to spark your interest AND you don't need to put up with the insults of the "GODS" to enjoy.

OK now Tom, Let's see some more of your intelligent ranting of how good code is. I am waiting to see if you can put a few intelligent words together and really explain why the code is so important. DOn't forget to mention the sinking boat and battery and wire transmitters now.

n1uq

08-30-2005, 04:24 PM

"if you want to be in the Extra CW bands, you need to be competent in the art or else you're not there at all."

Just what do you mean by being "competent in the art"? is it 5, 10, 20, 30, 60 words per minute? is a new tech with just 5 wpm competent for you? Just what are you trying to say with "or else you're not there at all"? (Must be another of the "GODS" trying to make the non-competent ham'ers disappear. I'm melting, I'm melting..............not

W2CO

08-30-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote[/b] (wb1wmb @ Aug. 30 2005,03:24)]"if you want to be in the Extra CW bands, you need to be competent in the art or else you're not there at all."

Just what do you mean by being "competent in the art"? is it 5, 10, 20, 30, 60 words per minute? is a new tech with just 5 wpm competent for you? Just what are you trying to say with "or else you're not there at all"? (Must be another of the "GODS" trying to make the non-competent ham'ers disappear. I'm melting, I'm melting..............not
5 WPM is for Novice level competence. 10WPM is probably the minimum anyone should use in the Extra band. Most Extra Lite operators are below that 5 WPM line so most stay in the phone bands, but if they want to "practice" like the old Novice class they can go above .025 thats fine. It's just when we get a 1 or 2 wpm op in the extra band that it is not acceptable.

WA3KYY

08-30-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote[/b] (WW2E @ Aug. 29 2005,18:54)]Morse code is no different -- it's a difficult piece of the ham radio curriculum that ought to be taught and tested because you might need it at any time (hint: most of the maritime world is still not part of the GMDSS, and could rely on radiotelegraphy in emergencies -- and that's just one example!).
Most of the maritime world also does not have any equipment capable of sending morse code nor anyone on board who is capable of sending a message in morse code even if the mode were available on the marine radios on those vessels. Therefore it is a vanishingly small possibility that morse code would ever be used by a maritime vessel in distress.

I can think of only one regulatory argument to retain testing at the Extra Class level. It is one of only two modes in use by amateurs that can be understood by the operator listening solely to the signals coming from the receiver, the other being analog voice. Of the two, it is the only one that requires a new learned skill in order to operate using that mode. Of all the modes used by amateurs, it is the only one for which proficiency testing is actually meaningful. There is no new skill to be learned before operating any other mode. Finally, over half of the frequencies reserved for the Extra Class license are in band segments in which CW is almost the only mode ever found in use. At least to me, it make sense to retain testing for the Extra Class license.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

kc7jty

08-30-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 28 2005,15:11)]Many people have theories, but no one knows for sure what lies beyond.
Oh yeah!!?? Thats news to me. If that were true the believers wouldn't be shoving their religious horse crap down the throats of the rest of us. They would be saying I have a belief but I'm not sure if its accurate or not. Can you imagine that ever happening? Hey....if you know you are going to heaven when you die why fear death? Makes perfect sense to me, unless you don't believe your own mantra.

kc7jty

08-30-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote[/b] (ky1v @ Aug. 28 2005,21:26)]I have a brilliant idea. This should make all the no-code people happy. We'll compromise!

Drop Morse testing in exchange for making all ham bands CW only.

Hey, no test required. Just get on and operate.

David ~ KY1V
We don't need a compromise. Morse is going to be dumped as a req. Get used to it.

KB5WX

08-30-2005, 05:42 PM

jty ,

Why did you even bother to get your ticket ?

W2CO

08-30-2005, 06:43 PM

WW2E wrote:
"No. Your information is incorrect. The current maritime emergency system (GMDSS) is a system designed primarily for developed nations. Most vessels from smaller, developing nations, and many registered under "flags of convenience," rely heavily on old -- sometimes very old -- communications gear, including radiotelegraphy. #I have a real problem with people presenting their opinions or intuitions as facts, which you seem to have done in your post. It is especially egregious when it concerns issues of emergency communication on the high seas.

Incidentally, the U.S. Coast Guard still requires an FCC commercial radiotelegraph license (including 20 wpm Morse proficiency) before they will grant a Radio Officer's license. Why do you suppose that is?"

I can attest to this fact as I had my second class radiotelegraph license only because I failed the first class radiotelegraph written test (didn't study for that) by a couple of questions, but passed the 25wpm code test and passed the second class written along with the GROL(now a days the GROL is a prerequisite before taking the radiotelegraph exams and I'm pretty sure the GMDSS exams). This was less than 8 years ago. And I can also say that the radiotelegraph written exams are quite a bit harder than the GROL for sure. Why is this? It's because the radiotelegraph operator is expected to actually "fix" any problems that may come up. The radiotelephone operator is merely an "appliance operator" of the commercial type. How this applies to ham radio? Well the no coders tend to be merely "appliance operators" and typically the code competent ones tend to be both technically and practically competent, at least this is what I have observed over the years. Now if you no coders want to rip this up be my guest as facts are facts, and you are headed nowhere real quick.

WA3KYY

08-30-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote[/b] (WW2E @ Aug. 30 2005,10:48)]WA3KYY wrote:
"Most of the maritime world also does not have any equipment capable of sending morse code nor anyone on board who is capable of sending a message ... therefore it is a vanishingly small possibility that morse code would ever be used by a maritime vessel in distress."

No. Your information is incorrect. The current maritime emergency system (GMDSS) is a system designed primarily for developed nations. Most vessels from smaller, developing nations, and many registered under "flags of convenience," rely heavily on old -- sometimes very old -- communications gear, including radiotelegraphy. #<span style='color:red'>I have a real problem with people presenting their opinions or intuitions as facts, which you seem to have done in your post. It is especially egregious when it concerns issues of emergency communication on the high seas.</span>

Incidentally, the U.S. Coast Guard still requires an FCC commercial radiotelegraph license (including 20 wpm Morse proficiency) before they will grant a Radio Officer's license. Why do you suppose that is?

Educate yourself, then come back and talk to us.

Phil WW2E
Phil,

I have no idea why the US Coast Guard requires an FCC Radiotelegraph license before granting a Radio Officer's permit on US flagged vessels. #Coud you provide a link to this requirement? #Also, what good would it do when even the US Coast Guard no longer monitors the CW distress channels? #Who at the Coast Guard is going to be able to copy CW? #According to COMDTINST M16120.7A dtd Oct 10 2002, radiotelegraphy profficiency is not among the requirements to qualify as a US Coast Guard Communications Watch Stander. Which Coast Guard Radio Stations maintain a functioning CW transmit capability? Which countries in the world maintain a CW watch on maritime channels? Which other countries require radio officers to be certified in CW?

The International requirement for CW watches and CW trained radio officers disappeared over a decade ago. #Besides, how many CW active amateurs monitor the maritime CW channels on a regular basis? #How many of these old maritime radios can transmit on amatuer frequencies? #Just who are these vessels going to communicate with via CW?

If CW is still that important to maritime safety, why was it dropped Internationally as a Radio Officer requirement and no longer a requirement for nations to monitor those frequencies? Why did the ITU drop it as a mandatory amateur licensing requirement? #And why do only a handful of nations, if even that many, maintain a watch on the maritime CW channels?

You also have only presented opinion and not facts. #If what you claim is true, you should have no trouble providing the necessary links to the relavent regulations or other supporting documentation.

Frankly the maritime vessel in distress argument is way over blown or the US Coast Guard and all other equivalents world-wide would be maintaining that capability.

Mike WA3KYY

KC9CAU

08-30-2005, 07:46 PM

you people need get a life http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

it makes me sick to see all you hams bickering over some thing as stupid as cw it almost makes me say forget ham radio but then i think to hurricane katrina and of a town who lost all hf all they had was a vhf ht so they could not get the main weather office till a nother nct heard them calling on the ht he then started irlp and or echolink conected to a weather net on it they then relayed the info to the main weather office and nhc that town would have been totaly cut off if not for a ham with echolink or irlp there was no morse code capibility no ssb all you people need a reality check and a refreser corse in commen curtosy

kc9cau -.- -.-. ----. -.-. .- ..-

study this
The Amateur's Code

The Radio Amateur is:

Considerate... Never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others

Loyal... Offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local
clubs, through which Amateur radio in the United States is represented
nationally and internationally.

Progressive... With the knowledge abreast of science, a well built and
efficient station and operation above reproach.

Friendly... Slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the Amateur spirit.

Balanced... Radio is a avocation, never interfering with the duties owed to
family, job, school, or community.

Patriotic... Station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

k7ov

08-30-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Aug. 30 2005,10:20)]Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 28 2005,15:11)]Many people have theories, but no one knows for sure what lies beyond.
Oh yeah!!?? Thats news to me. If that were true the believers wouldn't be shoving their religious horse crap down the throats of the rest of us. They would be saying I have a belief but I'm not sure if its accurate or not. Can you imagine that ever happening? Hey....if you know you are going to heaven when you die why fear death? Makes perfect sense to me, unless you don't believe your own mantra.
I don't ever recall spouting any "mantra" about religious concepts here. Nor do I recall trying to force my personal religious beliefs on you or anyone else here. I do note, and as I said before, most everyone I ever met who died, and I knew a few who were considered a religious zealot, and they clung to life as tenatiously as the rest of us do.

But once again, what you said does not make sense in this discussion, but hey, it's ok to be obtuse. It is the American way now.

73,

Mike - K7OV

ab0wr

08-30-2005, 08:10 PM

w0tdh

08-30-2005, 08:53 PM

To those who did not grasp my post, I suggest re-reading.
It is about as plain as it gets.

By way, hope to see some of you at the Shelby Fest this Sat.

73,

Tom - KØPJG
RA17-583-474 ( note, no US in front http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif) )

k7ov

08-30-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 30 2005,11:46)]Quote[/b] (WW2E @ Aug. 30 2005,10:48)]WA3KYY wrote:
"Most of the maritime world also does not have any equipment capable of sending morse code nor anyone on board who is capable of sending a message ... therefore it is a vanishingly small possibility that morse code would ever be used by a maritime vessel in distress."

No. Your information is incorrect. The current maritime emergency system (GMDSS) is a system designed primarily for developed nations. Most vessels from smaller, developing nations, and many registered under "flags of convenience," rely heavily on old -- sometimes very old -- communications gear, including radiotelegraphy. #<span style='color:red'>I have a real problem with people presenting their opinions or intuitions as facts, which you seem to have done in your post. It is especially egregious when it concerns issues of emergency communication on the high seas.</span>

Incidentally, the U.S. Coast Guard still requires an FCC commercial radiotelegraph license (including 20 wpm Morse proficiency) before they will grant a Radio Officer's license. Why do you suppose that is?

Educate yourself, then come back and talk to us.

Phil WW2E
Phil,

I have no idea why the US Coast Guard requires an FCC Radiotelegraph license before granting a Radio Officer's permit on US flagged vessels. #Coud you provide a link to this requirement? #Also, what good would it do when even the US Coast Guard no longer monitors the CW distress channels? #Who at the Coast Guard is going to be able to copy CW? #According to COMDTINST M16120.7A dtd Oct 10 2002, radiotelegraphy profficiency is not among the requirements to qualify as a US Coast Guard Communications Watch Stander. Which Coast Guard Radio Stations maintain a functioning CW transmit capability? Which countries in the world maintain a CW watch on maritime channels? Which other countries require radio officers to be certified in CW?

The International requirement for CW watches and CW trained radio officers disappeared over a decade ago. #Besides, how many CW active amateurs monitor the maritime CW channels on a regular basis? #How many of these old maritime radios can transmit on amatuer frequencies? #Just who are these vessels going to communicate with via CW?

If CW is still that important to maritime safety, why was it dropped Internationally as a Radio Officer requirement and no longer a requirement for nations to monitor those frequencies? Why did the ITU drop it as a mandatory amateur licensing requirement? #And why do only a handful of nations, if even that many, maintain a watch on the maritime CW channels?

You also have only presented opinion and not facts. #If what you claim is true, you should have no trouble providing the necessary links to the relavent regulations or other supporting documentation.

Frankly the maritime vessel in distress argument is way over blown or the US Coast Guard and all other equivalents world-wide would be maintaining that capability.

Mike WA3KYY
God! Cool down fellows. Let's not get in a tizzy over this issue.

I am recently retired from the Merchant Marine (with in the last 7 years) and still hold a current Radio Officers License issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. Here is what is happening.

I can get my license renewed as long as I keep my Second Telegraph current and have a Radar endorsement.

However, U.S. Flag vessals are no longer required to carry a radio officer as long as two ships officers have the new GMDSS Operators license and opt for shore services for repairs. If a U.S. company wanted to hire me as a ship's Radio Officer, I would have to have the GMDSS Maintainer/Operator license (which I have) as well as my Second Telegraph and I would have to get a couple of other certs to qualify to sail now such as Firefighting etc. I am not sure if there are more required now as I have no desire to sail under the current state of the fleet.

As to who listens to CW. The Coast Guard does not listen, and even the private Coastal Stations do not. The only place in the world that I can think of that may still be using CW in the Maritime Service is the Pilot Station in the river going up to Calcutta in India. Now days, with no CW operators on almost all of the worlds fleets (even those who still carry Radio Officers) send a telex to the pilots station ahead of time and then contact them on 2185 KHZ to let them know they have arrived and need a pilot. A CW message to ships is still being sent in the Suez Canal, but is also sent via SITOR and is required to be copied by someone on board and given to the Canal Pilots. (The Egyptian government wants the revenue for this) So, there is no maritime CW being used today. If you doubt that, then just go out to the publically listed CW Maritime Frequencies and listen for the 'wheel' or traffic lists. They don't exist anymore. Radio Officers are not required to stand a CW watch anymore either.

Why does the Coast Guard still have the Radio Officers license? It is because there are still some U.S. Flagged ships carrying a radio officer for other reasons. These are ships and shipping companies who want an on board service technician so they don't have to wait to sail if something breaks down with their coms equipment. Soon, that license will disappear as well. By the way, try to get a new FCC Second Class License now! The FCC will not test you and the new GMDSS testing facilities wil not either, even if they were authorized. So the practical implications are that you will not be able to get a new Ships Radio Officer license from the Coast Guard either. (That's why I keep my current, just for nastalgia).

For a ship of foreign registry to enter any port in the world, they must have communications abilities to contact the host nation. Now days that can be SAT A or C and SITOR. They have to have these abilities along with other Coms gear to get a seaworthiness certificate, which they have to have to enter any port in the world. (Remember we are talking about commercial shipping not yaughts). At one time, a ship could sail with just CW and believe it or not, I actually sailed on a ship that had only CW within about 2 years before I retired because the company who owned the ship was too cheap to replace the SATCOM after a fire destroyed it. I admit I am Prejudiced, but I have had times when Solar flares have wiped out all SATCOM and HF communications and the only thing working was 500 KHZ band CW, so I feel it still has a place, but of course I am only one voice.

Now to the real point. Non of this has to do with whether or not CW should be required in the Amateur Band or not. The Amateur service is an entirely different service and has never been an adjunct to the Maritime Service except to personal watercraft. I am open to correction, but in all of my years, I remember bringing my ships station down to aid a yaughter, but never the reverse. Almost always this was by request from the Coast Guard.

I believe CW proficiency at least at a basic leven does not hurt anyone, and is just another skil level or right of passage if you will, that should be required by someone who want the prestige and rights of the higher licenses. I believe that anyone who wants to operate in the CW bands needs to prove at least some proficiency just like they need to show some knowledge about other modes such as the various digital modes as well as some knowledge about phone operation. I don't believe that everyone needs to show they can operate CW at speeds of the old enty level 20 WPM commercial operators.

Remember also that the GMDSS system came about because the Old CW commerical operators failed to keep their skils up to maintain the new equipment and became just "rider" on commerical ships. Ship owners rebelled at not being able to sail because their radio office could not maintain or repair the newer equipment and they had to call a shore tech anyway. Money and apathy by the Radio Officers killed that trade.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

73,

Mike - K7OV

WA3KYY

08-30-2005, 09:18 PM

Mike, K7OV,

Thanks for the reality check, that is what I belived to be the case. This drives home my main point about the uselessness of citing a maritime vessel in distress and CW as a reason for requiring it of US amateurs. Even when CW was required on board ships, this was a weak justification at best.

BTW, you can now sail with one of your GMDSS operators certified in repair and a radiotelegraph license or equivalent is not needed.

FCC Commerical License Testing Requirements (http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/exam.html)

73,
Mike WA3KYY

WA3KYY

08-30-2005, 11:56 PM

Phil,

Thank you, I tried several search terms on the USCG web site and failed to find the link you provided.

However, in light of what K7OV, a licensed Radio Officer, reported and the reference for the USCG instruction on Certification as a Communications Watchstander, how relavent to today's maritime communications requirements is the position of Radio Officer? It appears from both the FCC and USCG web sites that the requirement for a Radio Officer is very limited. The vast majority of vessels governed by US rules need only two GMDSS licensees, one of whom is also certified as a GMDSS maintainer if the at-sea maintenance option is used. Also the Master and Navigator need the GMDSS Restricited Operator's Permit. As the link from the FCC web site shows, you can qualify for all of the GMDSS licenses without holding a 2nd Radiotelegraph license or passing any radiotelegraphy test.

You also failed to address the other more telling points:

1) The USCG no longer maintains a CW watch nor are USCG Communications Watchstanders required to know CW.

2) The is no commercial or government activity on any of the maritime CW channels in the US.

3) The vast majority of the world's maritime authorties also no longer maintain CW monitoring capabilities.

5) Just who are the maritime vessels with radiotelegraph capabilities going to communicate with?

I see nothing in the mere existance of the Radio Officer license, which is only rarely required, that indicates anything significant is happening in the world of commercial CW. Especially nothing with which to justify a continuation of the amateur radio morse code proficiency test for any access to frequencies below 30MHz.

Please understand Phil, my objection is soley to the claim that maintaining a requirement for CW testing can be justified on the basis of the need to help maritime vessels in distress whose only mode of communication is via CW. The likelihood of such an occurance is vanishly small, IMO, for many reasons not the least of which is amateurs do not monitor the maritime CW channels, which is the most likely place such a transission would take place.

I have already put forth why I think it should be retained for the Extra Class license.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

AC0GT

08-31-2005, 12:05 AM

OK, so we determined that a person needs to be trained in Morse code to be a Radio Officer under FCC/USCG rules. #I then wondered, where/when does a ship need a Radio Officer? #According to this page (http://wireless.fcc.gov/marine/gmdss.html) you never need a Radio Officer. #You can get a licensed Radio Officer or a licensed GMDSS Maintainer, it would seem either would fit the requirement for at sea maintenance. #Either way it would seem there needs to be multiple licensed operators of some sort.

So, not even in maritime radio does a person need to be trained in Morse code. #Can we bring this discussion back to Amateur radio now?

nf9a

08-31-2005, 12:12 AM

Just a quick shudder...We lost 11 meters to the citizens radio service. Has anyone listened to that lately? I wonder when the requirements for Amateur status is lowered and we have them on our doorstep. Just a thought (shudder)

WA3KYY

08-31-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 30 2005,13:10)]I believe the answer to your question is in the post by W2CO.

It is because the Radio Officer is capable of at-sea repair. A ship has to pick two of three possible maintenance possibilities under GMDSS regulations. At-sea maintenance is one of possibilites. The Radio Officer will also count as one of the two required communications operators under GMDSS.

tim ab0wr
Tim,

Any deck or engineering crew member can qualify for the GMDSS maintainer license for the at-sea repair option. Neither the Coast Guard nor the FCC include a Radiotelegraph License as part of the requirements for the manitainer GMDSS license or any other GMDSS license. In addition, the Radio Officer still has to pass the license test. The mere presence of a licensed Radio Officer does not fulfill the at-sea GMDSS maintenance requirement if the other certifications are not present.

The only requirement for a Radiotelegraph license is for the Radio Officer as Phil has pointed out in the USCG link. But as Mike, K7OV, has pointed out, the Radio Officer is only rarely required for US vessels and so the radiotelegraphy requirement is rare indeed.

This is not a valid argument on which to base retention of morse code testing for access to HF.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

w8vom

08-31-2005, 12:40 AM

It is interesting to note that many Extras are very willing to compromise and drop the code for the General class! Just a few years ago such a compromise would have never been proposed. Is this compromise of dropping the code for General made purely out of preserving Morse or is it also about holding the ((fence)) up at least for Extra?

I also love the code but do you (really) think the FCC wants to keep the Morse requirement only for the Extra class when they know that in a couple of years they will have to battle (NCI) again for total removal?

The FCC has decided to take the (easy) way out and dump the requirement.

WA3KYY

08-31-2005, 01:28 AM

Quote[/b] (WW2E @ Aug. 30 2005,17:42)]WA3KYY wrote:
"You also failed to address the other more telling points..."

Well, your four "points" are just the undocumented remarks of other posters, or your own personal opinion. I will be glad to take the time to address your points if you'd care to supply credible sources -- as I have for my points, at your request.

Otherwise, I'm wasting time responding to stuff that's more or less improvised merely for the sake of a qrz.com argument. Bear in mind that a few of your "points" originate with a contributor whose information I have already shown to be unreliable.

Phil WW2E
Are you stating that the current USCG Certification Requirements for Communications Watchstander require radiotelegraphy proficiency and that COMDTINST M16120.7A is incorrect?

Are you stating that the USCG maintains a radio watch on the maritime CW channels? They are not listed in COMDTINST M2000.3C Table 14.1 Radio Guard Frequencies. Also nowhere in that manual is there any mention of radiotelegraphy.

Lacking any documentation on your part, your claim that CW is an important or even frequently used communications mode in maritime communications is equally unsupported opinion. #

You have documented the facts that a) a Radio Officer License can still be obtained from the USCG; and b) that such a license requires a 2nd Radiotelegraph License.

You have not shown that this license has any significance in todays maritime communications environment as all USCG and FCC license requirements for shipboard radio communications can be met without a Radio Officer License in almost all cases. I'm still trying to find out under what circumstances it is required.

You also have failed to show that the very limited use of CW in maritime communications has any relevance, if it ever had any, to the continuation of a requirement for CW testing of US amateurs for access to HF. #All the rest, while interesting, has no bearing on that question. If there is a way to retain CW testing, it will not be with the argument that it will save mariners in distress.

Mike WA3KYY

W5HTW

08-31-2005, 02:00 AM

Quote[/b] (KC9CAU @ Aug. 30 2005,12:46)]it makes me sick to see all you hams bickering over some thing as stupid as cw it almost makes me say forget ham radio but then i think to hurricane katrina and of a town who lost all hf all they had was a vhf ht so they could not get the main weather office till a nother nct heard them calling on the ht he then started irlp and or echolink conected to a weather net on it they then relayed the info to the main weather office and nhc that town would have been totaly cut off if not for a ham with echolink or irlp there was no morse code capibility no ssb all you people need a reality check and a refreser corse in commen curtosy

kc9cau -.- -.-. ----. -.-. .- ..-
That's a very long sentence. By the time I got to the end of it, I forgot what the beginning said.

w8vom

08-31-2005, 02:30 AM

Fellow Morse lovers...all will not be lost if they do away with the Morse (requirement). Far from it...I predict that within 6 months after it becomes law that Morse use will INCREASE! Why?...simply put...one need not (know) Morse to (use) Morse! #The unwashed will simply use (Keyboards) and (Readers). The software available today is very sensitive. My wife can run 50 wpm Morse using a keyboard and reader and she has never learned Morse.She is also not a ham! No my friends...Morse use will eventually SKYROCKET....Why? because the new Generals (and) Extras will want to prove that they too can run with the big boys and work that good CW-DX.

The world will not end with the loss of the Morse requirement. You simply will have Op's that (know) Morse code and Op's that do not. Sadly...both will sound like they know what they are doing but very few will have the actual skill of sending and receiving Morse!

ab0wr

08-31-2005, 02:58 AM

For those who wonder about the necessity of CW, you should know what is going on in Louisiana and Mississippi right now.

According to the net on 3935 handling ermergency traffic into these areas, the only stations available to receive traffic in the Biloxi and Baton Rouge areas are getting their traffic via CW. The station delivering the traffic is the traffic manager for STX.

This was as of Tues evening, Aug. 30.

No phone stations were still operating from these disaster areas as of this time. Battery operated, low powered CW stations are still providing communications.

I plan on putting this comment on the FCC site. If they want to drive the emergency communications capability of the ARS into the ground, then just do everything they can to eliminate Morse Code knowledge in the ARS.

I just can't believe that so shortly after hearing so many people denigrate the usefulness of Morse Code that we, as a nation, get a first hand lesson in how valuable it is.

I wonder just how many people will learn from this history lesson?

tim ab0wr

k7ov

08-31-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 30 2005,14:18)]Mike, K7OV,

Thanks for the reality check, that is what I belived to be the case. This drives home my main point about the uselessness of citing a maritime vessel in distress and CW as a reason for requiring it of US amateurs. #Even when CW was required on board ships, this was a weak justification at best.

BTW, you can now sail with one of your GMDSS operators certified in repair and a radiotelegraph license or equivalent is not needed.

FCC Commerical License Testing Requirements (http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/exam.html)

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Hi Mike,

You can sail but you can't obtain a new Coast Guard License as a Radio Officer without a 2nd Tel or better until the Coast Guard changes that requirement. All they did was add the added requirement that if you were a currently licensed Radio Officer, you had to have a GMDSS Maintainer/Operator license as well as some other certs such as Fire Fighting etc to sail in that berth. So, for all practical purposes, that job is no more. The few who remain sailing in the preposition ships and elsewhere work a lot of the time for the Chief Engineer in the engine room and elsewhere and do little if any communications work.

73,

Mike - K7OV

W2CO

08-31-2005, 02:29 PM

W8VOM wrote:
"The world will not end with the loss of the Morse requirement. You simply will have Op's that (know) Morse code and Op's that do not. Sadly...both will sound like they know what they are doing but very few will have the actual skill of sending and receiving Morse!"

Exactly that is going to happen and when they don't know the difference between QRL? and QRL they will just be stepping on you.

W2CO

08-31-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 30 2005,13:58)]For those who wonder about the necessity of CW, you should know what is going on in Louisiana and Mississippi right now.

According to the net on 3935 handling ermergency traffic into these areas, the only stations available to receive traffic in the Biloxi and Baton Rouge areas are getting their traffic via CW. The station delivering the traffic is the traffic manager for STX.

This was as of Tues evening, Aug. 30.

No phone stations were still operating from these disaster areas as of this time. Battery operated, low powered CW stations are still providing communications.

I plan on putting this comment on the FCC site. If they want to drive the emergency communications capability of the ARS into the ground, then just do everything they can to eliminate Morse Code knowledge in the ARS.

I just can't believe that so shortly after hearing so many people denigrate the usefulness of Morse Code that we, as a nation, get a first hand lesson in how valuable it is.

I wonder just how many people will learn from this history lesson?

tim ab0wr
Yes Tim, I don't think many in this group will learn from this either. I too have noticed this same thing last night. The only phone station was in Texas acting as a relay (he copied the code from the sites and read from his sheet) for info to the west coast. The same thing happened years ago in a hurricane on L.I.N.Y. where all the phone stations were inop. the only stations active were battery operated CW low power stations.

k7ov

08-31-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Aug. 30 2005,17:05)]OK, so we determined that a person needs to be trained in Morse code to be a Radio Officer under FCC/USCG rules. #I then wondered, where/when does a ship need a Radio Officer? #According to this page (http://wireless.fcc.gov/marine/gmdss.html) you never need a Radio Officer. #You can get a licensed Radio Officer or a licensed GMDSS Maintainer, it would seem either would fit the requirement for at sea maintenance. #Either way it would seem there needs to be multiple licensed operators of some sort.

So, not even in maritime radio does a person need to be trained in Morse code. #Can we bring this discussion back to Amateur radio now?
You are almost correct. The U.S. Military Sealift Command is actively recruiting for Trained Radio Officers in the traditional sense. All of their ships are required to have a watch standing Radio Officer on board. However, most of his duties are for technical repair and the last time I sailed, the only time morse was required was when the captain required me to copy light signals during excersizes. Most desk officers are required to know morse for that purpose as well, believe it or not.

One final comment, this has absolutely no bearing on this discussion of CW for Amateur radio. We are a different service with different needs and purposes.

73,

Mike - K7OV

WA3KYY

08-31-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 31 2005,06:26)]Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 30 2005,14:18)]Mike, K7OV,

Thanks for the reality check, that is what I belived to be the case. This drives home my main point about the uselessness of citing a maritime vessel in distress and CW as a reason for requiring it of US amateurs. #Even when CW was required on board ships, this was a weak justification at best.

BTW, you can now sail with one of your GMDSS operators certified in repair and a radiotelegraph license or equivalent is not needed.

FCC Commerical License Testing Requirements (http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/exam.html)

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Hi Mike,

You can sail but you can't obtain a new Coast Guard License as a Radio Officer without a 2nd Tel or better until the Coast Guard changes that requirement. All they did was add the added requirement that if you were a currently licensed Radio Officer, you had to have a GMDSS Maintainer/Operator license as well as some other certs such as Fire Fighting etc to sail in that berth. So, for all practical purposes, that job is no more. The few who remain sailing in the preposition ships and elsewhere work a lot of the time for the Chief Engineer in the engine room and elsewhere and do little if any communications work.

73,

Mike - K7OV
Thanks again Mike. I was just talking this morning with a currently licensed mariner and asked about the Radio Officer position. He said he could not think of anything commerical that actually requires that officer in order to sail. So the availability of that license is rather moot in the discussion of the importance, or lack of, of CW to maritime communications.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

k7ov

08-31-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote[/b] (w8vom @ Aug. 30 2005,19:30)]#The unwashed will simply use (Keyboards) and (Readers). The software available today is very sensitive. My wife can run 50 wpm Morse using a keyboard and reader and she has never learned Morse.She is also not a ham! No my friends...Morse use will eventually SKYROCKET....Why? because the new Generals (and) Extras will want to prove that they too can run with the big boys and work that good CW-DX.
Your Keyboard and reader software will work for most now days, but I have yet to see a reader copy a banana boat swing. How many of you remember those? Nor have I seen one that can copy most strait fists.

Best,

73

Mike - K7OV

W2CO

08-31-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 31 2005,02:38)]Quote[/b] (w8vom @ Aug. 30 2005,19:30)]#The unwashed will simply use (Keyboards) and (Readers). The software available today is very sensitive. My wife can run 50 wpm Morse using a keyboard and reader and she has never learned Morse.She is also not a ham! No my friends...Morse use will eventually SKYROCKET....Why? because the new Generals (and) Extras will want to prove that they too can run with the big boys and work that good CW-DX.
Your Keyboard and reader software will work for most now days, but I have yet to see a reader copy a banana boat swing. How many of you remember those? Nor have I seen one that can copy most strait fists.

Best,

73

Mike - K7OV
Thats right, most readers can only copy perfect code, not straight keys or bugs forget it, only the trained ear can copy those correctly.

WA3KYY

08-31-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote[/b] (WW2E @ Aug. 30 2005,19:25)]I will be glad to take the time to address your points if you'd care to supply credible sources for them -- as I have for my points.

Phil WW2E
Phil,

Are you seriously claiming that the USCG Instructions I cited are not credible? *boggle*

The only sources you have supplied are the requirements for a Radio Officer License. You have not shown that such a license has any significance in maritime communications. Neither the US regulations nor International regulations require such a person on commerical vessels.

Mike, K7OV, has pointed out the only requirement for a Radio Officer License and that is not in the general commercial maritime sector.

You still have failed to demonstrate any importance that CW has in maritime communications.

In any event, the presence or absence of CW in maritime communications has zero relavence to ARS testing requirements for access to frequencies below 30MHz. Both the FCC and the ITU have rejected this argument before.

Mike WA3KYY

kc7jty

08-31-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote[/b] (AI4FP @ Aug. 29 2005,11:42)]jty ,

Why did you even bother to get your ticket ?
On a dare from a fellow CBer.

W2CO

08-31-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Aug. 31 2005,04:17)]Quote[/b] (AI4FP @ Aug. 29 2005,11:42)]jty ,

Why did you even bother to get your ticket ?
On a dare from a fellow CBer.
Exactly and just keep in mind that it is illegal to use amateur radio equipment in the cb band.

kj3n

08-31-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Aug. 29 2005,13:42)]....before the #current #class of amateur operators become nothing more than appliance operators.
We've had appliance operators since 3 days after Marconi invented the friggin' thing. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

We've always had them and we always will.... unfortunately....

I've personally met appliance operators that have had their license for over 30 years. Old-school tested, you know.

K2MLS

08-31-2005, 06:55 PM

How many nay sayers have looked at the other services and what their licensing requirements are? Back in the "old" days there were 1st, 2nd, 3rd and
restricted class radiotelephone/telegraph licenses. Today, there is only the GROL, but did you know a person doesn't even need a GROL to work in the industry? Have aircraft fallen from the sky, ships ran aground or has there been mayhem in the LMR world? Have you noticed NABER and APCO set up certification processes for unlicensed techs? Instead of complaining about the inevitable why not start working with ARRL, RAC, RSGB, etc., to a certification process outside of the government's licensing requirements? The downside to that is someone would have to join the organizations and do some work instead of sitting around and whining. You're all aware that the maritime industry and armed forces eliminated CW from their communications suite, but did you know that they've all but done away with MF and HF communications? They use SHF/EHF satcomm for their day to day communications. Perhaps serious thought should be given to how can the amateur radio service put to good use their HF frequencies before someone decides we don't really need them. How long will it be before public safety/homeland security runs out of frequencies and goes after our 2M and 70 CM frequencies. Don't you think we're far better off trying to attract more people into the hobby to use our resources so we can keep them? I see a very good correlation here, "I'll turn over my cw key when they pry my cold stiff dead fingers from it." Can't we get over the name calling and try to work together to make the concept work? Hey, last night I was listening to two 75 meter net and I heard someone whistling during them. It just had to have been a Technician on HF illegally and being rude. That sure proves that knowing CW and having a higher class license insures good circuit discipline, NOT.

AC0GT

08-31-2005, 07:05 PM

Quote[/b] (W2CO @ Aug. 31 2005,10:42)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Aug. 31 2005,04:17)]Quote[/b] (AI4FP @ Aug. 29 2005,11:42)]jty ,

Why did you even bother to get your ticket ?
On a dare from a fellow CBer.
Exactly and just keep in mind that it is illegal to use amateur radio equipment in the cb band.
Why did you feel the need to point out that operating Amateur equipment outside of Part 97 rules was illegal?

W2CO

08-31-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Aug. 31 2005,06:05)]Quote[/b] (W2CO @ Aug. 31 2005,10:42)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Aug. 31 2005,04:17)]Quote[/b] (AI4FP @ Aug. 29 2005,11:42)]jty ,

Why did you even bother to get your ticket ?
On a dare from a fellow CBer.
Exactly and just keep in mind that it is illegal to use amateur radio equipment in the cb band.
Why did you feel the need to point out that operating Amateur equipment outside of Part 97 rules was illegal?
Because I know of multiple so called X cber no code tech's who regularly use their FT-101E's and SB102's and FT-817's on the CB band. One even uses his modified ht to key up the local VHF police repeater once in a while. Beware you're being watched.

w8vom

08-31-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote[/b] (W2CO @ Aug. 31 2005,08:44)]Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 31 2005,02:38)]Quote[/b] (w8vom @ Aug. 30 2005,19:30)]#The unwashed will simply use (Keyboards) and (Readers). The software available today is very sensitive. My wife can run 50 wpm Morse using a keyboard and reader and she has never learned Morse.She is also not a ham! No my friends...Morse use will eventually SKYROCKET....Why? because the new Generals (and) Extras will want to prove that they too can run with the big boys and work that good CW-DX.
Your Keyboard and reader software will work for most now days, but I have yet to see a reader copy a banana boat swing. How many of you remember those? Nor have I seen one that can copy most strait fists.

Best,

73

Mike - K7OV
Thats right, most readers can only copy perfect code, not straight keys or bugs forget it, only the trained ear can copy those correctly.
Keyboards and Readers are an anathema to me! I use only straight keys and paddles. I just wanted to point out the (fact) that after the Morse is no longer required,people with newly acquired HF access will use Morse even though they do not (know) Morse. Morse code will never die...you will have two kinds of CW op's..the kind that (know) Morse and the kind that use Morse but do not know Morse. A Keyboard is a (translator) just like a Reader is a translator.. I agree..the (old) readers were a joke but some of the new software driven readers are very good! This will enable people who do not know Morse to run with the sharks 90% of the time! # Welcome to the jungle!!!!!!!

ab8ma

08-31-2005, 07:39 PM

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Aug. 31 2005,08:38)]Your Keyboard and reader software will work for most now days, but I have yet to see a reader copy a banana boat swing. How many of you remember those? Nor have I seen one that can copy most strait fists.

Best,

73

Mike - K7OV
These readers are great for training the fist's technique. Nothing beats it for a sort of bio-feedback, sort of like becoming a virtuoso with CW.

KB3JZD

08-31-2005, 08:11 PM

I think some common sense needs to prevail when blanket statements are being made about new licensees being too lazy because of the code drop. The new licensees had nothing to do with it. It was commented on by the whole Amateur family to the FCC. Don't blame the new guy for your rules being changed. He had nothing to do with it and the comments that are made in this vein only tend to discourage the new guy and make them feel second rate. I don't see how that is the spirit of an Elmer nor do I see it as making the hobby seem attractive to a possible newcomer.

KC8RYQ

08-31-2005, 10:12 PM

I believe the FCC is goimg the right way. It will help those hams not able to read CW, because of hearing impairments.
Joseph Drake
KC8RYQ:)

K4JF

08-31-2005, 10:19 PM

Quote[/b] (KB3JZD @ Aug. 31 2005,13:11)]I think some common sense needs to prevail when blanket statements are being made about new licensees being too lazy because of the code drop. The new licensees had nothing to do with it. It was commented on by the whole Amateur family to the FCC. Don't blame the new guy for your rules being changed. He had nothing to do with it and the comments that are made in this vein only tend to discourage the new guy and make them feel second rate. I don't see how that is the spirit of an Elmer nor do I see it as making the hobby seem attractive to a possible newcomer.
I agree. We all took the exam required at the time we took it. Encourage the new guy to be his/her best. Now, if they come in with a chip on the shoulder (like some folks we know), that's a whole 'nother matter!! :o)

ke6ajy

09-01-2005, 03:16 AM

ke6ajy get over it just drop the code:)

WR3X

09-01-2005, 01:43 PM

True there a Radio Officer is no longer needed on ships, but all Deck officers must have a GMDSS operator license.
I was involved with GMDSS for 10 years as an instructor and also examiner.
Even the licensed 1st and 2nd class RO's had to attend classes in order to get the GMDSS license.
They were not grandfathered into the GMDSS.
Even now in order to get the GMDSS license a person must attend 70 hours of training at a certified training school.
The course includes 35 hous of theory and 35 hours of hands on practical training on some of the actual equipment they will be using.
There is also a requirement that 6 WPM of Flashing light morse code be learned.
I have seen too many operators that can not even program their equipment.
I aslo am involved with teaching Ham Classes with the Hisdtorical Electronics Museum Amateur Radio Club.
We are getting ready #now to start an Extra class on September 20,2005.

Les - WR3X

k5co

09-01-2005, 02:04 PM

If you don't do code, you're not a ham.

n0doz

09-01-2005, 02:05 PM

"If you want something bad enough you will work for it."
Exactly. Code advocates will have to work hard to keep it from becoming extinct.

"If you don't do code, you're not a ham."
If you don't accept the FCC's rules, you won't be one, either.

k7ov

09-01-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote[/b] (WR3X @ Sep. 01 2005,06:43)]Even now in order to get the GMDSS license a person must attend 70 hours of training at a certified training school.

Les - WR3X
As an examiner I can tell you that your statement listed below is not true. Anyone can go to any testing center and take the exams without the 70 hours of training and get the GMDSS Maintainer or Operator or both.

However, if you are not already a licensed Radio Officer, the Coast Guard requires that 70 hours of training in order for the Deck Officers to get or renew thier licenses. Also, if you are trying to get a new Radio Officers License from the Coast Guard, you must have those 70 hours plus certified Firefighting schooling, and there may be some other requirements as well. By the way, it is almost impossible to get a new Radio Officers License from the Coast Guard. That is why Sealift Command is actively recruiting former Radio Officers for their ships.

73,

Mike - K7OV

W2CO

09-01-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote[/b] (n0doz @ Sep. 01 2005,01:05)]"If you want something bad enough you will work for it."
Exactly. #Code advocates will have to work hard to keep it from becoming extinct.

"If you don't do code, you're not a ham."
If you don't accept the FCC's rules, you won't be one, either.
Oh boy here we go again:

you said
"If you want something bad enough you will work for it."
Exactly. #Code advocates will have to work hard to keep it from becoming extinct."

No the Code advocates will have to work hard in making sure the no coders don't ruin the CW bands like they will the phone bands.

you said
"If you don't accept the FCC's rules, you won't be one, either."

That is a two way street man, if you guys break the rules you will be reported promptly. There will be many (in disagreement with this NPRM) watching your every move. This has already started.

W2CO

09-01-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote[/b] (KD5PSH @ Sep. 01 2005,01:04)]If you don't do code, you're not a ham.
Right on!

KD6NIG

09-01-2005, 02:55 PM

Increased scrutiny is to be expected. There will be many who will be getting onto HF with a written test and no experience. These people do need to be guided and hopefully elmered, instead of just branded and reported.

As for not being a ham, I don't care if you're coded, uncoded, etc, the only thing I need to look at to tell I am one is the piece of paper on my wall/in my wallet that says "FCC Amateur Radio Licence". That tells me I'm a ham. If because I'm no coded, slow coded, etc means you won't talk to me or think of me as a "Real Ham" then so be it-there is no FCC rule that requires you to talk to any other licenced person, so do what you want. I don't plan on playing the class game though, and if someone on the air tries to do so, I will identify as legally required and QSY to where I am wanted. Simple. If that makes you feel like you got the best of me when I do so, then you go right on ahead and pat yourself on the back also. No loss to me http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I just hope this class system/I won't talk to someone without code and this 'zero tolerance' reporting of people doesn't just kill the hobby forever. I do hope that people will not be reported for failing to identify because they did it every 10 minutes 1 second, etc etc. If that starts happening, I would expect this hobby will be shuttered quickly as the FCC will just get tired of the reports and will see the best viable option is to just eliminate it.

g6vmi

09-01-2005, 03:10 PM

Over here in the uk, the interest in morse, and people learning, has actually increased since the code requirement was dropped.

Incidently, there is no requirement for the novice (first stage) licence, BUT it is still there for the intermediate and advanced tickets. Perhaps that's the way the US should be going?

k7ov

09-01-2005, 03:48 PM

Hi all,

In past posts I have voiced my opinion about the Code/No Code issue. I have maintained that some proficiency should be required simply because it is a valid operating mode and will continue to be so. My opinion is simply a demonstration of ability, not a class distinction.

Whether or not a fellow Ham has passed a code test or not does not, in my mind, has no bearing on whether or not he is a ham. What does matter to me, did he pass the current exam, and how he or she conducts themselves on the air and in their community. Why would anyone want to belittle or deride a fellow ham for using thier license to aid the community or help another person become a ham themselves, just enjoy that part of the hobby that interests them?

This issue, in my mind is not about class distinction at all. I have a freind of over 30 years who is an extra class. He worked to get the 20 WPM code so he could be one. He never used CW again, and as for his technical abilities, well, he had to take his rotator controller and Rotator down to the local Ham store and have them wire it for him on both ends and then he took it home and installed it prewired, even though he had good technical help in his oldest son and myself. Do I think less of him? Not at all! He is one of the finest people I have ever met, and he was frequently right out front to help in disaster communications and community service until he became too ill, now even to operate. I have the same feeling for the rest of my current ham friends no matter what their technical skils or CW prowess, or whether or not they came from the CB band. This is not about class for me. This is simply about what, in my opinion, I feel the minimum requirements for a ham license should be, and nothing more.

Those of you in this thread who feel that personal attacks are necessary, regardless of which side of the line you lean toward, have not really 'gotten' the idea and purpose that made Amateur Radio a really great hobby or fraternity. I don't run with people who encourage to form 'clicks' that denegrate others of their fellow hams for any reason. I have friends whom I admire and love who do not agree with my opinion about the CW requirements. They are no less my friends nor am I to them.

I understand differences of opinion, but what I don't understand is the hatred fostered because someone disagrees with you. If you want to be a ham in the true and traditional sense of the word, then as ambassadors to the world, you have a responsibility to understand this concept and learn to practice tolorance and wisdom and not be a part of this hate mongering. Hate mongering is a personality defect and has no bearing on Amateur Radio, it is just a fact of our society in these days.

State your opinion, and if I or others disagree, we will offer an alternate opinion, or not, but never in hate or denegration. I would encourage the rest of us to do the same.

73,

Mike - K7OV

W2CO

09-01-2005, 03:50 PM

KD6NIG wrote:
"I just hope this class system/I won't talk to someone without code and this 'zero tolerance' reporting of people doesn't just kill the hobby forever"
What will kill the hobby forever is the removal of the last simple tests we have and let everyone on HF who can pass a cheap easy written test that can be memorized from online posted answers. Why a 5 year old could do that and still not know anything about what they are doing. Hopefully I won't hear any of these types in the CW bands because they "don't know the code and don't want anything to do with it either." You want HF access with no code test - then stay clear of the CW bands. If you want to learn it (most will not even try) then the place for them is above .025 on the bands, but Oh I forgot they want to take those freq.s away for more room for the no code phone LIDS! Oh well guess you will never learn code huh...

WA4RYW

09-01-2005, 03:56 PM

It's just another step on the path to the end. Accept the fate. Amateur radio as it was in its heyday is DEAD, or at least gasping on its deathbed. The technology is ancient, and the engineers and intellectuals have moved on to other challenges. The simplification of the requirements as observed over the last 20 years are efforts to extend the inevitable out as much as possible at the risk of recreating another 11 meter environment. It will never again be what it was. The sad part is if the testing requirements were what they were in the 60s and 70s, our numbers WOULD be far less than the 670,000 or so (US) of us that exist now.

WR3X

09-01-2005, 03:56 PM

Posted: Sep. 01 2005,07:14 #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (WR3X @ Sep. 01 2005,06:43)
Even now in order to get the GMDSS license a person must attend 70 hours of training at a certified training school.

Les - WR3X

Quote
As an examiner I can tell you that your statement listed below is not true. Anyone can go to any testing center and take the exams without the 70 hours of training and get the GMDSS Maintainer or Operator or both.

You are right Mike, anyone can take the test and get the license. However in order to use it on board a commercial vessel, they must show that they have completed a certified course of 70 hours for the STCW cetificate.
I am also an examiner and was with the MITAGS school when they started the GMDSS course and helped to put it together as well as assisted in teaching the course.

Les WR3X

W2CO

09-01-2005, 03:57 PM

K7OV wrote:
"This issue, in my mind is not about class distinction at all. I have a freind of over 30 years who is an extra class. He worked to get the 20 WPM code so he could be one. He never used CW again, and as for his technical abilities, well, he had to take his rotator controller and Rotator down to the local Ham store and have them wire it for him on both ends and then he took it home and installed it prewired, even though he had good technical help in his oldest son and myself. Do I think less of him? Not at all! He is one of the finest people I have ever met, and he was frequently right out front to help in disaster communications and community service until he became too ill, now even to operate."

There are many like this (passed the 20wpm test but never used it) and that's fine. To each his own, everybody has their own interests and as long as they passed the way everyone else did that's fine, they earned it by hard work and dedication/discipline and that says alot for him in my book. At least he would be able to recognize an SOS if they heard it, or even a QRL when they were stepping on a cw contact etc. etc. Now we are going to get some real loosers by removing this requirement you watch.

k7ov

09-01-2005, 04:07 PM

Quote[/b] (KB3JZD @ Aug. 31 2005,13:11)]The new licensees had nothing to do with it.
I have to admit, I never thought about that truth. Yes, those of us who have our licenses passed the currently required and available tests of the time.

Having a license does not filter people out by the quality of the person, only the technical knowledge (not the same as ability) they have.

But, since this is still a 'technical' hobby, it is still up to us to voice our opinions about what technical or skill requirements we want to see in the future. Actually, those unlicensed persons don't have a say in setting these standards, and that is as it should be.

Thanks for the thoughtful insights,

73,

Mike - K7OV

k7ov

09-01-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote[/b] (WR3X @ Sep. 01 2005,08:56)]Posted: Sep. 01 2005,07:14 #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (WR3X @ Sep. 01 2005,06:43)
Even now in order to get the GMDSS license a person must attend 70 hours of training at a certified training school.

Les - WR3X

Quote
As an examiner I can tell you that your statement listed below is not true. Anyone can go to any testing center and take the exams without the 70 hours of training and get the GMDSS Maintainer or Operator or both.

You are right Mike, anyone can take the test and get the license. However in order to use it on board a commercial vessel, they must show that they have completed a certified course of 70 hours for the STCW cetificate.
I am also an examiner and was with the MITAGS school when they started the GMDSS course and helped to put it together as well as assisted in teaching the course.

Les WR3X
Hi Les,

You are quite correct. I just wanted to clarify that one little bit. You can use your GMDSS maintainer/operator license ashore as a marine tech though. This allows you to run on the air tests even though you may not be qualified to be ships personel as a 'watch stander'.

So anyway,

Best to you and your family,

Mike - K7OV

BTW I don't do testing of any sort any more. Got to be too much of a hassle for the returns it brought.

KC9CAU

09-01-2005, 04:32 PM

hey heres an idea ACT YOUR AGE. YOU ALL ARE ACTING LIKE LITTLE KIDS HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM.
GROW UP. YOU MAKE ME SICK. the fact that some of you think that if some one is not a "real ham" because they dont know or use code is just bs. You are just afride of change well guess what things change and there is nothing you can do about it. So like a nother HAM said on this thing and like the eagles said in one of there songs GET OVER IT. Also insted of degrading others try helping them insted think about this maybe some of the ncts out there want to learn the code but are having trouble getting it down LIKE ME for instance. Hmm try this insted of bickering on here why dont you join one of the hf nets to help with the hurricane I would but i failed my code test. As it is i maybe going down to do my part with the red cross (yes I a no code tech is willing to do hard work for long hours)

flame me if you want its only because you know i am right and like somebody else said his asbestos suit just cameback from the cleaners I dont have asbestos i have NOMEX

The Amateur's Code

The Radio Amateur is:

Considerate... Never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others

Loyal... Offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local
clubs, through which Amateur radio in the United States is represented
nationally and internationally.

Progressive... With the knowledge abreast of science, a well built and
efficient station and operation above reproach.

Friendly... Slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the Amateur spirit.

Balanced... Radio is a avocation, never interfering with the duties owed to
family, job, school, or community.

Patriotic... Station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

kc7jty

09-01-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote[/b] (W2CO @ Aug. 30 2005,11:42)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Aug. 31 2005,04:17)]Quote[/b] (AI4FP @ Aug. 29 2005,11:42)]jty ,

Why did you even bother to get your ticket ?
On a dare from a fellow CBer.
Exactly and just keep in mind that it is illegal to use amateur radio equipment in the cb band.
How about CB equipment on 10 meters when I get my privs there?

kc7jty

09-01-2005, 06:33 PM

Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Aug. 30 2005,12:18)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Aug. 29 2005,13:42)]....before the #current #class of amateur operators become nothing more than appliance operators.
We've had appliance operators since 3 days after Marconi invented the friggin' thing. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

We've always had them and we always will.... unfortunately....

I've personally met appliance operators that have had their license for over 30 years. Old-school tested, you know.
Is a CW key an appliance?

kc7jty

09-01-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote[/b] (W2CO @ Aug. 30 2005,13:19)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Aug. 31 2005,06:05)]Quote[/b] (W2CO @ Aug. 31 2005,10:42)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Aug. 31 2005,04:17)]Quote[/b] (AI4FP @ Aug. 29 2005,11:42)]jty ,

Why did you even bother to get your ticket ?
On a dare from a fellow CBer.
Exactly and just keep in mind that it is illegal to use amateur radio equipment in the cb band.
Why did you feel the need to point out that operating Amateur equipment outside of Part 97 rules was illegal?
Because I know of multiple so called X cber no code tech's who regularly use their FT-101E's and SB102's and FT-817's on the CB band. One even uses his modified ht to key up the local VHF police repeater once in a while. Beware you're being watched.
Do you conveniently overlook all the higher class hams who operate their amateur equipment on the CB band, or are you just ignorant of the fact that such people could do what the lowly NCTs do?

W2CO

09-01-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Sep. 01 2005,05:32)]Quote[/b] (W2CO @ Aug. 30 2005,11:42)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Aug. 31 2005,04:17)]Quote[/b] (AI4FP @ Aug. 29 2005,11:42)]jty ,

Why did you even bother to get your ticket ?
On a dare from a fellow CBer.
Exactly and just keep in mind that it is illegal to use amateur radio equipment in the cb band.
How about CB equipment on 10 meters when I get my privs there?
CB equipment on ten meters is not illegal as long as it is within compliance (3kc bw is ssb mode etc.) but operating ham equipment like FT-101E etc. is very illegal on 11 meters. Anyone who does that is just asking for a visit from uncle charlie whether they are of high license class or not, mainly because of it's higher power capabilities. Now to answer your other question, a cw key is as much an appliance as a microphone is, it's really how much you use them as to whether they are useless or not. I believe that when we say "appliance operator" it is refering to the fact that a person is operating a radio that they know nothing about it's internal workings is all, and has nothing to do with the outside accessories.

ky5u

09-02-2005, 12:26 AM

Quote[/b] ]kc9cau: ACT YOUR AGE. YOU ALL ARE ACTING LIKE LITTLE KIDS HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM. GROW UP. YOU MAKE ME SICK. the fact that some of you think that if some one is not a "real ham" because they dont know or use code is just bs.
Call: KC9CAU Class: Technician

For those who think the telegraphy test does not filter....

AC0GT

09-02-2005, 01:00 AM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 01 2005,17:26)]Quote[/b] ]kc9cau: ACT YOUR AGE. YOU ALL ARE ACTING LIKE LITTLE KIDS HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM. GROW UP. YOU MAKE ME SICK. the fact that some of you think that if some one is not a "real ham" because they dont know or use code is just bs.
Call: KC9CAU Class: Technician

For those who think the telegraphy test does not filter....
Call: #AG4YO
Class: #Amateur Extra

I think the "filter" has some holes in it.

KC0LXK
(Technician)

KC9CAU

09-02-2005, 03:03 AM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 01 2005,19:26)]Quote[/b] ]kc9cau: ACT YOUR AGE. YOU ALL ARE ACTING LIKE LITTLE KIDS HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM. GROW UP. YOU MAKE ME SICK. the fact that some of you think that if some one is not a "real ham" because they dont know or use code is just bs.
Call: KC9CAU Class: Technician

For those who think the telegraphy test does not filter....
oh i guess he made my point. hey thanks. oh btw in my previous post on here i have never attacked anybody i just stated my thoughts but it does not fit what he belives so to bad so sad. i really dont care what he thinks when i do pass the code test and i hear him on hf i will even try a qso with him if he refueses oh well one less qsl card big woop. there are plenty of other "REAL HAMS" to talk to.

oh for those of you that dont know who i am talking about
his call is ag4yo an extra who needs to study the amature code

The Amateur's Code

The Radio Amateur is:

Considerate... Never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others

Loyal... Offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local
clubs, through which Amateur radio in the United States is represented
nationally and internationally.

Progressive... With the knowledge abreast of science, a well built and
efficient station and operation above reproach.

Friendly... Slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the Amateur spirit.

Balanced... Radio is a avocation, never interfering with the duties owed to
family, job, school, or community.

Patriotic... Station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

and there it is http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

n0doz

09-02-2005, 05:59 AM

Sez W2CO: >Oh boy here we go again:<
Yup, here we go... where ya been, Tom?

>you said
"If you want something bad enough you will work for it."<
Somebody else said that. I said:
"Exactly. Code advocates will have to work hard to keep it from becoming extinct."

>No the Code advocates will have to work hard in making sure the no coders don't ruin the CW bands like they will the phone bands.<
I don't get it. Why would a low or no-coder be on the CW bands if they aren't interested in CW? I admit that I don't listen much on HF - is there a problem here that we aren't aware of? Or is it something else?

>you said "If you don't accept the FCC's rules, you won't be one, either."<
Yup, I did.

>That is a two way street man, if you guys break the rules you will be reported promptly. There will be many (in disagreement with this NPRM) watching your every move. This has already started.<
Really? As you say, it's a two-way street......

W2CO

09-02-2005, 01:58 PM

KC9CAU wrote:
"oh #i guess he made my point. hey thanks. oh btw in my previous post on here i have never attacked anybody i just stated my thoughts but it does not fit what he belives so to bad so sad. i really dont care what he thinks when i do pass the code test and i hear him on hf i will even try a qso with him if he refueses oh well one less qsl card big woop. there are plenty of other "REAL HAMS" #to talk to."

Yeah right! If you were going to pass the code test to get on HF you would've done it by now OM. You're just another one of these freeloading CBers waiting for the free ride. And quit posting those "The Amateur's Code" thingies, you have no idea what they really mean. Give us a break.

W2CO

09-02-2005, 02:06 PM

N0DOA wrote:
"I don't get it. #Why would a low or no-coder be on the CW bands if they aren't interested in CW? #I admit that I don't listen much on HF - is there a problem here that we aren't aware of? #Or is it something else?"

I know you don't get it, when the flood gates open for every CBer LID to be on HF after passing an infant's written test they will be keying up in the Extra CW band I guarantee this. They will be keying up with their litte peanut wistle signals trying to psk31 to their "good buddies" who have not passed the written test yet. You know if you listened to HF a little more you would hear what I'm talking about - it's already started. Oh I forgot you can't copy CW so forget it.

ab0wr

09-02-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote[/b] (KC9CAU @ Sep. 01 2005,20:03)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 01 2005,19:26)]Quote[/b] ]kc9cau: ACT YOUR AGE. YOU ALL ARE ACTING LIKE LITTLE KIDS HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM. GROW UP. YOU MAKE ME SICK. the fact that some of you think that if some one is not a "real ham" because they dont know or use code is just bs.
Call: KC9CAU Class: Technician

For those who think the telegraphy test does not filter....
oh #i guess he made my point. hey thanks. oh btw in my previous post on here i have never attacked anybody i just stated my thoughts but it does not fit what he belives so to bad so sad. i really dont care what he thinks when i do pass the code test and i hear him on hf i will even try a qso with him if he refueses oh well one less qsl card big woop. there are plenty of other "REAL HAMS" #to talk to.

oh for those of you that dont know who i am talking about
his call is ag4yo an extra who needs to study the amature code

The Amateur's Code

The Radio Amateur is:

Considerate... Never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others

Loyal... Offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local
clubs, through which Amateur radio in the United States is represented
nationally and internationally.

Progressive... With the knowledge abreast of science, a well built and
efficient station and operation above reproach.

Friendly... Slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the Amateur spirit.

Balanced... Radio is a avocation, never interfering with the duties owed to
family, job, school, or community.

Patriotic... Station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

and there it is http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Oh, yeah. There was a point made here CAU.

It just isn't the one you and LXK think it is.

tim ab0wr

P.S. You can't just say something isn't an attack by saying you "just stated your thoughts". ROFL!

W2CO

09-02-2005, 02:25 PM

The DX Gods are only good to CW operators. Why is that?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

KC9CAU

09-02-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote[/b] (W2CO @ Sep. 02 2005,08:58)]KC9CAU wrote:
"oh i guess he made my point. hey thanks. oh btw in my previous post on here i have never attacked anybody i just stated my thoughts but it does not fit what he belives so to bad so sad. i really dont care what he thinks when i do pass the code test and i hear him on hf i will even try a qso with him if he refueses oh well one less qsl card big woop. there are plenty of other "REAL HAMS" to talk to."

Yeah right! If you were going to pass the code test to get on HF you would've done it by now OM. You're just another one of these freeloading CBers waiting for the free ride. And quit posting those "The Amateur's Code" thingies, you have no idea what they really mean. Give us a break.
now i am getting personal w2co how dare you call me freeloading i have worked hard for everything i have never freeloaded in my life so you can shove that where the sun don't shine. some people don't have boatloads of money to have a state of the art hf reciver or transiver.
all you others out there you "REAL HAMS" WHO CAN'T SEE A POINT MY POINT IS YOU HAVE NOT HELD UP TO THE AMATURE CODE TRY READING IT YOU TALK DOWN TO ALL HAMS BELOW YOUR CLASS OBVISLY YOUR MOTHERS OR FATHERS DID NOT TEACH YOU WELL

The Amateur's Code

The Radio Amateur is:

Considerate... Never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others

Loyal... Offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local
clubs, through which Amateur radio in the United States is represented
nationally and internationally.

Progressive... With the knowledge abreast of science, a well built and
efficient station and operation above reproach.

Friendly... Slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the Amateur spirit.

Balanced... Radio is a avocation, never interfering with the duties owed to
family, job, school, or community.

Patriotic... Station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

IF YOU BOTHER TO READ IT YOU WILL SEE THAT YOU ARE THE EXACT OPPOSET OF WHAT A HAM IS

THIS IS FOR W2CO HEY GUESS WHAT I TOOK THE CODE TEST BUT I FAILED I AM STILL STUDYING AND I WILL PASS