Morse Code Requirement - Status???

Discussion in 'General Technical Questions and Answers' started by kg4ysr, Mar 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: FBNews-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
  1. K0RGR

    K0RGR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    What makes you '...sure it was the ARRL'?

    ARRL opposed changes in the code requirements for decades.

    Indeed, in this instance, ARRL proposed a two-tiered set of code tests, 5 WPM and 12 WPM, in response to FCC's proposal. ARRL response to FCC proposal

    I fear you're taking too much of the anti-League propaganda on this website for real. Much of it is hogwash.

    Indeed, this little blurb is very educational, in that it reminds us of what ARRL proposed back then. They proposed to grandfather Novice and Tech + to General,
    making the General the minimum for entry to HF. They proposed at this time refarming the Novice bands to give the Generals more room. They also asked FCC to greatly increase the number of test questions for the exams. They formally opposed dropping the code requirement for General in these comments. Please note that this is in late 1998 - less than 8 years ago. They asked for a 5 WPM test for General and 12 WPM for Advanced and Extra.

    Doesn't that sound like what FISTS has been asking for lately?

    The best part of their proposal was to grant the NoCode Techs (who were created 7 years earlier) CW priveleges on the HF bands without passing a code test. Would we be better off today if FCC had done that instead of their current proposal? What greater incentive could someone possibly have for learning the code? Learn the code and work DX! Imagine how much less pressure there would be for eliminating the code test altogether today!

    FCC's response was to eliminate the Advanced license, and all but the 5 WPM test, which they said they had to do only so that they would comply with the International requirement - also the reason they rejected the proposal to give Techs HF CW priveleges. FCC has since agreed to do the rest of the proposed Novice Band restructuring. I am still hoping they will surprise us and give the Techs these CW priveleges when they write the final R+O on that NPRM.
     
  2. KE5FRF

    KE5FRF Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, that is in fact why i asked, because I did not know!

    I wasn't "sure" it was the ARRL...I just kinda assumed that it was...but as I have read more on the subject, the truth seems to be it is more related to the FCC doing everything in its power to simplify the Service and make it more manageable by government employees who would rather sit at their desk all day filing their fingernails and drinking coffee than actually doing the job they are paid to do.

    Anyway, the history of all of this is rather intriguing to say the least.

    The whole point of my comments was to show that a lot of the bickering between people with different license classes is futile, when it should be directed more toward the FCC (and perhaps the ARRL) rather than each other.

    I think we can all find an agreement with that?
     
  3. K0RGR

    K0RGR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You posted your update while I was editing mine.

    Overall, I think if you review ARRL's responses to FCC proposals, and their own proposals, the ARRL proposals make very good sense in most cases.

    I see that World Radio magazine is starting the World Radio Relay League to oppose everything ARRL does. Great - amateur radio will now speak with a forked tongue.
     
  4. W4SE

    W4SE Ham Member QRZ Page

    I currently have a Class A CDL . I have endorsements on it that allow me to haul Haz-mat, pull double and triple trailers and etc. I had to take a test for all of them . Now, I was wondering why isn't CW considered an endorsement on our ham licenses ? Since you take a test on it, it seems that they would put "5wpm code element 1" under endorsements . I don't know . It's JUST A THOUGHT . 73, Sam
     
  5. AK7V

    AK7V Ham Member QRZ Page

    What was wrong with 20wpm?
     
  6. AL7N

    AL7N Ham Member QRZ Page

    World Radio magazine or newspaper has nothing to do with WRRL, or vice-versa.

    And WRRL does not "oppose" everything ARRL (or NAAR)
    does.......WRRL's mission is clearly spelled out on it's
    Website...

    Go see WRRL.org
     
  7. K0RGR

    K0RGR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I don't care much about their statement of objectives. The communist party has very good sounding objectives, too.

    Their founder has a column in World Radio, and used it to promote the organization. I really don't believe the name of the organization is a coincidence. I don't intend to renew my subscription next time, and I've been a lukewarm promoter of the rag for years. Go read the magazine.

    His basic premise in the article is that ARRL is doing a very poor job of providing emergency communications, and worse yet, evil ARRL is adopting a system that uses the evil Internet, so they are going to build their own network of people who won't use any infrastructure. Sort of like vowing to tie one hand behind your back while beating your head with a hammer.

    Instead of working within the ARES organization to improve it, they are going to bypass it. There's already a shortage of available people, and a big disconnect between ARES and RACES, so why not add more confusion?

    I guess if I see it doing something worthwhile, I'll support it. But a statement of objectives doesn't usually gain you a lot of respect.
     
  8. KI6ADA

    KI6ADA Ham Member QRZ Page

    ARRL :0   :0   [​IMG]   :0   :0 I must be nice, not [​IMG]
     
  9. N0IU

    N0IU Ham Member QRZ Page

    It wasn't fast enough?
     
  10. PE1RDW

    PE1RDW Ham Member QRZ Page

    In the past we where not even alowed to id faster then 20 wpm in CW, right now we have no test and the max is set at 30 wpm [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page