IARU predicts end to mandatory code tests

Well, I didn't have time to read all 36 pages of this topic (only read about 15 of them), but I'd like to add my $.02...

Intro:
I got my license in '79. Upgraded to Tech before my Novice arrived in the mail. There I sat for ~24 years. Oh, I tried to get up to 13 WPM, but I didn't have the desire. I never liked the sound of CW. To me, the magic of Ham radio since I was a kid in the early '60s always was, and still is, being able to TALK to someone on the other side of the world. Not BEEP to them, but TALK to them. Sure, the language and accent barriers are a challenge sometimes, but that's where I find my fun. I finally did my paper upgrade to General in December. I've been all over the world in the Navy, I've worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab and now work for the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer on the cutting edge of microprocessor technology, but long distance phone contacts, to me, still have the jaw-dropping magic that you see on the kid's faces when a $20-magician pulls a quarter from behind the ear of a 7-year-old at a birthday party. On the other hand, CW isn't magic in my book, it's work. To those who find it magical, God bless you. Enjoy.

I was  CB'er in the mid-'70s. Made good use of my CB equipment as a Ham operator, too. I took my 23-channel SSB radio, re-crystalled it to have 4 channels of 10M CW band and the rest 10M SSB spectrum. Used a schematic and a Watt meter to re-tune and peak the radio to about 18W output on SSB. Makes a nice quasi-QRP rig. I have contacts with it from South America, Japan, Australia, Canada and all over the US, using a Starduster CB antenna. ( 10M: When the band's in, it's IN! ) The only problem with the radio is that if someone asks me to "Go up 15", I don't have a clue how to set up the radio for it. No freq counter.

My old logbook shows ~50 CW contacts over a nine-month period, starting the day I got my first ticket in the mail. Some using a Heathkit HW-8 QRP rig that I built, some using my re-crystaled CB radio as a CW rig. All straight key. Been there, done that. Didn't care for it. I've been studying the ARRL Extra class manual (the text, not just the Q&As) since December. It was a nice refresher for all the electronics I learned 20-30 years ago. I'll get my upgrade at the Fort Tuthill Hamfest at the end of the month.

Topic:
CW as an emergency communications mode. Hmmmm.... 1.) Last time I checked, neither my police nor fire departments used CW. Maybe they haven't heard how much more efficient it is, or how much more likely they are to get a message through with it than they are using phone. (Can you imagine a police officer, wounded in his keying arm, trying to use his weak (opposite) hand to tap out, "Shots fired! Officer down! Officer needs help!" on a straight key, while trying to keep the bad guy from shooting him again?) You'd think that the Arizona Highway Patrol could put CW to good use, considering the vast, lonely stretches of interstate and state highways they have to patrol. We have stretches of highway here between cities that are longer than some East Coast states. Nope. They still use phone. Oh, yeah, they also use digital. The police all have computers in their cars. No CW keys, though. I wonder how they get all their officers to be disciplined and not turn the police/fire bands into "CB wastelands"? Could it be the quality of the people, instead of a CW requirement? 2.) Since the maritime services stopped using CW several years ago, there's no one to listen to to pick up a true emergency call. Well, there might be, but we're still listening for ET with SETI, too.

Considering the demonstrated abilities in English usage, spelling and punctuation evident in the many posts to this topic, it would amaze me if any of the CW proponents could accurately handle ANY emergency traffic using CW. I was able to understand what they meant, but I had to work at it. Once I translated the messages, I was certain I'd have understood them immediately if I had heard the message on phone.

Topic:
ARRL as a Code-requirement lobbying body. Experience tells me that a LARGE percentage of licensed Amateurs are also shooters/gun owners. Let's all band together and see if we can get the NRA to lobby Congress for a law requiring everyone to be able to load and shoot accurately a muzzle loading rifle, 3 shots per minute, before they are allowed to purchase any firearm that uses cartridge ammunition! Once we get it started, those who have passed the requirement will demand that the requirement be kept, regardless of whether it enhances national or personal defense. Remember, it's a "Good 'ol Boys" club. If I did it, you gotta do it, too. Silliness aside, there are MANY states that have separate muzzle loader hunting seasons, just as we Hams have special CW bands. Just because the 5WPM requirement is dropped doesn't mean the band space goes with it. I LIKE shooting muzzle loaders, but I'd be pi$$ed if I was forced to do it. I have a friend who is an Extra licensee who HATES the smell of burned black powder from muzzleloaders, but loves CW. He's also an avid shooter of cartridge arms. For those who like it, may you blissfully beep away many contact sets in your key/keyer before becoming a silent key. Thanks, but I'll work on wearing out contact sets in microphones. There's room for everyone, and no demonstrated need for an antiquated mode of any skill to regulate participation.

One possibility for regulating band usage might be to require a buyer to show proof of holding an Amateur license appropriate for the bands on which the radio will transmit before the seller can transfer the radio to him/her. Heavy fines for violations of the selling rules and for unlicensed posession of transmitters. I object to this concept for firearms, since their ownership is a Constitutional Right, but since Ham Radio is a privelege, not a Right, I have little objection.

Quietly stowing the soapbox, I am,

Glenn Stewart, N7NRA

 

I really feel that for some of us older folks that want to do HF and have a hearing loss on the higher end code is very difficult. I believe that the ARRL and the FCC are in violation of the rule for the handicaped. So I am in favor of dropping the code requirement or have no code for just 10 meters or 30 or something like that.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ July 09 2003,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cbbasher @ July 08 2003,14:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The president of the ARRL sent me a personal E mail in which he stated that he was going to post his opinion.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
KC7JTY, since when did Jim Haynie start talking to freebanders. Give us a break and go away.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Are you saying you don't believe me no code boy?
                                               KC7JTY[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, I am saying I don't believe you....and by the way, I am an Extra class. I passed the code test...why can't you ?? Oh I forgot, you already have HF priviliges on Freeband.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aerobat9 @ July 09 2003,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When will these "Educated Idiots" QUIT !  It is said, by many "learned people", that 90% of the Human Intellectual Capability is UNUSED, and yet, these people operate on a "Replacement of Knowledge" theory, rather than a "Add-to-Knowledge" practice.  Is there no more "space" in the human intellect, for expansion ?  CW is one, and only one "International Language", by which, peoples of the world who have differing spoken languages, still have the ability to "Communicate" with each other.  And yet, there are those who would "Wipe-it-Clean", and remove it from Human Knowledge. "It's just too hard, and I can't learn it" is the most FEEBLE, COP-OUT EXCUSE conceived by mankind.  Why must these people DESTROY an Estabished Past, while trying to develop an UNCERTAIN FUTURE" ?  There are always "exceptions to the rule", but, WHY DO YOU WANT TO DESTROY THE RULE ??
Gene Long/K3QLZ[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well said. Bravo!

 

Glenn (N7NRA):

I must disagree (respectfully) with part of your post. I do not support the idea about the requirement to show a license to purchase a radio capable of transmitting. Many potential Amateur Radio Operators will want to purchase a radio (read: transceiver) BEFORE they obtain their license, and we encourage them to listen, Listen, LISTEN before they get on the air, to (hopefully) develop and understand good operating practices. (Also, many Short Wave LISTENERS purchase some of the top-of-the-line Amateur Transceivers, because they have top-of-the-line receivers, with no intent to ever transmit.) Remember (and I think this fits your own philosophy, and no insult intended): transceivers don't operate illegally, PEOPLE operate illegally. IMHO, of course.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aerobat9 @ July 09 2003,18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...CW is one, and only one "International Language", by which, peoples of the world who have differing spoken languages, still have the ability to "Communicate" with each other...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Last I checked, CW is used to communicate using the English language for most international work.  CW is not a language in and of itself.  That's ridiculous.  English is the primary "International Language"...CW is just one implementation of it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...And yet, there are those who would "Wipe-it-Clean", and remove it from Human Knowledge. "It's just too hard, and I can't learn it" is the most FEEBLE, COP-OUT EXCUSE conceived by mankind.  Why must these people DESTROY an Estabished Past, while trying to develop an UNCERTAIN FUTURE" ?...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You're being far too poetic.  First, no one is trying to remove code from human knowledge.  That, too, is ridiculous.  They're just talking about removing it from the test.  No one is stopping you from using code, and probably never will.  Second, how is that developing an "uncertain future"?  Since when is the future certain?  Cut out the maudlin bullsh*t; it only makes you look foolish.

- Doug

 

Larry (WA9SVD),

Equally respectfully, the answer to your comment is in your own post.

I heartily agree that prospective Ham operators should lsiten first. No argument at all. But they don't HAVE to listen through a tranceiver. There are some really high-tech general-coverage receivers available that have all the receive features, bells and whistles that are incorporated in our currently available tranceivers. There's no reason a prospective Ham can't start there. The used market should keep prices reasonable.

I offered my comment as a suggested alternative to allay the fears of the "code keeps the riff-raff out" crowd. No transmitter also keeps the riff-raff out, but does not preclude anyone from participating in the listening aspect of radio. By also beefing up FCC enforcement, when required, we could have an easy-to-manage, self-policing service that everyone can enjoy.

Best regards,

Stew N7NRA

 

I noticed that several people mentioned they had hearing impairments which keep them from using code cuz they say they cannot hear it. Bogus argument and easy excuse.

I'm almost completely deaf and have no trouble hearing morse. In fact it's my main mode on HF as I cannot understand speech at all. How do I do it? I'll move the received signal's pitch down til its low enough to copy or I'll use other dials on the radio. I have a Yaesu Mark V Field that has all sorts of ways to manipulate the incoming signal to make it easier on the ears, but my old Yaesu FT-757 GX can also change the received signals up or down pitch using the RIT control.

It's really not that hard to copy code with a high frequency hearing impairment.. It's possible to do so without any hearing whatsoever. A speaker with the paper cone removed can serve as a transducer where a hand is placed on the magnet and copy by feel as the CW is sent.

Where there is a will, there is a way....

73, Pete KA3RFE

 

I agree completely with N7NRA's remarks (on p.37) concerning "CW as an emergency communications mode," and thought his "licensed amateur/gun owner" correlation was especially insightful and persuasive. The primary objective, ladies and gentlemen, is to COMMUNICATE; the mode is secondary. Of course, we must not remove Morse as a mode, since it's still viable and preserves our radio heritage.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W5USB
We look forward to seeing the story..right here on qrz.com. Florida ham BUSTED! equipment confiscated and fine levied.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Art I am afraid you are incorrect about the story you will see here on QRZ.It will read more like this.

"Florida Ham given a certificate of congradulations from the FCC for having the BALLS to tell it like it really is"
READ MORE:


All comments are and will always be politically incorrect and subversive.
K4WRI

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W5USB
We look forward to seeing the story..right here on qrz.com. Florida ham BUSTED! equipment confiscated and fine levied.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Art it will read more like this:
"Florida Ham awarded a certificate of congradulations from the FCC for having the balls to tell it like it is.He was also awarded a exact copy of the General Lee for his efforts.Art W5USB was there to congradulate Robert K4WRI for his outstanding work.

Now thats a headline


All comments are and will always be politically incorrect and subversive.
K4WRI

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W2DUG @ July 10 2003,08:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...And yet, there are those who would "Wipe-it-Clean", and remove it from Human Knowledge. "It's just too hard, and I can't learn it" is the most FEEBLE, COP-OUT EXCUSE conceived by mankind.  Why must these people DESTROY an Estabished Past, while trying to develop an UNCERTAIN FUTURE" ?...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You're being far too poetic.  First, no one is trying to remove code from human knowledge.  That, too, is ridiculous.  They're just talking about removing it from the test.  No one is stopping you from using code, and probably never will.  Second, how is that developing an "uncertain future"?  Since when is the future certain?  Cut out the maudlin bullsh*t; it only makes you look foolish.

- Doug[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Another "Ole' time extra lookin" callsign W X 3 even though hes a tech.. I love the vanity pool for the techs...Makes them look "seasoned".

anyway what in the hell is all the posts' about "Not removing the CW sub-bands", and "If you want to do code no one is stopping you" stuff?! WE KNOW! We are talking about for testing, not for using!

We know that anyone who wants to do code still can. God knows I dont do it. And yes there will still be CW sub-bands. We want to keep it in the testing.

Tired old argument #16......

 

Steve (N7NRA):

I understand your position. I have no desire to see transmitters used by unlicensed operators. But I think a bi-level approach would be a detriment to Amateur radio; if I were a prospective Amateur Radio Operator (and think high school age students, which is when I entered the hobby) were to have to buy (even used) a receiver, and then buy a transceiver when I got my license, I would find the cost prohibitive, and be discouraged from pursuing the hobby. (Remember, a hobby is supposed to be fun; when it becomes a serious financial drain, it ceases to be fun, and is dropped as a hobby.) I was fortunate; I inherited a transmitter and receiver from my brother (who never pursued the hobby) when several years before I got my Novice license back in the old days; I listened incessantly, but I never had a desire to transmit until I had my Novice license in my hot little hand. And I never had a microphone connected to that transmitter. But I believe those that want to transmit illegally will do so, whether such radios are freely available or not. And the days of seperate receivers AND transmitters are long gone. I guess it boils down to a matter of ethics. Most know it's not legal or right to transmit without a license. Those that do don't CARE about the law. And whether or not they eventually get an Amateur Radio Operator's License, they will probably be the ones that still operate out of band, etc.
I don't mean to make light of the problem, but I don't think regulating radio sales (how would you regulate sales by private parties?) would solve the problem.

 

I've been predicting for many years that the ITU would finally remove CW as a requirement sometime in the 00's... now it appears that my predictions will come true.

There is good and bad in this. I got my 5wpm in 1990 so I could upgrade to tech plus, then in 98 got the 13wpm for my General. Then, they cheapened my license. Okay, the bad part (first), is that my license isn't worth what I paid for it, figuratively speaking.

The positive aspect is that for all the 'old timers' out there who seem to think morse code proves one has more ability, is more likely to behave on the bands or in any way has a leg up on those technicians without HF privilages, the time has come to awake from your slumber. Morse code surely has and always will have a place in the amateur service, but once the requirement is removed, it will then become another ham challenge... to be able to send and receive code in one's head could be a contest point... to prove one did it without the use of computers could be something we hams could do for fun. One thing is certain, once people learn code today, the vast majority promptly forget it... using their computers to send and receive CW just as they do PSK32 or PACTOR. So, logically, if it isn't a requirement to understand the electronics & software behind these digital modes, why is it for CW, which is an equally digital mode in the purest sense?

Our hobby must evolve to keep up with communications in use in the commercial sector if we are to attract new hams to the hobby and keep our membership in this service high enough so we don't lose our precious band allocations. We aren't going to do that if we stay stuck in the past, attracted to some sort of legacy of a colorful heritage that was amateur radio of the 50s and 60s. Wake up people. This is 2003. 8 year olds know more about chat rooms, computer software and things far more technical than learning slow CW...and don't get the idea that any of these kids will grow up wanting a QRP CW rig... ain't gonna happen. They will be attracted to a hobby which encourages a merging of computer and radio technology.

I don't wanna hear one more arguement about the hobby ain't the same anymore, and all we hear on the bands is jibberish. Its that way because the nutballs have moved largely to SSB on all but the digital and 17 meter bands. Furthermore, many of the 'offenders' are the very old-timers which bitch and whine about removing the CW requirements. And WE LET IT HAPPEN. Wanna get away from it? Go digital or to the CW portion. There, you can call CQ and make contacts just like we did for years on SSB till it became polluted. CW doesn't have to be forced on newcomers to get them involved... and those who really wish a challenge can still learn the code and get on the radio to play.. and we'll have a better service for it.

I vote for the ITU to get rid of the CW requirement, then the ARRL to get on the bandwagon and lobby the buraucrats at the FCC to follow suit. And lets make our exams real... include computer<=>radio technology in the examining process.. more than it is already. There's plenty of brainiacs out there chomping at the bit to create something new and exciting, and ham radio is just the place to do that.

Steve Sawyer
k1frc
Memphis

 

In response to the post saying this is all BS, whining about the loss of CW and it's subbands (because I can't figure out how to use this damn quote button):

Lets be sensible about all this.  Years ago, all the ships at sea which might have at one time or another used CW on 500 KHZ to transmit an SOS changed to satellite communications and GPS locators.  That was one major reason as to why the ITU kept CW as a requirement in the first place.  The U.S. Navy even got rid of CW in it's communications in 1992 (I know, I was headed to Navy IMCO school in '92 when it was abruptly cancelled).  

Nobody is calling for the removal of CW.  It will always be a part of ham radio, and I predict it will be a skill that contesters and others will WANT to acquire and perfect... but keeping it as a requirement only serves to discourage otherwise well qualified prospective hams who could bring a wealth of technical experience and operating skills to the hobby.  This silly arguement has to end.  The writing is on the wall.  Technology has advanced to the point where the code is unnecessary.  Only in some 3rd world countries are computers and the necessary computer & satellite technology still not available.... and even there, those that are hams likely have the resources to get computers.

Nobody is asking to take away the CW subbands either.  They will stay put and be shared with other digital modes.  Y'all need to get over this.