FCC Noncommital on Code Changes

[n0klu]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 15 2006,13:50)]n0klu-BTW What you got planned for Easter? Anything good----------------------------------------------------------------------------------( well yes #we will go for sunRise service and have a Family dinner and easter egg hunt For the little one,s , and I hope you have a good easter to , and Remember #what #easter mean,s , easter is a great day one to Remember, 73 Bill
We also will be having a Sunrise Service, and afterwards a fellowship breakfast. The cooks will be preparing Pancakes and scrambled eggs, bacon, sausage ect. MMmmm so good.

Yes Jesus is the reason for the season. as this is Resurrection Sunday!
(I just love being politically incorrect).
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Have a great one Sunday!

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 14 2006,10:38)]My base argument is to those who consider Technicians (BTW it is called Technician not "No-code Technician") for all Tech's are No-code.
Not correct. Some have code credit with extra privileges earned by that credit.

[n0klu]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 15 2006,19:12)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 14 2006,10:38)]My base argument is to those who consider Technicians (BTW it is called Technician not "No-code Technician") for all Tech's are No-code.
Not correct. #Some have code credit with extra privileges earned by that credit.
Once upon a time this was true but, as of a few years ago the FCC no longer delineates if they have code or not. Part of the “work reduction” they have instituted.

1000

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 15 2006,15:36)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 15 2006,19:12)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 14 2006,10:38)]My base argument is to those who consider Technicians (BTW it is called Technician not "No-code Technician") for all Tech's are No-code.
Not correct. #Some have code credit with extra privileges earned by that credit.
Once upon a time this was true but, as of a few years ago the FCC no longer delineates if they have code or not. Part of the “work reduction” they have instituted.
I think the "tech plus" operators just keep their Element 1 CSCE or expired "tech plus" license to show that they have the HF privileges.

[W5IEI]

hehehe
It worked!!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Mike

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 15 2006,15:36)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 15 2006,19:12)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 14 2006,10:38)]My base argument is to those who consider Technicians (BTW it is called Technician not "No-code Technician") for all Tech's are No-code.
Not correct. #Some have code credit with extra privileges earned by that credit.
Once upon a time this was true but, as of a few years ago the FCC no longer delineates if they have code or not. Part of the “work reduction” they have instituted.
It is still true. True the FCC no longer keeps records. However, if they have passed the code, they still have the privileges that came with passing, hence they are not "no-code".

HOWEVER, they are still just "Technicians". There are no no-code Technicians, they are just Technicians (supposedly the advanced experimenters, for that is what the license was created for).

There is no "General-lite" or "Extra-Lite" either. And if the proposal passes, there will be no "No-Code" General or Extra. There will be Novice, Technician, General, Advanced and Extra. And all are hams. Period.

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 16 2006,12:21)]And all are hams. #Period.
That is one of the smartest remarks in a long time.

[n0klu]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 16 2006,19:38)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 16 2006,12:21)]And all are hams. #Period.
That is one of the smartest remarks in a long time.
I agree. This is very good indeed.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ April 16 2006,07:59)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 15 2006,15:36)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 15 2006,19:12)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 14 2006,10:38)]My base argument is to those who consider Technicians (BTW it is called Technician not "No-code Technician") for all Tech's are No-code.
Not correct. #Some have code credit with extra privileges earned by that credit.
Once upon a time this was true but, as of a few years ago the FCC no longer delineates if they have code or not. Part of the “work reduction” they have instituted.
I think the "tech plus" operators just keep their Element 1 CSCE or expired "tech plus" license to show that they have the HF privileges.
Correct. And that is interesting, because that is the only time a CSCE is good for more than 365 days.

[n0klu]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 17 2006,03:25)]Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ April 16 2006,07:59)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 15 2006,15:36)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 15 2006,19:12)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 14 2006,10:38)]My base argument is to those who consider Technicians (BTW it is called Technician not "No-code Technician") for all Tech's are No-code.
Not correct. #Some have code credit with extra privileges earned by that credit.
Once upon a time this was true but, as of a few years ago the FCC no longer delineates if they have code or not. Part of the “work reduction” they have instituted.
I think the "tech plus" operators just keep their Element 1 CSCE or expired "tech plus" license to show that they have the HF privileges.
Correct. #And that is interesting, because that is the only time a CSCE is good for more than 365 days.
My Word folks, we just hit consensus! See it is possible to agree on some things. and without badmouthing too! We have made progress!

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]LXK: If Technicians have not made advancements to Amateur radio then I have to ask what have Morse code qualified Amateurs done?

You're answering my question with a question? LOL! Try to concentrate. If the code free license has not produced great strides in Amateur Radio by NCTs, what about HF access will make it happen?

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 18 2006,19:56)]Quote[/b] ]LXK: If Technicians have not made advancements to Amateur radio then I have to ask what have Morse code qualified Amateurs done?

You're answering my question with a question? LOL! Try to concentrate. If the code free license has not produced great strides in Amateur Radio by NCTs, what about HF access will make it happen?
It's called rhetoric, Charlie. Had you been paying attention you would have noticed I did answer your question.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 18 2006,20:12)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 18 2006,19:56)]Quote[/b] ]LXK: If Technicians have not made advancements to Amateur radio then I have to ask what have Morse code qualified Amateurs done?

You're answering my question with a question? LOL! Try to concentrate. If the code free license has not produced great strides in Amateur Radio by NCTs, what about HF access will make it happen?
It's called rhetoric, Charlie. Had you been paying attention you would have noticed I did answer your question.
Since you have been talking in circles and answering questions with questions, I must assume you don't intend to answer my question. Your "rhetoric" is defined in Merriam Webster as "insincere or grandiloquent language". It fits you.

As a result you've confirmed that the NCT has not lived up to the hype since the license was created, and that HF adds nothing to this equation.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 15 2006,05:36)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 14 2006,15:09)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 14 2006,14:35)]Quote[/b] ]LXK: The issue at stake is, what does Morse code testing have to do with anything?

You still have yet to explain how knowledge of Morse code relates to people being better technicians, operators and communicators.

We've had this discussion before, and you keep trying to change the subject. #The subject is that NCTs have not made great strides for Amateur Radio, so what about HF access will make that happen?
I don't think I'm changing the subject. #The topic is about how Morse code relates to technical achievement.


Assuming Amateur radio technology has advanced then how did #Morse code knowledge allow the Amateurs to do so much better than a person that is ignorant of Morse code?

You see Morse code testing is irrelevant to assuring an applicant is technically inclined. #In fact I could argue the opposite, if Amateurs were not distracted by studying Morse code and spent their time learning electronic and radio theory they would be better operators.

You'll have to excuse me now, I have to go download this weeks lectures for my Antenna Theory graduate course. #You go work on your Morse code Charlie, I'm sure it will come in handy when the wind takes your antenna down.
kc0lxk- If Technicians have not made advancements to
If Amateur radio has stagnated for the past 15 years since the creation of the Codeless Technician then what have all you code qualified Amateurs been doing all this while? # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #------------------------------------------------------------------- they #have done #nothing But( #bitch - cry ) #and low Rate the no code tech,s all they can ( a Few #have, not all have) Because the fcc has done away with the code Requierment they #take there anger out on the no code tech,s, all anyone has to do is Read their post and you will see what they have done , nothing, 73 Bill

[KB8YIO]

i just don't understand why you all don't just accept change.......
now no code tech ,tech.. whatever... what does it matter if they are on hf..... the fcc. is going to do what it is going to do no matter what comments are made.....
just deal with it....
I on the other hand am a "no code tech".Do i want on hf? no... I listen to moaning and crying all day on hf,,, sounds like channel 19 on cb radio... better yet it sounds like cb channel 6.... been listening to gators traders net.. on 3.898 for years all i hear is key up over the net..... make lude comments and rarley a call given. is this what a no code has to look forward.. being shunned away from the hobby... i thought we were all one people.
keep chasing away folks and you will lose ham radio altogether.
bottom line change is good like it or not... if it was not we would still have and still be using horse and buggy.



"fiyah come down on those who mislead you"

[W5IEI]

Well,
If they are keying up over the net without giving a call sign,it could very well be a Tech doing it,eh?
Mike

Also Bill,
The no code Tech was supposed to save the hobby.
What have they done?
Complain,and bit#h about the code test.
I can't speak for anyone else,but my disdain for the no code tech comes from the attitude of those sitting around on their dead asses waiting on the rules to change.
As much time as you spen on here pounding out your illiterate drivel,you could have been up to 35 WPM by now.
Or,are you like noclue,could pass any code test given,but refuse to on principal?
Biggest crock I've ever heard.
Mike

[n0klu]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ April 19 2006,22:17)]Well,
If they are keying up over the net without giving a call sign,it could very well be a Tech doing it,eh?
Mike

Also Bill,
The no code Tech was supposed to save the hobby.
What have they done?
Complain,and bit#h about the code test.
I can't speak for anyone else,but my disdain for the no code tech comes from the attitude of those sitting around on their dead asses waiting on the rules to change.
As much time as you spen on here pounding out your illiterate drivel,you could have been up to 35 WPM by now.
Or,are you like noclue,could pass any code test given,but refuse to on principal?
Biggest crock I've ever heard.
Mike
Thats because you are the BIGGEST CROCK OF B*** S*** going Mike! no wonder you can't see or hear anything with your head in your pants and sitting on it.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ April 19 2006,15:17)]Well,
If they are keying up over the net without giving a call sign,it could very well be a Tech doing it,eh?
Mike

Also Bill,
The no code Tech was supposed to save the hobby.
What have they done?
Complain,and bit#h about the code test.
I can't speak for anyone else,but my disdain for the no code tech comes from the attitude of those sitting around on their dead asses waiting on the rules to change.
As much time as you spen on here pounding out your illiterate drivel,you could have been up to 35 WPM by now.
Or,are you like noclue,could pass any code test given,but refuse to on principal?
Biggest crock I've ever heard.
Mike
w5lel- let me tell you something Big Boy, I have Been studeing the Trash code #for a year now and #have takeing the test #3 times and going soon to take it again I have not missed many days out of that year ,studeing it #if you say I have Been sitting #around on #my dead as# you #are full of shi# I have Been working Hard on #this #trash #so dont tell me that I have not worked on this #trash #you dont know what I have done , everyone cant go and pass the test in #2 weeks , and if the know coders could not save it , how did you expect the no code tec,s to save it , and I never said I could save it , 73 Bill

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 19 2006,04:31)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 18 2006,20:12)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 18 2006,19:56)]Quote[/b] ]LXK: If Technicians have not made advancements to Amateur radio then I have to ask what have Morse code qualified Amateurs done?

You're answering my question with a question? LOL! Try to concentrate. If the code free license has not produced great strides in Amateur Radio by NCTs, what about HF access will make it happen?
It's called rhetoric, Charlie. Had you been paying attention you would have noticed I did answer your question.
Since you have been talking in circles and answering questions with questions, I must assume you don't intend to answer my question. Your "rhetoric" is defined in Merriam Webster as "insincere or grandiloquent language". It fits you.

As a result you've confirmed that the NCT has not lived up to the hype since the license was created, and that HF adds nothing to this equation.
Again you show your ignorance, poor reading comprehension, and tendency for ad hominem attacks.

This time look up "rhetorical question" in your dictionary. Now go back and re-read my last few posts to this thread. Assuming you understood the concept of a "rhetorical question" you should then be able to respond intelligently. If not, and you insist I answer your question in the form of a statement, I will then ask that you respond to each and every question I have posed to you before I answer your questions. I would think that is only fair.

I'll even help you out by pointing out my posts most relevant to this discussion can be found on page 99 of this thread.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KB8YIO @ April 19 2006,14:33)]i just don't understand why you all don't just accept change.......

bottom line change is good like it or not...
Ya hoo! Another blanket "change is good" statement. As I have said to others, supposing I chop off your arm. That's a change, right? Is it good? Accept the fact that you're going to die one day and let me shoot you now. That's change, right? Is it good?

Sorry for the extreme examples, but maybe you need to think a little...

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 19 2006,18:45)]Again you show your ignorance...

...and tendency for ad hominem attacks.
ROFLMAO! Physician heal thyself.

[PE1RDW]

carefull now charlie, just like the winlink guys someone might miss the sarcasm and think you actualy want to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

There is one question that comes to mind tough, is dropping the codetest a bad change and if it is bad what makes it bad?

Maybe I can help you overcome your fears if they are proven to be unfounded in places where this change has happend.

[n1dvj]

Quote[/b] ]LXK: If Technicians have not made advancements to Amateur radio then I have to ask what have Morse code qualified Amateurs done?
Actually, for quite some period, almost ALL the US astronauts were 'techs'. I think there was one General in there, but I'm not sure.

In those days, it was 'automatic' that the FCC waived the requirement that 'space based' stations mandated an 'Extra class' license.

Gee, imagine that! Lowly techs!

Anyway, about 1987 or so, a couple people had contacted the FCC about the automatic waivers, and had asked that either the waivers be stopped, or the rule deleted. Before any of the individuals could ask for a formal rule making, the FCC announced that the 'Extra' requirement was no longer in effect.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 20 2006,04:04)]carefull now charlie, just like the winlink guys someone might miss the sarcasm and think you actualy want to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

There is one question that comes to mind tough, is dropping the codetest a bad change and if it is bad what makes it bad?

Maybe I can help you overcome your fears if they are proven to be unfounded in places where this change has happend.
In my OPINION, removal of the code test is bad. Truthfully this is all a moot point. The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops. I think it is wrong, but it will be the law. I intend to be polite on the air to anyone who calls me as I am today. But I still urge any NCTs to get your ticket now and pass Element 1. You'll always be glad you did. As far as "other places", save your ink. There is little or no relevence to the USA there. About 8-10% of countries have removed the requirement completely. Hardly a landslide.

[n0klu]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,22:04)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 20 2006,04:04)]carefull now charlie, just like the winlink guys someone might miss the sarcasm and think you actualy want to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

There is one question that comes to mind tough, is dropping the codetest a bad change and if it is bad what makes it bad?

Maybe I can help you overcome your fears if they are proven to be unfounded in places where this change has happend.
In my OPINION, removal of the code test is bad. #Truthfully this is all a moot point. #The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops. #I think it is wrong, but it will be the law. #I intend to be polite on the air to anyone who calls me as I am today. #But I still urge any NCTs to get your ticket now and pass Element 1. #You'll always be glad you did. #As far as "other places", save your ink. #There is little or no relevence to the USA there. #About 8-10% of countries have removed the requirement completely. #Hardly a landslide.
Charlie, even though we are on different sides of the "fence" so to speak, we do agree on several points... not all change is good, "Gentelmen always" on the air. I look forward to working you one day on HF.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 20 2006,17:36)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,22:04)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 20 2006,04:04)]carefull now charlie, just like the winlink guys someone might miss the sarcasm and think you actualy want to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

There is one question that comes to mind tough, is dropping the codetest a bad change and if it is bad what makes it bad?

Maybe I can help you overcome your fears if they are proven to be unfounded in places where this change has happend.
In my OPINION, removal of the code test is bad. Truthfully this is all a moot point. The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops. I think it is wrong, but it will be the law. I intend to be polite on the air to anyone who calls me as I am today. But I still urge any NCTs to get your ticket now and pass Element 1. You'll always be glad you did. As far as "other places", save your ink. There is little or no relevence to the USA there. About 8-10% of countries have removed the requirement completely. Hardly a landslide.
Charlie, even though we are on different sides of the "fence" so to speak, we do agree on several points... not all change is good, "Gentelmen always" on the air. I look forward to working you one day on HF.
Same here.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (n1dvj @ April 20 2006,14:29)]Quote[/b] ]LXK: If Technicians have not made advancements to Amateur radio then I have to ask what have Morse code qualified Amateurs done? #
Actually, for quite some period, almost ALL the US astronauts were 'techs'. #I think there was one General in there, but I'm not sure. #

In those days, it was 'automatic' that the FCC waived the requirement that 'space based' stations mandated an 'Extra class' license. #

Gee, imagine that! #Lowly techs!
n1dvj-Anyway, about 1987 or so, a couple people had contacted the FCC about the automatic waivers, and had asked that either the waivers be stopped, or the rule deleted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(if the fcc is so afread of these kind of people no wonder Ham Radio is in the mess it,s in when the fcc will change it,s Rules for a few Bicthing and complaining about what someone else was doing if this is true these Bicthing and complain,er have Been around longer than I thought, thats the way to go fcc sit on your End,s and let these kind of people Run ham Radio, http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif 73 Bill

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 20 2006,04:04)]carefull now charlie, just like the winlink guys someone might miss the sarcasm and think you actualy want to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

There is one question that comes to mind tough, is dropping the codetest a bad change and if it is bad what makes it bad?
pe1Rdw-Maybe I can help you overcome your fears if they are proven to be unfounded in places where this change has happend.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------sir even the fcc is afread to try to change his fears, 73good luck Bill

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,16:04)] The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops.
Charlie, you misspelled "ALL".

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 20 2006,17:36)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,22:04)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 20 2006,04:04)]carefull now charlie, just like the winlink guys someone might miss the sarcasm and think you actualy want to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

There is one question that comes to mind tough, is dropping the codetest a bad change and if it is bad what makes it bad?

Maybe I can help you overcome your fears if they are proven to be unfounded in places where this change has happend.
In my OPINION, removal of the code test is bad. #Truthfully this is all a moot point. #The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops. #I think it is wrong, but it will be the law. #I intend to be polite on the air to anyone who calls me as I am today. #But I still urge any NCTs to get your ticket now and pass Element 1. #You'll always be glad you did. #As far as "other places", save your ink. #There is little or no relevence to the USA there. #About 8-10% of countries have removed the requirement completely. #Hardly a landslide.
Charlie, even though we are on different sides of the "fence" so to speak, we do agree on several points... not all change is good, "Gentelmen always" on the air. I look forward to working you one day on HF.
n0klu- well mike you had Better start getting that code down , if you want to talk to mr code him self, Remember this is not the last Round yet ,and when that day get,s Here you will see foam comming out of there mouth on that day ,I think you have said you alReady know the code stuff so Brush up on it a little Bit ,so you can get it Right for mr code , 73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n0klu]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 23 2006,02:02)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 20 2006,17:36)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,22:04)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 20 2006,04:04)]carefull now charlie, just like the winlink guys someone might miss the sarcasm and think you actualy want to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

There is one question that comes to mind tough, is dropping the codetest a bad change and if it is bad what makes it bad?

Maybe I can help you overcome your fears if they are proven to be unfounded in places where this change has happend.
In my OPINION, removal of the code test is bad. #Truthfully this is all a moot point. #The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops. #I think it is wrong, but it will be the law. #I intend to be polite on the air to anyone who calls me as I am today. #But I still urge any NCTs to get your ticket now and pass Element 1. #You'll always be glad you did. #As far as "other places", save your ink. #There is little or no relevence to the USA there. #About 8-10% of countries have removed the requirement completely. #Hardly a landslide.
Charlie, even though we are on different sides of the "fence" so to speak, we do agree on several points... not all change is good, "Gentelmen always" on the air. I look forward to working you one day on HF.
n0klu- well mike you had Better start getting that code #down , if you want to talk to mr code him self, Remember this is not the #last Round yet ,and when that day get,s #Here you will see foam comming out of there mouth on that day ,I think you #have said you alReady know the code stuff so Brush up on it a little Bit ,so you can get it Right for mr code , #73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
My goal is détente on both sides peace on the bands. If both side are rabid there won’t be any peace. My code is not too good but can make 5wpm. I think Charlie will be on voice as well as CW. So I would rather have friends than enemies... Well with one or two exceptions and I’ll let them guess which ones... Ha ha. Friends are more willing to talk than enemies. Code is not my forte, but I am not Anti-Code ether. CW need room on the bands as does other digital and voice. There is room for everyone if we can keep the bickering down to a dull roar. 17M I believe is the ham/CB band, lets keep it there and the rest clean please. I would be really disappointed if it went on every band by the time I get to the place I want to upgrade. Might not be worth upgrading if it does.

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 22 2006,13:36)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,16:04)] #The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops.
Charlie, you misspelled "ALL".
I really think it will be all or nothing. If the FCC was to keep a code test for extras only, there'd bo no cost reduction in the overall program so there is no advantage in keeping code for extras and permitting people to earn General class priveleges without a code test. Keeping the status quo would be in fact a little cheaper. Only a complete removal of the code requirement would resuld in substantially lower administrative costs. I see the ultimate R&O being either a continuation of the current licensing requirements or an end to all FCC code testing. However, if the FCC does eliminate code testing, then the ARRL or somebody will have to step forward and administera privatized code testing and certification system for operators who may wish to operate from countries such as Japan who are maintaining a code requirement for the time being. This certification could be incorporated into the call sign lookups on the QRZ and ARRL websites. IT IS NOT ALL, IT IS ALL OR NOTHING.

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 22 2006,13:36)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,16:04)] #The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops.
Charlie, you misspelled "ALL".
I really think it will be all or nothing. If the FCC was to keep a code test for extras only, there'd bo no cost reduction in the overall program so there is no advantage in keeping code for extras and permitting people to earn General class priveleges without a code test. Keeping the status quo would be in fact a little cheaper. Only a complete removal of the code requirement would result in substantially lower administrative costs. I see the ultimate R&O being either a continuation of the current licensing requirements or an end to all FCC code testing. However, if the FCC does eliminate code testing, then the ARRL or somebody will have to step forward and administer a privatized code testing and certification system for operators who may wish to operate from countries such as Japan who are maintaining a code requirement for the time being. This certification could be incorporated into the call sign lookups on the QRZ and ARRL websites. IT IS NOT ALL, IT IS ALL OR NOTHING.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ April 23 2006,08:10)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 22 2006,13:36)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,16:04)] The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops.
Charlie, you misspelled "ALL".
I really think it will be all or nothing. If the FCC was to keep a code test for extras only, there'd bo no cost reduction in the overall program so there is no advantage in keeping code for extras and permitting people to earn General class priveleges without a code test. Keeping the status quo would be in fact a little cheaper. Only a complete removal of the code requirement would resuld in substantially lower administrative costs. I see the ultimate R&O being either a continuation of the current licensing requirements or an end to all FCC code testing. However, if the FCC does eliminate code testing, then the ARRL or somebody will have to step forward and administera privatized code testing and certification system for operators who may wish to operate from countries such as Japan who are maintaining a code requirement for the time being. This certification could be incorporated into the call sign lookups on the QRZ and ARRL websites. IT IS NOT ALL, IT IS ALL OR NOTHING.
I appreciate the comments. Since having a code test or not so does not cost the FCC one dime, one resource, or any additional administrative work then I doubt this is even an issue with them. In 05-235 they even seem to refuse to consolodate license classes which would save them administrative efforts.

What they will do is anyone's guess. But Amateurs have spoken saying they want the test to remain for at least Extra Class. We'll see soon enough.

[AC0GT]

All or nothing. #I can live with that. #But as it is now it's not all or nothing. #A person can hold a Technicians license without knowing Morse code, so right now its half and half. #About half of the licensed Amateurs in the USA were not tested on Morse code.

If Morse code was so vital to emergency communications then all Amateurs should have been tested. #If Morse code is such a great measure of "gumption" then all Amateurs should have been tested.

I find it rather amusing on how many argue about how vital, important, and essential it is that we have Morse code trained Amateurs and say, "At least keep it for Extra". #If having Morse code trained operators is so important then one should be able to show that all Amateurs need to know Morse code. #It shouldn't stop there either by that argument, if the FCC requires a license to operate a radio then Morse code testing should be required to get that license.

The FCC should either get rid of Morse code testing for all Amateur license classes or reinstate Morse code testing for Technician. #All or nothing.

[k8pg]

Those that do know and do cw will be able to communicate more efficently and work more DX:) If you want to be a NO coder so be it,most of the service is down the toilet,I hear you can get you Tech in the Corn Flakes box,your General in Froot LOUPS and Extra in the Wheaties Box and your GRT in Cracker Jacks! Have Fun voice ops
stay up there in the KAOS bands:p http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
K8PG-PAUL-CW LIVES
70 wpm-qso me on 7.026MHZ

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ April 23 2006,08:11)]If the FCC was to keep a code test for extras only, there'd bo no cost reduction in the overall program so there is no advantage in keeping code for extras and permitting people to earn General class priveleges without a code test. Keeping the status quo would be in fact a little cheaper.
Cost is not a factor. Has nothing to do with it. The system is done by VEs so it will not save one cent to the FCC to eliminate CW. Nor will it cost to keep it. The computer system is already in place, and program changes will be done one time if/when it is changed. No continuing change in cost one way or the other.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,09:12)]I find it rather amusing on how many argue about how vital, important, and essential it is that we have Morse code trained Amateurs and say, "At least keep it for Extra". #If having Morse code trained operators is so important then one should be able to show that all Amateurs need to know Morse code. #It shouldn't stop there either by that argument, if the FCC requires a license to operate a radio then Morse code testing should be required to get that license.
I'm one of those who advocate eliminating for General and keeping for Extra. My position has nothing to do with importance of CW for emergency work. It has all to do with the Extra being the "top of the line" license. It cannot be denied that CW is the simplist, most basic form of radio communications. What value is an Extra Class if you don't know the basics? All of them?

Plus most of the advantages of the Extra license are of value only to the CW op: exclusive CW frequencies and a short, CW-friendly callsign. I really don't know why one would want an Extra if he/she is not going to do CW.

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (k8pg @ April 23 2006,10:07)]Those that do know and do cw will be able to communicate more efficently and work more DX:) If you want to be a NO coder so be it,most of the service is down the toilet,I hear you can get you Tech in the Corn Flakes box,your General in Froot LOUPS and Extra in the Wheaties Box and your GRT in Cracker Jacks! Have Fun voice ops
stay up there in the KAOS bands:p http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #K8PG-PAUL-CW LIVES
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #70 wpm-qso me on 7.026MHZ
70 wpm. DAMN, you CW FAST!!!

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 23 2006,12:46)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,09:12)]I find it rather amusing on how many argue about how vital, important, and essential it is that we have Morse code trained Amateurs and say, "At least keep it for Extra". If having Morse code trained operators is so important then one should be able to show that all Amateurs need to know Morse code. It shouldn't stop there either by that argument, if the FCC requires a license to operate a radio then Morse code testing should be required to get that license.
I'm one of those who advocate eliminating for General and keeping for Extra. My position has nothing to do with importance of CW for emergency work. It has all to do with the Extra being the "top of the line" license. It cannot be denied that CW is the simplist, most basic form of radio communications. What value is an Extra Class if you don't know the basics? All of them?

Plus most of the advantages of the Extra license are of value only to the CW op: exclusive CW frequencies and a short, CW-friendly callsign. I really don't know why one would want an Extra if he/she is not going to do CW.
K4JF:

You words are to-the-point and correct... well said.

Regarding the Extra Class license, Morse code should be kept for those who learn most, if not all, of the basics surrounding amateur radio. Morse code isn't going away any time soon; it will continue to be an extremely popular mode of at least 50% of the ham population for a long time. The "Extra Class" licensee should be able to demonstrate some basic level of proficiency concerning this long-standing and popular mode of operation. The "Extra Class" should continue to denote those who have gone the extra mile. 73.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 23 2006,12:46)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,09:12)]I find it rather amusing on how many argue about how vital, important, and essential it is that we have Morse code trained Amateurs and say, "At least keep it for Extra". If having Morse code trained operators is so important then one should be able to show that all Amateurs need to know Morse code. It shouldn't stop there either by that argument, if the FCC requires a license to operate a radio then Morse code testing should be required to get that license.
I'm one of those who advocate eliminating for General and keeping for Extra. My position has nothing to do with importance of CW for emergency work. It has all to do with the Extra being the "top of the line" license. It cannot be denied that CW is the simplist, most basic form of radio communications. What value is an Extra Class if you don't know the basics? All of them?

Plus most of the advantages of the Extra license are of value only to the CW op: exclusive CW frequencies and a short, CW-friendly callsign. I really don't know why one would want an Extra if he/she is not going to do CW.
K4JF:

You words are to-the-point and correct... well said.

Regarding the Extra Class license, Morse code should be kept for those who learn most, if not all, of the basics surrounding amateur radio. Morse code isn't going away any time soon; it will continue to be a mode of choice for at least 50% of the ham population for a long time. The "Extra Class" licensee should be able to demonstrate some basic level of proficiency on this long-standing and popular mode of operations. The "Extra Class" should continue to denote those who have gone the extra mile. 73.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ April 23 2006,08:10)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 22 2006,13:36)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,16:04)] #The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops.
Charlie, you misspelled "ALL".
I really think it will be all or nothing. If the FCC was to keep a code test for extras only, there'd bo no cost reduction in the overall program so there is no advantage in keeping code for extras and permitting people to earn General class priveleges without a code test. Keeping the status quo would be in fact a little cheaper. Only #a complete removal of the code requirement would resuld in substantially lower administrative costs. I see the ultimate R&O being either a continuation of the current licensing requirements or an end to all FCC code testing. However, if the FCC does eliminate code testing, then the ARRL or somebody will have to step forward and administera privatized code testing and certification system for operators who may wish to operate from countries such as Japan who are maintaining a code requirement for the time being. This certification could be incorporated into the call sign lookups on the QRZ and ARRL websites. IT IS NOT ALL,.
n2mmm- IT IS ALL OR NOTHING-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------sir I think you are Right here if the fcc was going to keep it for xtra they would have said so when they made there decision , if they change that then there decision was worthless to begin with, But if we live long enought we will see,73 good luck Bill

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 23 2006,12:46)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,09:12)]I find it rather amusing on how many argue about how vital, important, and essential it is that we have Morse code trained Amateurs and say, "At least keep it for Extra". #If having Morse code trained operators is so important then one should be able to show that all Amateurs need to know Morse code. #It shouldn't stop there either by that argument, if the FCC requires a license to operate a radio then Morse code testing should be required to get that license.
I'm one of those who advocate eliminating for General and keeping for Extra. #My position has nothing to do with importance of CW for emergency work. #It has all to do with the Extra being the "top of the line" license. #It cannot be denied that CW is the simplist, most basic form of radio communications. #What value is an Extra Class if you don't know the basics? #All of them? #

Plus most of the advantages of the Extra license are of value only to the CW op: exclusive CW frequencies and a short, CW-friendly callsign. #
k4jf-I really don't know why one would want an Extra if he/she is not going to do CW.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------sir on #my part of it , you will have to understand every one dose not think like you , I am going for xtra #Right now and will not ever use code in my life time , dont care for it ,it is not worth what I have had to go thru to get it , But if you do #I wish you the Best , and I dont think the fcc will save it for the xtra #Because I think they would like to get #Rid of it ,so they dont have to Be checking on it to see if the test is given Right #any more, If they keep it for xtra #the code thing will keep going on #and I dont think they wont that to happen , that,s just what I think,I am close to getting it now I hope to have it Behind me soon ,But I am with the fcc all the way to get Rid of it across the Board , that is testing only73 good luck Bill

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 22 2006,19:28)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 23 2006,02:02)]Quote[/b] (n0klu @ April 20 2006,17:36)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 20 2006,22:04)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 20 2006,04:04)]carefull now charlie, just like the winlink guys someone might miss the sarcasm and think you actualy want to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

There is one question that comes to mind tough, is dropping the codetest a bad change and if it is bad what makes it bad?

Maybe I can help you overcome your fears if they are proven to be unfounded in places where this change has happend.
In my OPINION, removal of the code test is bad. #Truthfully this is all a moot point. #The FCC will decide and probably remove the code for General Class Ops. #I think it is wrong, but it will be the law. #I intend to be polite on the air to anyone who calls me as I am today. #But I still urge any NCTs to get your ticket now and pass Element 1. #You'll always be glad you did. #As far as "other places", save your ink. #There is little or no relevence to the USA there. #About 8-10% of countries have removed the requirement completely. #Hardly a landslide.
Charlie, even though we are on different sides of the "fence" so to speak, we do agree on several points... not all change is good, "Gentelmen always" on the air. I look forward to working you one day on HF.
n0klu- well mike you had Better start getting that code #down , if you want to talk to mr code him self, Remember this is not the #last Round yet ,and when that day get,s #Here you will see foam comming out of there mouth on that day ,I think you #have said you alReady know the code stuff so Brush up on it a little Bit ,so you can get it Right for mr code , #73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
My goal is détente on both sides peace on the bands. If both side are rabid there won’t be any peace. My code is not too good but can make 5wpm. I think Charlie will be on voice as well as CW. So I would rather have friends than enemies... Well with one or two exceptions and I’ll let them guess which ones... Ha ha. Friends are more willing to talk than enemies. Code is not my forte, but I am not Anti-Code ether. CW need room on the bands as does other digital and voice. There is room for everyone if we can keep the bickering down to a dull roar. 17M I believe is the ham/CB band, lets keep it there and the rest clean please. I would be really disappointed if it went on every band by the time I get to the place I want to upgrade. Might not be worth upgrading if it does.
ok that sound,s good hope to talk to you one day on the Bands , where you know the code or not , code dose not make any difference here on this side if you are a ham that,s all that matter,s to me , 73 good luck Bill

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 23 2006,13:46)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,09:12)]I find it rather amusing on how many argue about how vital, important, and essential it is that we have Morse code trained Amateurs and say, "At least keep it for Extra". #If having Morse code trained operators is so important then one should be able to show that all Amateurs need to know Morse code. #It shouldn't stop there either by that argument, if the FCC requires a license to operate a radio then Morse code testing should be required to get that license.
I'm one of those who advocate eliminating for General and keeping for Extra. #My position has nothing to do with importance of CW for emergency work. #It has all to do with the Extra being the "top of the line" license. #It cannot be denied that CW is the simplist, most basic form of radio communications. #What value is an Extra Class if you don't know the basics? #All of them? #

Plus most of the advantages of the Extra license are of value only to the CW op: exclusive CW frequencies and a short, CW-friendly callsign. #I really don't know why one would want an Extra if he/she is not going to do CW.
There may be frequencies exclusive to Extra, but none of them are exclusive to CW. #Someone might want those frequencies to use PSK31 or SSB.

A short(er) call sign is not only advantageous for CW but all modes. #If it's quicker to spell out by CW it is also quicker to spell out phonetically or by keyboard.

You say an Extra should know the basics in all modes? #Then the FCC should test on the ability to speak and understand English by ear, for voice modes. #The FCC should also test on the ability to type and read text, for the digital modes. #Let's not forget a visual acuity test for the video/image modes.

If you make the claim that Morse code is a "basic" skill then it should be the first test one takes to get a license, not the last one for an upgrade to the top license.

So, you don't know why someone would want an Extra license unless they are going to use CW? #I hinted at a few reasons above.

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] ]I really don't know why one would want an Extra if he/she is not going to do CW.
Thinking about this again brought about a more direct respnse. If the only reason a person would get an Extra class license is to make use of CW, then why the need to test on Morse code proficiency?

What I mean is that assuming the only reason to upgrade to Extra is to make use of CW then the testing for Morse code proficiency is only a waste of time since all candidates for Extra would already know Morse code beyond a 5 WPM.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,15:39)]There may be frequencies exclusive to Extra, but none of them are exclusive to CW. #Someone might want those frequencies to use PSK31 or SSB.
Not correct. SSB is NOT authorized (in the US, which is where we are talking about) in the bottom .025 of each HF band, which is exclusively Extra. PSK is, but is not, by convention, used there.

The fact that someone might want to use them does not make it legal for them to do so.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,15:39)]You say an Extra should know the basics in all modes? #Then the FCC should test on the ability to speak and understand English by ear, for voice modes. #The FCC should also test on the ability to type and read text, for the digital modes. #Let's not forget a visual acuity test for the video/image modes.
Nope, didn't say that. I said that CW is basic RADIO. (Did that make it clearer?) Speaking and seeing are not specifically radio, and I never said test for all modes. I said CW is basic and I believe that an Extra should know the basics. (Never said the others were basic. They are not.)

I also never said the Extra should be exclusively CW. It is all modes. I have used SSB, AM, CW, PSK, FM, PM and maybe others. And will continue to do so as long as they are legal. (And currently only one mode is under attack.) But I do believe the benefits of Extra primarily (not exclusively) accrue to the CW op, based on reading the rules and my own experience. I gained more CW frequencies than SSB frequencies when I upgraded. So did every other Extra.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,20:21)]What I mean is that assuming the only reason to upgrade to Extra is to make use of CW then the testing for Morse code proficiency is only a waste of time since all candidates for Extra would already know Morse code beyond a 5 WPM.
Nobody (that I know of) said the only reason for Extra is to make use of CW.

Besides that, the statement is illogical. #If the only reason were for CW (it is not), then the test should be mandatory, to determine qualification to use the exclusive mode.

When my Novice license authorized only CW, then it was logical that I would be tested for CW proficiency before being granted the license. #Using your logic, the FAA should not test for ability to control an aircraft to issue a flying license, since that is the only reason for a pilot's license.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 23 2006,21:30)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,15:39)]You say an Extra should know the basics in all modes? #Then the FCC should test on the ability to speak and understand English by ear, for voice modes. #The FCC should also test on the ability to type and read text, for the digital modes. #Let's not forget a visual acuity test for the video/image modes.
Nope, didn't say that. #I said that CW is basic RADIO. (Did that make it clearer?) #Speaking and seeing are not specifically radio

I also never said the Extra should be exclusively CW. #It is all modes. #I have used SSB, AM, CW, PSK, FM, PM and maybe others. #And will continue to do so as long as they are legal. #(And currently only one mode is under attack.) #But I do believe the benefits of Extra primarily (not exclusively) accrue to the CW op, based on reading the rules and my own experience. #I gained more CW frequencies than SSB frequencies when I upgraded. #So did every other Extra.
k4jf-, and I never said test for all modes. I said CW is basic and I believe that an Extra should know the basics. (Never said the others were basic. They are not.)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------well sir why not test for the other modes ,if you got to test for cw then you should have to test for the other,s -------and the Bottom .025 of all the Bands you can have my part dont need it dont care for cw you are the one that like,s cw not me you use that part and I will Be glad to stay up above your .025 in every Band , when I get the code Krap I still wont Be down there , you should do what you wont to do and not force your thing on others , if you like the code crap then use it But dont tell me That I have to do it to and dont tell me what is Best for me let me say what I wont to do , I did not tell you what to do, 73 Bill

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 23 2006,21:34)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,20:21)]What I mean is that assuming the only reason to upgrade to Extra is to make use of CW then the testing for Morse code proficiency is only a waste of time since all candidates for Extra would already know Morse code beyond a 5 WPM.
Nobody (that I know of) said the only reason for Extra is to make use of CW.

Besides that, the statement is illogical. If the only reason were for CW (it is not), then the test should be mandatory, to determine qualification to use the exclusive mode.

When my Novice license authorized only CW, then it was logical that I would be tested for CW proficiency before being granted the license. Using your logic, the FAA should not test for ability to control an aircraft to issue a flying license, since that is the only reason for a pilot's license.
LXK is our "Wylie Coyote". He keeps injuring himself the harder he tries... (Likeness below by HUD, for Copyright purposes).

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 24 2006,06:34)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,20:21)]What I mean is that assuming the only reason to upgrade to Extra is to make use of CW then the testing for Morse code proficiency is only a waste of time since all candidates for Extra would already know Morse code beyond a 5 WPM.
Nobody (that I know of) said the only reason for Extra is to make use of CW.

Besides that, the statement is illogical. #If the only reason were for CW (it is not), then the test should be mandatory, to determine qualification to use the exclusive mode.

When my Novice license authorized only CW, then it was logical that I would be tested for CW proficiency before being granted the license. #Using your logic, the FAA should not test for ability to control an aircraft to issue a flying license, since that is the only reason for a pilot's license.
IMHO a better comparison would be needing a drivers licence to drive on a racetrack during open track days.

some tracks do require that you have a licence but others don't, it's lickely that you know how to drive if you come to an open track day.

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 24 2006,10:26)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 24 2006,06:34)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,20:21)]What I mean is that assuming the only reason to upgrade to Extra is to make use of CW then the testing for Morse code proficiency is only a waste of time since all candidates for Extra would already know Morse code beyond a 5 WPM.
Nobody (that I know of) said the only reason for Extra is to make use of CW.

Besides that, the statement is illogical. If the only reason were for CW (it is not), then the test should be mandatory, to determine qualification to use the exclusive mode.

When my Novice license authorized only CW, then it was logical that I would be tested for CW proficiency before being granted the license. Using your logic, the FAA should not test for ability to control an aircraft to issue a flying license, since that is the only reason for a pilot's license.
IMHO a better comparison would be needing a drivers licence to drive on a racetrack during open track days.

some tracks do require that you have a licence but others don't, it's lickely that you know how to drive if you come to an open track day.
I'm glad to see someone was paying attention.

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 23 2006,22:30)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,15:39)]You say an Extra should know the basics in all modes? Then the FCC should test on the ability to speak and understand English by ear, for voice modes. The FCC should also test on the ability to type and read text, for the digital modes. Let's not forget a visual acuity test for the video/image modes.
Nope, didn't say that. I said that CW is basic RADIO. (Did that make it clearer?) Speaking and seeing are not specifically radio, and I never said test for all modes. I said CW is basic and I believe that an Extra should know the basics. (Never said the others were basic. They are not.)

So, CW is basic radio. Also, Morse code is exclusive to radio?

I agree that CW is basic radio. The creation of a (dis)continuous wave is a basic concept. However Morse code is not "basic" if it is only required for the top license class. If Morse code is truly a basic skill then it should be required of all license classes. If you are requiring Morse code of only the top license class then you are making Morse code an "advanced" skill.

Also, Morse code is not exclusive to radio any more than voice is exclusive to the telephone. How do you percieve Morse code as received by your radio? By sound? Then it's not just for use on radio waves. As some pro-code testers like to point out it is quite useful in the light spectrum, which is only a "radio" wave by a loose definition of the word. Also a spectrum outside of the FCC's control.

Perhaps you've seen a demonstration of the old railroad telegraphs. There is Morse code by use of a wire. If Morse code is such a "basic" skill then all telephone operators and technicians should know Morse code. The computer network technicians should know it as well. Since someone can flip a light on and off to send Morse code then all licensed electricians should be tested on Morse code as well.

If you claim that Morse code is a basic skill for operating a radio then all FCC radio licenses should require Morse code testing, not just Amateur.

If you are going to argue that Morse code should only be required of the top most license class then call it what it is, an advanced skill. Then you have to argue why an Extra should be tested on an advanced skill exclusive to one mode while not requiring testing on skills for other modes. Modes such as voice or digital that require the skills such as speach and typing.

All or nothing. All license classes should be tested on Morse code or none. Test on mode specific skills for all modes or for none.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 24 2006,19:37)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 23 2006,22:30)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,15:39)]You say an Extra should know the basics in all modes? Then the FCC should test on the ability to speak and understand English by ear, for voice modes. The FCC should also test on the ability to type and read text, for the digital modes. Let's not forget a visual acuity test for the video/image modes.
Nope, didn't say that. I said that CW is basic RADIO. (Did that make it clearer?) Speaking and seeing are not specifically radio, and I never said test for all modes. I said CW is basic and I believe that an Extra should know the basics. (Never said the others were basic. They are not.)

So, CW is basic radio. Also, Morse code is exclusive to radio? Milk exclusive to cows? Is green exclusive to trees? Where does belly-button lint come from?

I agree that CW is basic radio. The creation of a (dis)continuous wave is a basic concept. However Morse code is not "basic" if it is only required for the top license class. If Morse code is truly a basic skill then it should be required of all license classes. If you are requiring Morse code of only the top license class then you are making Morse code an "advanced" skill. Reader decide: Merriam Webster defines Basic as - containing relatively little silica <basic rocks>. Morse Code contains verry little silica so it is basic. Nice Try.

Also, Morse code is not exclusive to radio any more than voice is exclusive to the telephone. How do you percieve Morse code as received by your radio? By sound? Then it's not just for use on radio waves. As some pro-code testers like to point out it is quite useful in the light spectrum, which is only a "radio" wave by a loose definition of the word. Also a spectrum outside of the FCC's control. Radio use is not exclusive to Amateur Radio. NCTs could use CB frequencies where the code is not presently required.

Perhaps you've seen a demonstration of the old railroad telegraphs. There is Morse code by use of a wire. If Morse code is such a "basic" skill then all telephone operators and technicians should know Morse code. The computer network technicians should know it as well. Since someone can flip a light on and off to send Morse code then all licensed electricians should be tested on Morse code as well. The Amateur Radio Service is the subject at hand, not telephone operators, computer techs, milkmen, and proctologists.

If you claim that Morse code is a basic skill for operating a radio then all FCC radio licenses should require Morse code testing, not just Amateur. Textbook Obfuscation. The subject is Amateur Radio. Hello!? Anyone home?

If you are going to argue that Morse code should only be required of the top most license class then call it what it is, an advanced skill. Then you have to argue why an Extra should be tested on an advanced skill exclusive to one mode while not requiring testing on skills for other modes. Modes such as voice or digital that require the skills such as speach and typing. LXK Ham Radio test:

1. Say Ham. (You pass Voice)
2. Say your ABCs. (You're ready to type.)
3. Press the "A" on the typwriter. (You're ready for Digital modes).
4. Element 1. Beeeeeeep! You fail! Back to typing out long silly messages on QRZ!

All or nothing. All license classes should be tested on Morse code or none. Test on mode specific skills for all modes or for none. Everyone with the flu should be killed so we don't miss any "bird flu" cases. All or none, right?
Comments in Bold.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 24 2006,06:57)]you should #do what you wont to do and not force #your thing on others , if you like the code then use it But dont tell me That I have to do it to #and dont tell me what is Best for me #let #me #say what I wont to do , I did not tell you #what to do, #73 Bill
Bill, I never told you (or anybody else) what mode to use, or what is best for them. I like several modes. I used 3 different ones just today. Methinks you have me mixed up with someone else if you think I am forcing anything on anybody! Do what you like, that's what ham radio is all about!! Do different things. That's what keeps it interesting for years and years.

I have posted many times advocating that CW be eliminated for General. I just don't see Extra being the lofty goal it is supposed to be if it ignores the basic minimums. That's all. And I never said test for all modes, that was somebody else's idea.

I have also said there thould be "time-in-grade" and/or mentoring requirements for Extra, also.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 25 2006,08:50)]NCTs could use CB frequencies where the code is not presently required.
Actually, CW is illegal on CB. But then many current activities on that band are illegal. (I didn't say all.)

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 26 2006,20:29)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 24 2006,06:57)]you should #do what you wont to do and not force #your thing on others , if you like the code then use it But dont tell me That I have to do it to #and dont tell me what is Best for me #let #me #say what I wont to do , I did not tell you #what to do, #73 Bill
just today. #Methinks you have me mixed up with someone else if you think I am forcing anything on anybody! #Do what you like, that's what ham radio is all about!! #Do different things. #That's what keeps it interesting for years and years.

I have posted many times advocating that CW be eliminated for General. #I just don't see Extra being the lofty goal it is supposed to be if it ignores the basic minimums. #That's all. #And I never said test for all modes, that was somebody else's idea.

I have also said there thould be "time-in-grade" and/or mentoring requirements for Extra, also.
k4jf-Bill, I never told you (or anybody else) what mode to use, or what is best for them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------well sir you Push your Idea that everyone should have to learn the morse code you did and you like it , not every one see thing the same way ,I am learning your morse code But I will never use it and for my use I think it stink,s,I am haveing alot of trouble with something that could not have Been to hard for you to do ,and I guess thats ok to,I dont think you have to do anything just Because I had to do it , and my thing is get Rid of the morse code as a testing Requirment only and I am with the fcc 100% across the Board to get it out , you got your thing to keep it I got my thing to get Rid of it , the ones that like it will allways go for it it,s not just cw I dont care about , all ham Radio has to offer me is (ssB-fm -am) thats it dont care for anything else thats it ,and if they keep it for xtra the fight will go on ,and I think they know this ,and you should know this ,you are only putting off something that will come Back next year if they dont get Rid of it this time ,I am ok with you I would like to talk to you one day if you will talk to me ,you are just on the other side of the fence from me and to me that,s ok , 73 Bill

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 26 2006,20:34)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 25 2006,08:50)].
Actually, CW is illegal on CB. #But then many current activities on that band are illegal. #(I didn't say all.)
-NCTs could use CB frequencies where the code is not presently required----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------they are all Ready on #there I talk to general,s on there all the time with in 40 miles of me , met one of them at #the ham fest and he is a good ham to , --------and dont forget there are a lot of stuff on the Ham Bands that is illegal going on today ,73 Bill

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 27 2006,07:09)]well sir #you Push your Idea that everyone should have to learn the morse code #
Nope, never said that. Bill, please re-read my posts over the past year. I have never, never said that everyone should have to learn Morse Code. I thought that was once upon a time, but I have repeatedly advocated that CW be eliminated for General, and we should establish a codeless entry-level license (similar to the old Novice - heck re-instate Novice, but without code). How is that saying that everyone should learn it? Only the top level out of 3 or 4? I just think that an Extra should know at least a little bit about ALL the modes, to get to the top-level license. Otherwise, how can it be considered top level?

I didn't like code when I first studied it - but grew to like it very much when I had exposure as the only mode I could use. (Got WAS with it, too.) No other mode (of the time) could have let me have a ham station in the corner of the den and not disturb the wife and kids with their TV, homework, etc. But that is all history and irrelevant to the discussion.

My concern is the large number of people pushing for banning code, and the downgrading of the mode with frequencies being taken away under the false premise of unused spectrum. Maintaining that the highest license should at least have a little bit of the mode would help keep the frequencies. They are such a tiny part of the bands, that the other modes really have all the room they need, and would gain little from the elimination of code spectrum.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 24 2006,19:37)]Also, Morse code is exclusive to radio?
Nope, never said that, either. Of course it is not.

[W5IEI]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 27 2006,07:23)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 26 2006,20:34)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 25 2006,08:50)].
Actually, CW is illegal on CB. But then many current activities on that band are illegal. (I didn't say all.)
-NCTs could use CB frequencies where the code is not presently required----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------they are all Ready on there I talk to general,s on there all the time with in 40 miles of me , met one of them at the ham fest and he is a good ham to , --------and dont forget there are a lot of stuff on the Ham Bands that is illegal going on today ,73 Bill
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 24 2006,19:37)]I agree that CW is basic radio. #The creation of a (dis)continuous wave is a basic concept. #However Morse code is not "basic" if it is only required for the top license class.
Not correct. The requirement for a license does not affect whether it is basic or not. The definition lies outside of licensing requirements.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ April 24 2006,09:26)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 24 2006,06:34)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ April 23 2006,20:21)]What I mean is that assuming the only reason to upgrade to Extra is to make use of CW then the testing for Morse code proficiency is only a waste of time since all candidates for Extra would already know Morse code beyond a 5 WPM.
Nobody (that I know of) said the only reason for Extra is to make use of CW.

Besides that, the statement is illogical. #If the only reason were for CW (it is not), then the test should be mandatory, to determine qualification to use the exclusive mode.

When my Novice license authorized only CW, then it was logical that I would be tested for CW proficiency before being granted the license. #Using your logic, the FAA should not test for ability to control an aircraft to issue a flying license, since that is the only reason for a pilot's license.
IMHO a better comparison would be needing a drivers licence to drive on a racetrack during open track days.

some tracks do require that you have a licence but others don't, it's lickely that you know how to drive if you come to an open track day.
Let me know which race tracks don't require a minimum level of driving ability to compete. I will avoid them like the plague!!!

Most tracks over here require demonstrated proficiency.

[PE1RDW]

To drive in a race sure but open track days are there for people without a racing certivicate to be able to drive on a track.

There are plenty of 12 year olds doing rounds on an open track days and I´m pretty sure they don´t have a drivers licence.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ April 29 2006,11:02)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 27 2006,07:23)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 26 2006,20:34)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ April 25 2006,08:50)].
Actually, CW is illegal on CB. #But then many current activities on that band are illegal. #(I didn't say all.)
-NCTs could use CB frequencies where the code is not presently required----------------------------------------------------------------------------------







----------------------------they are all Ready on #there I talk to general,s on there all the time with in 40 miles of me , met one of them at #the ham fest and he is a good ham to , #--------and #dont forget there are a lot of #stuff on the Ham Bands that is #illegal going on today ,73 Bill
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
w5lel-sir same to you #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif # oh is that a 11 meter antenna you have holding that #flag #up ,# if it is #I Bet your #Handle is #moon #man , I know you are just waveing a hand ,73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ April 27 2006,11:28)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ April 27 2006,07:09)]well sir #you Push your Idea that everyone should have to learn the morse code #
re-instate Novice, but without code). #How is that saying that everyone should learn it? #Only the top level out of 3 or 4? #I just think that an Extra should know at least a little bit about ALL the modes, to get to the top-level license. #Otherwise, how can it be considered top level?

I didn't like code when I first studied it - but grew to like it very much when I had exposure as the only mode I could use. #(Got WAS with it, too.) #No other mode (of the time) could have let me have a ham station in the corner of the den and not disturb the wife and kids with their TV, homework, etc. #But that is all history and irrelevant to the discussion. #

My concern is the large number of people pushing for banning code, and the downgrading of the mode with frequencies being taken away under the false premise of unused spectrum. #Maintaining that the highest license should at least have a little bit of the mode would help keep the frequencies. #They are such a tiny part of the bands, that the other modes really have all the room they need, and would gain little from the elimination of code spectrum.
k4jf - . #I have never, never said that everyone should have to learn Morse Code. #------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------well Not out #Right I guess , but sometimes it sounds like that,s what you mean #, But thats ok ,what you think dont hurt any Body and #any thing I think dont Hurt anyBody , I will soon have the code #I hope and I am still 100% to wipe it out as a( test #Requiertment only) I am with the fcc all the way ,If they keep it for xtra the code thing will Be up next year , But if they dont thats ok to , I dont think Hard of you and the others #eather way , 73 Bill

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 01 2006,23:13)]To drive in a race sure but open track days are there for people without a racing certivicate to be able to drive on a track.

There are plenty of 12 year olds doing rounds on an open track days and I´m pretty sure they don´t have a drivers licence.
Ran across a message on eham from KD5TXD who reported of Katrina, "It is also amusing that some of the very first messages we got into the affected area were taken by NTS CW operators" He also said, "Finally, about WEEK AFTER LAND FALL someone got a digital system up accepting traffic for about 20 communities. So, quick, tell me how wonderful WINKINK2000 is."

Patricia Allison KD5TXD works with NTS handling health and welfare traffic. She lives in Kingsville, Tx.

[PE1RDW]

And what does that have to do with the comparing code testing for extra's with drivers licence for driving on a racetrack during open track days?

[k8pg]

PE1RDW- STAY IN YOUR OWN LAWLESS STATE OF CONFUSION:(
# THE NOTHINGLANDS!!!!!:rock:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #DE-K8PG-PAUL:p

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 02 2006,14:26)]And what does that have to do with the comparing code testing for extra's with drivers licence for driving on a racetrack during open track days?
It's just as irrelevant.

No connection. Ham radio is not like a test track. It's more like a highway. Licenses always required. Ability to drive is not assumed, it is verified by the proper authority.

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (k8pg @ May 03 2006,01:30)]PE1RDW- STAY IN YOUR OWN LAWLESS STATE OF CONFUSION:(
# THE NOTHINGLANDS!!!!!:rock:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #DE-K8PG-PAUL:p
Shouting, offending my country very mature paul.
Do you have anything constructive to add?

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ May 03 2006,05:21)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 02 2006,14:26)]And what does that have to do with the comparing code testing for extra's with drivers licence for driving on a racetrack during open track days?
It's just as irrelevant.

No connection. #Ham radio is not like a test track. #It's more like a highway. #Licenses always required. #Ability to drive is not assumed, it is verified by the proper authority.
I was talking about Charlie's remark, he quoted me and posted some unrelated story under it.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (k8pg @ May 02 2006,16:30)]PE1RDW- STAY IN YOUR OWN LAWLESS STATE OF CONFUSION:(
# THE NOTHINGLANDS!!!!!:rock:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #DE-K8PG-PAUL:p
C'mon, Paul. That was uncalled for.

[ab8ma]

Quote[/b] (k8pg @ May 02 2006,23:30)]PE1RDW- STAY IN YOUR OWN LAWLESS STATE OF CONFUSION:(
# THE NOTHINGLANDS!!!!!:rock:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #DE-K8PG-PAUL:p
How long has the ASCII character set been around? I believe it allows for both UPPER and lower case?

I remember though a 6 bit character set (Binary Coded Decimal?) which did not. But that was a LONG time ago http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 02 2006,14:26)]And what does that have to do with the comparing code testing for extra's with drivers licence for driving on a racetrack during open track days?

Did it to make sure you saw my message. Remember the comments you made earlier in the thread regarding Winlink vs CW use in Katrina?

[PE1RDW]

Ah old cows, a bit off topic here, this is about *testing* not use, I'm not going to feed your trolling. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 03 2006,10:08)]Ah old cows, a bit off topic here, this is about *testing* not use, I'm not going to feed your trolling. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I thought so.

[PE1RDW]

Back to the topic at hand.
IMHO code testing to gain access to cw only bands is like taking a test on how a kite works before being alowed to fly a kite or taking a test on how to reel in a fish before being alowed to flyfish.

In both cases I asume other requierments are met like a permit to fish or permision to enter the field where you intend to fly the kite, just like you need technical testing to be able to safely operate a radio.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 03 2006,14:09)]Back to the topic at hand.
IMHO code testing to gain access to cw only bands is like taking a test on how a kite works before being alowed to fly a kite ....
After watching a doofus fly a kite and narrowly miss several people at the coast a few weeks ago, I was almost ready to propose a license to fly one - complete with test in demonstrated ability.

I wouldn't because only a few people were affected, unlike Amateur Radio, which functions worldwide.

Most all licenses; auto, aviation, etc., require demonstrated ability before issuance.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 03 2006,14:09)]Back to the topic at hand.
IMHO code testing to gain access to cw only bands is like taking a test on how a kite works before being alowed to fly a kite...
After watching a kite flyer almost impale several people at the beach a few weeks ago, I would almost advocate a license to fly the things, complete with in-person test.

I wouldn't, because that was a small event, unlike Amateur Radio, which is worldwide.

Ham radio is like a highway, and all states require demonstrated ability before licensing to drive. #Same with aviation.

(Why do some posts go off into cyberspace and never show up after typing them in??)

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 03 2006,14:09)]Back to the topic at hand.
IMHO code testing to gain access to cw only bands is like taking a test on how a kite works before being alowed to fly a kite or taking a test on how to reel in a fish before being alowed to flyfish.

In both cases I asume other requierments are met like a permit to fish or permision to enter the field where you intend to fly the kite, just like you need technical testing to be able to safely operate a radio.
pe1Rdw-sir what it Boils down to they had to do it and you got to do it ,I am hopeing the fcc will take care of that one day, they have got to get it out for xtra to or this same stuff will Be going on years to come ,and ham Radio dont need that ,if the fcc would get it over with it would Be over in a little while, But you know how they do things here in the good old u s of A they got to drag it out, 73 good luck Bill

[N2MMM]

You may be familiar with JUMBO SIZED model trains that are big enough to ride on. The C&H Railroad is a larger example of a model railroad of this type. It is big enough to have 2 satellite stations and a larger "Base" These three locations are linked by landline Morse and C&H welcomes visiting telegraphers literate in the old American Morse Code. As an insulator collector and railroad buff, as well as a Morse code newbie, I'd love to have the acreage to build something like this.

C&H Railroad main page:
http://www.candhrailroad.com/index.php

C&H Railroad "Telecommunications sector":
http://www.candhrailroad.com/html/telecommunications.html

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ May 04 2006,03:49)]You may be familiar with JUMBO SIZED model trains that are big enough to ride on. The C&H Railroad is a larger example of a model railroad of this type. It is big enough to have 2 satellite stations and a larger "Base" These three locations are linked by landline Morse and C&H welcomes visiting telegraphers literate in the old American Morse Code. As an insulator collector and railroad buff, as well as a Morse code newbie, I'd love to have the acreage to build something like this.

C&H Railroad main page:
http://www.candhrailroad.com/index.php

C&H Railroad "Telecommunications sector":
http://www.candhrailroad.com/html/telecommunications.html
n2mmm- sir thanks for putting this on here I will use it a little Bit it may help me me to get this mess, 73 and thanks Bill-------------------------------------------------------- http://www.candhrailroad.com/html/telecommunications.html

[NL7W]

All:

I own this statement: "Removing the Morse code testing requirement does harm to the Amateur Service."

Why do you ask?

For three reasons:

1. The simple 5 wpm Morse code exam DEMONSTRATES A SKILL; it demonstrates a rudimentary proficiency that required some amount of time, effort, and patience to obtain. The Morse exam is the last skill demonstrated under the current U.S. Amateur Radio testing program.

2. Those who have the gumption to learn this time-tested skill have proved their mettle, and are welcome by those who have gone before them.

3. TRADITION. Definition: 1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation. 2. A set of customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present.

That was short and sweet...

Now, what skill does passing public domain and published multiple-choice tests demonstrate? Could it possibly be a skill to memorize? These public knowledge written tests certainly don't require an individual to demonstrate knowledge or comprehension.

These are the reasons why so many "old school" or conservative hams wish to maintain licensure INTEGRITY.

I you don't like CW testing element, propose a supplanting radio communications related skill that can be demonstrated for and graded by an examiner.

Regarding the NCT testing process, these licensees have not demonstrated (to me) they possess an amateur radio related skill. Therefore, I would like to refer to them as NSTs - No Skill Technicians.

73 de NL7W
Now a twenty-five year ham at age 40.

[KE5HTG]

I agree!!!!!!!! Demonstrate your ability. I took the no code Tech test and passed it as you can read. I had all the knowledge except for RF Safety. After studying RF safety I had no trouble passing it. I would have become a HAM a long time ago if someone would have offered to help me learn code. I taught myself computer repair and feel that I can do anything I set my mind to. I agree that the test should show your knowledge with the test and I don't mean code. Identify parts laid out on a chart, solder a connection, identify electrical symbols use and read a multimeter. Where do you want the Tech to start at??? Extra?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif General??? How much is enough profeciency to satisfy you and everyone else. Being a ham is not just knowing code but having knowledge and being able to advance the hobby. Why are all of you whinning like spoiled children? I am one who doen't want to just know the answer, I am a why person. I still agree with you, but you have done nothing but whine and have not suggested what the test should consist of. So go whip the tears from your eyes and grow up. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (KE5HTG @ May 09 2006,10:54)]I agree!!!!!!!! #Demonstrate your ability. #I took the no code Tech test and passed it as you can read. #I had all the knowledge except for RF Safety. #After studying RF safety I had no trouble passing it. #I would have become a HAM a long time ago if someone would have offered to help me learn code. #I taught myself computer repair and feel that I can do anything I set my mind to. #I agree that the test should show your knowledge with the test and I don't mean code. Identify parts laid out on a chart, solder a connection, identify electrical symbols use and read a multimeter. Where do you want the Tech to start at??? #Extra?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #General??? #How much is enough profeciency to satisfy you and everyone else. #Being a ham is not just knowing code but having knowledge and being able to advance the hobby. #Why are all of you whinning like spoiled children?
ke5htg- #I am one who doen't want to just know the answer, I am a why person. #I still agree with you, but you have done nothing but whine and have not suggested what the test should consist of. #So go whip the tears from your eyes and grow up. :(----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sir this whineing has Been going on #for a long time, it started Back when they first dropped the code speed down ( Read qst it will tell you go Back a few years to get the Right qst Book ) I have one myself the year I cant Remember, But its there, and the answer is plain and simple I had to do it you got to do it , and if you can get in there without doing it that makes them mad , and the fcc has got to get Rid of it #for xtra to or they will go on whineing for years to come , they cant stand change you will see this #as time gose on , 73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,10:10)]All:

I own this statement: #"Removing the Morse code testing requirement does harm to the Amateur Service." #

Why do you ask?

For three reasons:

1. #The simple 5 wpm Morse code exam DEMONSTRATES A SKILL; it demonstrates a rudimentary proficiency that required some amount of time, effort, and patience to obtain. #The Morse exam is the last skill demonstrated under the current U.S. Amateur Radio testing program.

. #

3. TRADITION. #Definition: #1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation. # 2. A set of customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present. #

That was short and sweet...

Now, what skill does passing public domain and published multiple-choice tests demonstrate? #Could it possibly be a skill to memorize? #These public knowledge written tests certainly don't require an individual to demonstrate knowledge or comprehension.

These are the reasons why so many "old school" or conservative hams wish to maintain licensure INTEGRITY.

I you don't like CW testing element, propose a supplanting radio communications related skill that can be demonstrated for and graded by an examiner.

Regarding NCT's testing process, these licensees have not demonstrated (to me) they possess an amateur radio related skill. #Therefore, I would like to refer to them as NSTs - No Skill Technicians.

73 de NL7W
Now a twenty-five year ham at age 40.
nl7w- 2. Those who have the gumption to learn this time-tested skill have proved their mettle, and are welcome by those who have gone before them ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------this is why the no code tec has a Bad name now these winers did not welcome them ,73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ May 09 2006,12:08)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,10:10)]All:

I own this statement: "Removing the Morse code testing requirement does harm to the Amateur Service."

Why do you ask?

For three reasons:

1. The simple 5 wpm Morse code exam DEMONSTRATES A SKILL; it demonstrates a rudimentary proficiency that required some amount of time, effort, and patience to obtain. The Morse exam is the last skill demonstrated under the current U.S. Amateur Radio testing program.

.

3. TRADITION. Definition: 1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation. 2. A set of customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present.

That was short and sweet...

Now, what skill does passing public domain and published multiple-choice tests demonstrate? Could it possibly be a skill to memorize? These public knowledge written tests certainly don't require an individual to demonstrate knowledge or comprehension.

These are the reasons why so many "old school" or conservative hams wish to maintain licensure INTEGRITY.

I you don't like CW testing element, propose a supplanting radio communications related skill that can be demonstrated for and graded by an examiner.

Regarding NCT's testing process, these licensees have not demonstrated (to me) they possess an amateur radio related skill. Therefore, I would like to refer to them as NSTs - No Skill Technicians.

73 de NL7W
Now a twenty-five year ham at age 40.
nl7w- 2. Those who have the gumption to learn this time-tested skill have proved their mettle, and are welcome by those who have gone before them ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------this is why the no code tec has a Bad name now these winers did not welcome them ,73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
C'est la vie. Not really...

I'm on 2 meters just about every evening with many NCTs, I mean, NSTs. I am hospitable and friendly; I have not shut them out. When in the Palmer or Wasilla, Alaska area, find me on FM simplex at 146.490 MHz.

By the way, where did you learn how to write and spell? Can you form a complete thought or sentence that's spelled correctly? Maybe ham radio should include a 30 wpm typing and spelling test. What gives?

73.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,12:33)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ May 09 2006,12:08)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,10:10)]All:

I own this statement: #"Removing the Morse code testing requirement does harm to the Amateur Service." #

Why do you ask?

For three reasons:

1. #The simple 5 wpm Morse code exam DEMONSTRATES A SKILL; it demonstrates a rudimentary proficiency that required some amount of time, effort, and patience to obtain. #The Morse exam is the last skill demonstrated under the current U.S. Amateur Radio testing program.

. #

3. TRADITION. #Definition: #1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation. # 2. A set of customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present. #

That was short and sweet...

Now, what skill does passing public domain and published multiple-choice tests demonstrate? #Could it possibly be a skill to memorize? #These public knowledge written tests certainly don't require an individual to demonstrate knowledge or comprehension.

These are the reasons why so many "old school" or conservative hams wish to maintain licensure INTEGRITY.

I you don't like CW testing element, propose a supplanting radio communications related skill that can be demonstrated for and graded by an examiner.

Regarding NCT's testing process, these licensees have not demonstrated (to me) they possess an amateur radio related skill. #Therefore, I would like to refer to them as NSTs - No Skill Technicians.

73 de NL7W
Now a twenty-five year ham at age 40.
nl7w- # 2. #Those who have the gumption to learn this time-tested skill have proved their mettle, and are welcome by those who have gone before them ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------this is why the no code tec #has a Bad name now these #winers did not welcome them ,73 Bill # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
C'est la vie. #Not really... #

I'm on 2 meters just about every evening with many NCTs, I mean, NSTs. #I am hospitable and friendly; I have not shut them out. #When in the Palmer or Wasilla, Alaska area, find me on FM simplex at 146.490 MHz.

By the way, where did you learn how to write and spell? #Can you form a complete thought or sentence that's spelled correctly? #Maybe ham radio should include a 30 wpm typing and spelling test. #What gives?

73.
What a piece of work.

Joe

[PE1RDW]

NL7W: I guess you would prefer the belgium and british foundation licence to the usa tech licence, it is low in theoretical knowhow but it does require a practical demonstration by the applicant, becouse of the low theoretical knowlidge the foundation licence holders can't homebuild or modifie transievers and are limited to 10 watts on HF but at least they have some HF access without CW testing (just showing that they know how CW works).

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (KE5HTG @ May 09 2006,10:54)]I agree!!!!!!!! Demonstrate your ability. I took the no code Tech test and passed it as you can read. I had all the knowledge except for RF Safety. After studying RF safety I had no trouble passing it. I would have become a HAM a long time ago if someone would have offered to help me learn code. I taught myself computer repair and feel that I can do anything I set my mind to. I agree that the test should show your knowledge with the test and I don't mean code. Identify parts laid out on a chart, solder a connection, identify electrical symbols use and read a multimeter. Where do you want the Tech to start at??? Extra?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif General??? How much is enough profeciency to satisfy you and everyone else. Being a ham is not just knowing code but having knowledge and being able to advance the hobby. Why are all of you whinning like spoiled children? I am one who doen't want to just know the answer, I am a why person. I still agree with you, but you have done nothing but whine and have not suggested what the test should consist of. So go whip the tears from your eyes and grow up. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Eureka!

Now that I've thought long and hard about your email (about 15 seconds), I really and truly believe a 30 wpm typing, spelling, and language skills mastery test is in order. For we all know the Digital Elite and the ARRL believe that only the computer related digital modes can save Amateur Radio. Is there a better way to test our "emergency" communications abilities than to test our spelling, language, and computer typing skills?

Heck, a computer -- removing human error from the grading process, could thoroughly, accurately, and objectively grade the combined test.

Three cheers for personal computers and the digital realm!

Yehaaaaaa!

73.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 09 2006,14:39)]NL7W: I guess you would prefer the belgium and british foundation licence to the usa tech licence, it is low in theoretical knowhow but it does require a practical demonstration by the applicant, becouse of the low theoretical knowlidge the foundation licence holders can't homebuild or modifie transievers and are limited to 10 watts on HF but at least they have some HF access without CW testing (just showing that they know how CW works).
Let's just give EVERYONE a chance to access the lovely and desirable HF bands. Let's substitute the 5-wpm Morse code test with a 30-wpm typing, American language, and spelling test. This would satisfy my gumption requirement.

Additionally, let's keep the written test requirements as they are, where one can pass by memorizing the multiple choice question pools with little understanding of the material covered within them. For just how much knowledge is needed to operate a modern HF/VHF/UHF radio of today -- a radio that is essentially a computer with an RF front-end attached? Hook a computer to it and type at 30 wpm and you'll do just fine.

Oh, what a hobby... You've gotta love it!

73.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,12:33)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ May 09 2006,12:08)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,10:10)]All:

I own this statement: #"Removing the Morse code testing requirement does harm to the Amateur Service." #

Why do you ask?

For three reasons:

1. #The simple 5 wpm Morse code exam DEMONSTRATES A SKILL; it demonstrates a rudimentary proficiency that required some amount of time, effort, and patience to obtain. #The Morse exam is the last skill demonstrated under the current U.S. Amateur Radio testing program.

. #

3. TRADITION. #Definition: #1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation. # 2. A set of customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present. #

That was short and sweet...

Now, what skill does passing public domain and published multiple-choice tests demonstrate? #Could it possibly be a skill to memorize? #These public knowledge written tests certainly don't require an individual to demonstrate knowledge or comprehension.

These are the reasons why so many "old school" or conservative hams wish to maintain licensure INTEGRITY.

I you don't like CW testing element, propose a supplanting radio communications related skill that can be demonstrated for and graded by an examiner.

Regarding NCT's testing process, these licensees have not demonstrated (to me) they possess an amateur radio related skill. #Therefore, I would like to refer to them as NSTs - No Skill Technicians.

73 de NL7W
Now a twenty-five year ham at age 40.
nl7w- # 2. #Those who have the gumption to learn this time-tested skill have proved their mettle, and are welcome by those who have gone before them ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------this is why the no code tec #has a Bad name now these #winers did not welcome them ,73 Bill # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
C'est la vie. #Not really... #

I'm on 2 meters just about every evening with many NCTs, I mean, NSTs. #I am hospitable and friendly; I have not shut them out. #When in the Palmer or Wasilla, Alaska area, find me on FM simplex at 146.490 MHz.
nl7w-By the way, where did you learn how to write and spell? Can you form a complete thought or sentence that's spelled correctly? Maybe ham radio should include a 30 wpm typing and spelling test. What gives?

73.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------well sir Back in my time I did not get to go to school my dad died when I was 9 years old I had to stay out of school to plow a mule to finish a crop that was already planted , I did go enought to Read a little and count a little and that was 55 years ago I made it to the 7th grade and did not get to go Back , and my education is not good I will tell you that , and I know its not as good as yours I guess , But sir I do the Best I can , and you did get the point , If you did not get it then let me know and I will try one more time ,to put it where you can understand it ,73 Bill

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,15:18)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 09 2006,14:39)]NL7W: I guess you would prefer the belgium and british foundation licence to the usa tech licence, it is low in theoretical knowhow but it does require a practical demonstration by the applicant, becouse of the low theoretical knowlidge the foundation licence holders can't homebuild or modifie transievers and are limited to 10 watts on HF but at least they have some HF access without CW testing (just showing that they know how CW works).
Let's just give EVERYONE a chance to access the lovely and desirable HF bands. #Let's substitute the 5-wpm Morse code test with a 30-wpm typing, American language, and spelling test. #This would satisfy my gumption requirement. #

Additionally, let's keep the written test requirements as they are, where one can pass by memorizing the multiple choice question pools with little understanding of the material covered within them. #For just how much knowledge is needed to operate a modern HF/VHF/UHF radio of today -- a radio that is essentially a computer with an RF front-end attached? #Hook a computer to it and type at 30 wpm and you'll do just fine.

!

73.
nl7w-Oh, what a hobby... You've gotta love it--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sir you will love it more ,if you will not worry about what someone else dose and enjoy what you have done,73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,15:18)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 09 2006,14:39)]NL7W: I guess you would prefer the belgium and british foundation licence to the usa tech licence, it is low in theoretical knowhow but it does require a practical demonstration by the applicant, becouse of the low theoretical knowlidge the foundation licence holders can't homebuild or modifie transievers and are limited to 10 watts on HF but at least they have some HF access without CW testing (just showing that they know how CW works).
. #

Additionally, let's keep the written test requirements as they are, where one can pass by memorizing the multiple choice question pools with little understanding of the material covered within them. #For just how much knowledge is needed to operate a modern HF/VHF/UHF radio of today -- a radio that is essentially a computer with an RF front-end attached? #Hook a computer to it and type at 30 wpm and you'll do just fine.

Oh, what a hobby... #You've gotta love it!

73.
nl7w -Let's just give EVERYONE a chance to access the lovely and desirable HF bands. Let's substitute the 5-wpm Morse code test with a 30-wpm typing, American language, and spelling test--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------ This would satisfy my gumption requirement-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----( I am not sure about that , people like you will find something to whine about )no matter what,73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ May 09 2006,18:18)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,15:18)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ May 09 2006,14:39)]NL7W: I guess you would prefer the belgium and british foundation licence to the usa tech licence, it is low in theoretical knowhow but it does require a practical demonstration by the applicant, becouse of the low theoretical knowlidge the foundation licence holders can't homebuild or modifie transievers and are limited to 10 watts on HF but at least they have some HF access without CW testing (just showing that they know how CW works).
.

Additionally, let's keep the written test requirements as they are, where one can pass by memorizing the multiple choice question pools with little understanding of the material covered within them. For just how much knowledge is needed to operate a modern HF/VHF/UHF radio of today -- a radio that is essentially a computer with an RF front-end attached? Hook a computer to it and type at 30 wpm and you'll do just fine.

Oh, what a hobby... You've gotta love it!

73.
nl7w -Let's just give EVERYONE a chance to access the lovely and desirable HF bands. Let's substitute the 5-wpm Morse code test with a 30-wpm typing, American language, and spelling test--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------ This would satisfy my gumption requirement-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----( I am not sure about that , people like you will find something to whine about )no matter what,73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Instead of "dumbing down" the skills and memorization requirements, I say we give away a fair number of licenses in boxes of cereal. Here's the idea:

As an Amateur Radio promotion, I say we convince the U.S. Government to randomly give away ham licenses in boxes of Cracker Jacks and Lucky Charms. You know, with a disproportional high percentage being Technician, then say 5 percent being General, and 1 percent being Extra Class. This would give everyone the same blind shot -- as long as you can afford to buy boxes of cereal or caramel coated popcorn candy. But then, someone would say the poor among us couldn’t afford to buy the numbers needed to win the General or golden "Extra Class" ticket. Can someone say ACLU?

Anyway, wouldn't it be a surprise to win an "Extra" license from box? Geesh, as long as one could fill out the license app, that person could bypass taking any code "skills" test or written exams. Just send in the form in triplicate, collect your "Extra", buy a modern "throw-away" radio, prefabricated coax assemblies and antennas, and get-on- the-air! Now we're talking!

Oh, you can't forget your favorite "set and forget" auto-tune HF amplifier, as well as its “prefabed” interface cable, for the power you'll need to complete with the big boys throughout skip-land. Can you hear me now?

It'll come down to this before the end... just watch.

What a hobby! You've gotta love it!

73.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ May 09 2006,17:54)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,12:33)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ May 09 2006,12:08)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ May 09 2006,10:10)]All:

I own this statement: "Removing the Morse code testing requirement does harm to the Amateur Service."

Why do you ask?

For three reasons:

1. The simple 5 wpm Morse code exam DEMONSTRATES A SKILL; it demonstrates a rudimentary proficiency that required some amount of time, effort, and patience to obtain. The Morse exam is the last skill demonstrated under the current U.S. Amateur Radio testing program.

.

3. TRADITION. Definition: 1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation. 2. A set of customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present.

That was short and sweet...

Now, what skill does passing public domain and published multiple-choice tests demonstrate? Could it possibly be a skill to memorize? These public knowledge written tests certainly don't require an individual to demonstrate knowledge or comprehension.

These are the reasons why so many "old school" or conservative hams wish to maintain licensure INTEGRITY.

I you don't like CW testing element, propose a supplanting radio communications related skill that can be demonstrated for and graded by an examiner.

Regarding NCT's testing process, these licensees have not demonstrated (to me) they possess an amateur radio related skill. Therefore, I would like to refer to them as NSTs - No Skill Technicians.

73 de NL7W
Now a twenty-five year ham at age 40.
nl7w- 2. Those who have the gumption to learn this time-tested skill have proved their mettle, and are welcome by those who have gone before them ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------this is why the no code tec has a Bad name now these winers did not welcome them ,73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
C'est la vie. Not really...

I'm on 2 meters just about every evening with many NCTs, I mean, NSTs. I am hospitable and friendly; I have not shut them out. When in the Palmer or Wasilla, Alaska area, find me on FM simplex at 146.490 MHz.
nl7w-By the way, where did you learn how to write and spell? Can you form a complete thought or sentence that's spelled correctly? Maybe ham radio should include a 30 wpm typing and spelling test. What gives?

73.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------well sir Back in my time I did not get to go to school my dad died when I was 9 years old I had to stay out of school to plow a mule to finis