ad: CQMM-1

FCC MUM ON MORSE CODE ISSUE

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by AA7BQ, May 18, 2006.

Thread Status:: Not open for further replies.

Page 3 of 188

ad: L-HROutlet

ad: l-rl

ad: abrind-2

ad: Left-2

ad: Left-3

ad: Radclub22-2

ad: L-MFJ

K0RGR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

Once again, I don't care what they do with the General code test as long as the Techs get some meaningful HF priveleges - they don't need to be great ones, just usable. I don't even care if they get voice priveleges as long as they get digital. I think learning about HF without phone priveleges is not a bad idea.

I think there'll be a lawsuit if FCC decides to do nothing.

K0RGR, May 19, 2006

#31
W5IEI Guest

I'd prefer to just leave no code techs where they are.
If you're too lazy to learn code,stay on V/UHF.
Mike

W5IEI, May 19, 2006

#32
K1LWI Ham Member QRZ Page

what is new that the FCC. keep the cw for the extra lic would be nice but that wont happen cw is dead that will make new hams happy next the cw bands will be phone bands that is what going to happen bye bye cw

K1LWI, May 19, 2006

#33
W6FYK Ham Member QRZ Page

The hobby is dying anyway.
I hardly ever listen or talk or read this site.

W6FYK, May 19, 2006

#34
AA7BQ QRZ Founder QRZ HQ Staff QRZ Page

I feel my ears burning on this one, and several have spoken about my personal opinion, etc., on this issue, or at least claiming to know my opinion. Others have mused that I post the code/no-code articles purely for profit, i.e., to drive up the hit counters.

I believe that it is fair to say that everything that is published on QRZ is done so with the hope that people will enjoy reading and commenting about the subject material, regardless of what it may be. So under that definition then the answer is YES, I do hope that the endless code/no-code arguments generate more web traffic. The same holds true for every other type of article and subject material on the site as well.

So, now my position on Morse code but first the obligatory statement that I, myself am a 20WPM Extra, first licensed in 1988 and upgraded to Extra in 1988, when 20WPM was still a hard requirement. During my Ham Career I've made more CW contacts than SSB contacts on HF and continue to use it.

That said, those of you that know me can predict my opinion on the issue. I'm firmly on the side of its abolishment as a licensing requirement.

My reasoning for this position is not a lot different than many of those already given in this and other discussions. It should suffice to say that this is not a time in our history that we should be putting up artificial entry barriers to the hobby. Two-way radio doesn't get teenagers excited at all nowadays, especially since many were born with cellphones in the delivery room. Getting them excited about Morse code is a complete non-starter that doesn't even register on the "coolness" meter.

Back to the regulatory scene, I'm as astounded as everyone at the slowness the FCC is proceeding in the matter. It was as if it actually mattered, and/or the FCC gave a rats *** about it. Amateur radio barely even exists to them in the first place, and as far as they're concerned, the less it costs them to administer it, the happier they'll be.

The reason it's taking so long is probably because they have a legal obligation to consider ALL of the ranting opinions they received on the matter. It's a democracy at its worst. There is no doubt whatsoever that the users of the service (that would be us) would clearly vote in favor of abolishment if a real referendum could be held. But alas, we have a bureaucracy to contend with and a lot of pencil-pushers running it who need that government pension. They will skillfully wring every last drop of blood out of this one if it takes another 20 years (or until their retirement, whichever comes first). They call it "the right of everyone to be heard". I call it job preservation.

The only way Amateur Radio will survive will be go hang on to its technological roots. That's right, the hobby will always appeal to techno-geeks like us and we need to recruit more geeks as quickly as possible. We don't need a 40 WPM CW whiz who needs instructions on replacing the batteries in a flashlight. We need the geeks, and we need to keep this hobby about Technology, not tradition. CW, I'm afraid, is about as high-tech as a lightbulb. It's time to treat it like a lightbulb, i.e. useful and perhaps fun, but still unremarkable.

So that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. My views on this matter are not QRZ editorial policy and any and all contravening opinions are welcome, as always.

-fred AA7BQ

AA7BQ, May 19, 2006

#35
N3WRH Ham Member QRZ Page

I stated to the FCC to drop the morse code for generals and keep it or raise it to 13wpm that is my thing, but like always they are wasting time your can't tell me that they can not act on this soon, im trying to learn the code as i type and my wife just recieved her Tech license but she stated to me she wants to upgrade with me to general but she does not want to learn code, she sees me trying to learn it now three different ways which ppl have told me this is the best way it has been very hard for me and aready failed one test now, i passed my general written with only 2 wrong, i love ham radio my wife is starting to too. This is an example of dropping the code, my wife wants to upgrade and does not want to even the learn the code, we are not CB'ers and will never be, im going to try again with the code test, for all those who are like me i hope they drop it soon so we don't lose are CSCE for general class and i believe that if they dont stop draging there feet ham radio is slowly dieing and i dont want to see that happen i want my son and my wife to enjoy the excitment of having your first DX contact and enjoy the hobby she will this field day with our club but she already studing my general book and im studying my extra and code but i hope for our sake the FCC WILL QUIT DOGGING ABOUT THE CODE DONT GIVE ME THAT CRAP.!.!.!.!

N3WRH, May 19, 2006

#36
KE5FRF Ham Member QRZ Page

Fred...

I made a joke a few posts back about you not getting flamed for posting a code/no code thread. The intent of that comment had absolutely nothing to do with you or the informativeness of this article, but was rather a use of irony or sarcasm about the frequency that this topic is brought up (And the fact that if Joe Ham stumbles across QRZ and registers and posts a comment about no code/code, he will get flamed within the first five replies)

Again, it was only a "commentary", which had absolutely nothing to do with you. I also had no desire to solicit your opinion, though it is valued.

I had better finish before I get accused of "sucking up"

KE5FRF, May 19, 2006

#37
AB9LZ Ham Member QRZ Page

"That's right, the hobby will always appeal to techno-geeks like us and we need to recruit more geeks as quickly as possible. We don't need a 40 WPM CW whiz who needs instructions on replacing the batteries in a flashlight."

I think that you will find that the "geeks" that you are referring to (and trying to appeal to) are more likely to want to know code. These folks don't shy away from tests, technical challenges, or something as cool as a human decodeable digital mode. For the same reason Linux is cool, "knowing code" is a barrier to entry thing that puts them in the elite. It's very appealing, the problem is that it appeals to a very small segment of the population. Certainly not enough folks to bet the future of a publishing house like the ARRL.

Dorks on the other hand, wear those butt ugly yaesu hats, wear " emergency preparedness vests" and have three ht's on their belts.... And buy lots of magazines and pre-made radios. Certainly those are the folks that you want around to maintain the corporate fiscal health of the hobby. I would think that this argument would strongly appeal to the FCC's republican heart as a reason to drop the code requirement.

Caveat Emptor.

AB9LZ, May 19, 2006

#38
N3WRH Ham Member QRZ Page

do you even think the FCC even sees this stuff

N3WRH, May 19, 2006

#39
KY4XF Ham Member QRZ Page

As a no-code tech, I think we should keep the code. When I upgrade to general, I want a ticket that shows I actually know the code. Besides, a spark can go where voice can not.

KY4XF, May 19, 2006

#40
AC7K Guest

Well, my CSCE expires in August, so I better try again with the code test, don't feel like retaking the General exam... Gotta practice!!

Eric

AC7K, May 19, 2006

#41
M3KCK Ham Member QRZ Page

[b said:

Quote[/b] (aa7bq @ May 19 2006,03:32)]I feel my ears burning on this one, and several have spoken about my personal opinion, etc., on this issue, or at least claiming to know my opinion. Others have mused that I post the code/no-code articles purely for profit, i.e., to drive up the hit counters.

I believe that it is fair to say that everything that is published on QRZ is done so with the hope that people will enjoy reading and commenting about the subject material, regardless of what it may be. So under that definition then the answer is YES, I do hope that the endless code/no-code arguments generate more web traffic. The same holds true for every other type of article and subject material on the site as well.

So, now my position on Morse code but first the obligatory statement that I, myself am a 20WPM Extra, first licensed in 1988 and upgraded to Extra in 1988, when 20WPM was still a hard requirement. During my Ham Career I've made more CW contacts than SSB contacts on HF and continue to use it.

That said, those of you that know me can predict my opinion on the issue. I'm firmly on the side of its abolishment as a licensing requirement.

My reasoning for this position is not a lot different than many of those already given in this and other discussions. It should suffice to say that this is not a time in our history that we should be putting up artificial entry barriers to the hobby. Two-way radio doesn't get teenagers excited at all nowadays, especially since many were born with cellphones in the delivery room. Getting them excited about Morse code is a complete non-starter that doesn't even register on the "coolness" meter.

Back to the regulatory scene, I'm as astounded as everyone at the slowness the FCC is proceeding in the matter. It was as if it actually mattered, and/or the FCC gave a rats *** about it. Amateur radio barely even exists to them in the first place, and as far as they're concerned, the less it costs them to administer it, the happier they'll be.

The reason it's taking so long is probably because they have a legal obligation to consider ALL of the ranting opinions they received on the matter. It's a democracy at its worst. There is no doubt whatsoever that the users of the service (that would be us) would clearly vote in favor of abolishment if a real referendum could be held. But alas, we have a bureaucracy to contend with and a lot of pencil-pushers running it who need that government pension. They will skillfully wring every last drop of blood out of this one if it takes another 20 years (or until their retirement, whichever comes first). They call it "the right of everyone to be heard". I call it job preservation.

The only way Amateur Radio will survive will be go hang on to its technological roots. That's right, the hobby will always appeal to techno-geeks like us and we need to recruit more geeks as quickly as possible. We don't need a 40 WPM CW whiz who needs instructions on replacing the batteries in a flashlight. We need the geeks, and we need to keep this hobby about Technology, not tradition. CW, I'm afraid, is about as high-tech as a lightbulb. It's time to treat it like a lightbulb, i.e. useful and perhaps fun, but still unremarkable.

So that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. My views on this matter are not QRZ editorial policy and any and all contravening opinions are welcome, as always.

-fred AA7BQ
Click to expand...

Hi Fred,
Unfortunately I was unable to put a Smiley next to the hit counter comment!
73
Regards,
Andrew M3KCK

I like your way of Thinking Om, Good Post.

M3KCK, May 19, 2006

#42
KI4NZU Guest

It all comes down to one question I have for this whole thing, when and if ever the requirement is gone forever, will they at least allow you to take the code exam if one wishes to? I mean I believe this should be an optional thing. It will be a wonderfull compromise to everyone. People won't have to take it if they don't want to, and for those who are arguing against the requirement will also be happy, much more relieved that they can take it if they want to, even if there upgrading to General or Extra.
73 de Kristen, KI4NZU

KI4NZU, May 19, 2006

#43
KW7DSP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

[b said:

Quote[/b] (N3WRH @ May 18 2006,19:44)]do you even think the FCC even sees this stuff
Click to expand...

Yes.

KW7DSP, May 19, 2006

#44
KW7DSP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

[b said:

Quote[/b] (kd6fyk @ May 18 2006,18:31)]The hobby is dying anyway.
I hardly ever listen or talk or read this site.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't, doesn't mean others follow your leed.

You are the exception, not the rule.

KW7DSP, May 19, 2006

#45

Page 3 of 188

Thread Status:: Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: Alphaant-1