Morse Codes trumps SMS in head to head combat

But your point was that if you are required to do telegraphy testing you should have to USE it. As I said, it is as dumb as requiring a pilot to do a stall on every flight. You're trying to split hairs. There are scores of tests where applicants are tested but not forced to use what they are tested on. If they fail, they fail the test. Sorry, your "If IMC knowledge was actually pertinent to operating an Amateur radio station then wouldn't you expect that the FCC would require an Amateur to actually USE that knowledge?" is fatuous.

And if you recall I filed a petition to ask for NCT no code HF access in segregated band segments, no CW. This meets your requirement without necessitating the removal of IMC testing for General and Extra. You could still operate on HF without learning the code. Right? That ought to fix you right up.

Every survey I have EVER seen shows people prefer retaining telegraphy testing by a 60/40 margin at the worst. It was so clear that the ARRL removed a couple of surveys that did not support their position in their restructuring proposal. AH0A's stats show even with the NCI effort, retaining telegraphy testing won out overall in average petition comments.

Wishful thinking. The same reasons (sans the WRC vote) exist now as existed then. Alternatives would allow no code HF access without removing IMC testing for General and Extra. There is only one element wanting total removal of code testing, that is the lazy lunatic fringe of slackers who want respect without earning it. Present company excepted, of course.

 

AG4YO,

FCC rules do not require IMC tested Amateurs to use it on air.  FCC rule does not prevent an Amateur that has not been tested from using IMC on air.  The only thing that failing to pass an IMC test does is prevent an Amateur from operating on frequencies where IMC use is not required.  That is what I meant.  If the FCC does not require one to use IMC after being tested, and doesn't prevent one from operating IMC before being tested for IMC proficiency then there is no reason to have the test.  As I said before, IMC proficiency unlike RF exposure limits and recovering from a stall in an airplane is not a safety issue so requiring the knowledge without requiring the use is not logical.

You are still restricting people based on a skill they should not need to effectively utilize a frequency.  Even if the frequencies you are restricting the NCTs from are only to be used for CW transmissions a person should not need to decode IMC by ear if they are using a computer to do the sending and decoding for them.  Basically I'm saying that IMC/CW should be treated like any other digital mode.  IMC just happens to be a mode that if sent slow enough it can be decoded by someone by ear.  I've heard of people that could decode RTTY (IIRC) by ear if given a typewriter.  Just because one person can do that doesn't mean everyone should before they are allowed to operate RTTY with a computer doing the decoding for them.

Let's assume you are correct that a majority of people want the FCC to continue IMC testing, what would their reasoning be?  That was addressed in the 1990 R&O.

The FCC said this FIFTEEN years ago.  They said quite plainly that IMC proficiency should not be a barrier to entry for any radio operator.  However I am a reasonable man and would consider an alternative to IMC testing, an alternate Element One if you will.

The current Element One IMC test requires that one be able to decode by ear OR send by hand IMC at 5WPM.  How about an alternate test that requires one to do similar speed, 5WPM, or perhaps even a bit faster, like 7 or 10WPM, with a different mode such as T9.  That's what started this, a face off between SMS and CW.  Perhaps the ability to type at a standard QWERTY keyboard at a speed of 5WPM or better.  T9, QWERTY, and IMC would all seem just as relevant given the technology available today in radio communication.  In fact I think I could make a better case for requiring typing proficiency as opposed to IMC.  If that doesn't seem like an acceptable alternative, perhaps another written test to replace the current Element One.

I've read many of the petitions written to the FCC concerning the IMC requirement and none of them are very convincing.  The FCC has said they have no intention of not allowing IMC/CW from being transmitted on Amateur frequencies.  I've seen maritime radios being offered in the AES catalog with CW capability which would imply that the FCC still allows its use there as well.  That is stated plainly in the 1990 R&O.

I am still unconvinced the FCC will retain IMC testing much longer.  I'm just curious, what will you do when the FCC drops the IMC testing requirement?  I've seen posts on this forum and others where hams have stated that they will cancel their licenses should that happen.  I've seen other posts where hams claim they will either sell or destroy their radios on that day.  Others say they will react by welcoming the new Amateurs on HF regardless of their skill with a Morse key.  Personally I plan on calling some of my friends and family that have been turned off by the IMC test and try to convince them to reconsider getting a license, and then take whatever test the FCC demands for getting licensed at the top class.  What will you do?

 

You might say I don't know "jack" about Alabama. Sorry it won't work out.

 

AG4YO and anyone else still reading,
I came across a web page written by a ham that also believes as I do.  It was written before WRC-2003 and is therefore showing its age but it is an interesting read nonetheless.

http://www.geocities.com/rf-man/howto/endcw.html

In there is a couple interesting statistics I thought relevant here.

Oh my God!  We should keep the IMC test so that those that PASS are refused from being granted a license!  After all statistics seem to indicate that IMC proficient Amateurs are more likely to break FCC rule.

Of course that sounds just as silly that IMC testing filters out the undesirable candidates.  IMC testing shows only the ability to understand IMC by ear, no more and no less.

AG4YO, you may say it is silly that you have to convince me that the FCC should keep IMC testing but I don't see that as silly at all.  The FCC answers to me just as much as it answers to you.  NCI has a lot of smart people on its side and judging by the petition they wrote they know the law quite well.  If you can convince me of the need to continue IMC testing then you may have a good chance of convincing members of NCI.  Remember that you are going to have to put anything in your defense in terms a non-ham can understand because it would seem one of the goals of the FCC is to make sure Amateur radio can still attract new members.

 

If the fcc drops the code requirement someone should come out with the NATIONAL, I GOT A FREE PASS ON THE CODE LIST. This will enable everyone to keep track of all amateurs that did not have to pass the code test. This will be important so we can harrass them for the rest of their lives.


When they are on hf, they should have to say their callsign with /ncg or /nce (no code general,no code extra). When in public, they must be required to wear a /ncg or /nce on their beltbuckles and caps.

I think there should be other requirements as well. A pink no code flag should be displayed on all antennas. Maybe some other people could make some suggestions.

 

Again the no code attitude that reality is what supports your fantasies. Yes, the entire world must convince YOU.

I assume that by "their" you mean the FCC. I think what you're saying is that even though a majority of Amateurs might want to retain IMC testing, your quote indicates that 15 years ago the FCC (while defending their decision to keep telegraphy testing for below 30mhz and remove it for above 30mhz) indicated that in 2005 they would completely remove telegraphy testing. Right?

You're saying that even though you'd have HF access with no IMC test, that's not good enough. You want IMC testing totally removed for every class. Right? Look at this:

If there is codeless HF access the FCC requirement for "entry level" is met. IMC testing will not be barring new applicants, technically inclined, youth of our country. It won't even be necessary to remove IMC testing for General and Extra. And if testing remains for General and Extra, what would your argument be for removal then? What will the NCT Amateur be deprived of if they have no code HF access in their own band segment? The practical answer is "more spectrum" will be the only difference between a NCT on HF in a segregated band segment, and a General or Extra Class licensee (unless you count CW privleges). Right?

 

AG4YO,
It's not that the world has to convince me alone to keep IMC testing but it has to convince the public at large, of which I am one member.  The FCC currently believes that IMC testing no longer serves a regulatory purpose.  It does not filter out the undesirable operators, in fact it may be doing the opposite.

In the time of the 1990 R&O the public asked for a no-code entry-level Amateur radio license since ITU rules and technology allowed it.  Today the public is asking for all Amateur licenses to be no-code since ITU rules and technology allows it.

Why maintain IMC testing for any license?

I saw a re-run of a "The West Wing" episode where a lobbyist comes to the White House to ask that the penny be produced no more.  Since that TV show tends to reflect current events I did a little digging to find out more.  The reason the penny is still produced is because it makes money.  The Treasury buys copper and zinc at market prices and stamps it into pennies to "sell" on the market.  What if the copper costs more than one cent?  Then the Treasury might switch to another metal like it did in the 1940's and make it out of steel.  What if steel gets too expensive?  Then you will probably see the production of the penny end.

That is how law works.  (Or at least should.)  Every law was created for a reason, every law must have a reason to be kept.  That is why the FCC reviews its rules every two years, they realized that technology changes so quickly that could make a rule created just a few years ago obsolete.

This isn't about allowing no-code Amateurs access to HF.  It's that the testing for IMC knowledge no longer serves a purpose.  What makes people that know IMC so much better than those that do not that they get access to frequencies exclusive to themselves?

Statistics seem to indicate that IMC knowledgeable Amateurs are more likely to break FCC rule.  Statistics seem to indicate that IMC/CW is no better or worse at being able too break through poor operating conditions than other digital modes.  Statistics seem to indicate that IMC/CW is not the best mode for use in an emergency.

In the unlikely event that a vast majority of the public wish to keep IMC testing then the rule may stand on that reasoning alone.  If the pro-code and no-code sides are near even then the rule must stand on sound reasoning.  If there is a majority of people that wish to end IMC testing then those that oppose must have reasoning beyond dispute.

Can you give me, NCI, and the FCC a reason to keep IMC testing that is beyond dispute?  If there was you should have been able to find it by now, NCI would not exist, every country in the world would require IMC knowledge to operate a radio, and the FCC would not have created the Codeless Technician.

 

Well I just thought of another thing we can do if the fcc drops the code.  The fact that a person did not learn the code should also be included in their obituary.  

Something along these lines.

Yesterday Jim Lazy died at his home at age 68.  He died from lack of ambition.   Jim almost graduated from high school during his early thirties.  After they lowered the high school graduation requirements he received his high school GED diploma at age 40.  Wasting no time, he continued his education at 41 where he attended the University of St. Louis.  He dropped out of college his first year because he didn't feel it was necessary to learn things like English and History.  He waited 27 years hoping they would drop those requirements so he could get a degree, but died waiting.

Jim was a NCT in amateur radio for 6 years before he received his automatic upgrade.  Jim considered this automatic upgrade as his best accomplishment in life.  He is survived by his son Joey who plans to be the first degreeless surgeon.  Joey said "my father attained his dreams by waiting, and I can too.  One day, I will be able to do heart transplants.  This degree thing is a waste of time, and so old fashioned."  

Jim had many amateur radio awards.  He received his Worked All States award after convincing the ARRL that once you worked one state you basically worked them all.

He received his DXCC by working the same country 100 times on the same frequency.  He was able to acomplish this feat in one day.  He also received many echolink awards too numerous to mention here.

Jim is currently waiting to be buried..and waiting...and waiting......

 

When did the FCC say they don't consider code relevant to Amateur testing? The most recent R&O pertaining to code was 99-142, in which the FCC said:

"we will not revise the rules so that the telegraphy examination requirement
automatically sunsets if the Radio Regulations are revised to eliminate a mandatory telegraphy proficiency
requirement. In this regard, we do not believe that it would be prudent, at this time, to premise the resolution of this issue on decisions to be made at the next World Radio Conference (WRC), particularly given that it is uncertain whether the WRC will actually address this issue. We also note that the
International Amateur Radio Union Administrative Council has stated that it opposes changing the Radio Regulations to reduce the minimum international qualifications for an amateur radio license, making the potential changes to this Radio Regulation even more uncertain."

Of course, WRC '03 is past, and it did what it did. But note the word "prudent," in 99-142. And consider its context in light of the fact, that one the most vocal groups for eliminating Element 1 shares a call sign with the VEC with greatest number of retests over questions of license integrity. I hope the FCC thus "prudently" considers any further changes to Element 1.

 

From the FCC's mouth...

They are basically saying, "We'll just wait and see what happens."  I can understand that since at the time of the document's creation there was no clear indication of what was going to happen something like four years in the future.

WRC-2003 may have decided that instead of making IMC testing optional it stated that IMC testing cannot be required.  The rule change may have simply lowered the frequency that required IMC testing from 30MHz to something like 15MHz or 10MHz.  If something like that happened the FCC would have to make some kind of rule change nearly immediately.  Instead they took the safe road and took the wait and see approach.

This paragraph indicated the FCC would consider dropping the IMC requirement otherwise they would have worded that paragraph differently.  Previous WRCs were supposed to address the IMC testing for Amateur radio and was pushed back.  Had that happened in 2003 the FCC would have spent the effort considering all the possible changes that could come out of WRC-2003 for nothing.

The USA believes in "common law" a holdover from the colonial days.  What that does is allow the USA to consider laws and judicial rulings in other common law countries as relevant here.  So what is good for the UK and Australia (Canada?  I'm sure there are other common law countries in the world.) is also good for the USA.  I'm sure there are cases where laws in the USA are at odds with those in the UK but they are rare and are bound to be much more controversial than IMC testing.  Since countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc. have already dropped the IMC requirement that would have an effect here.  The reasons IMC testing was dropped already in those countries, and I'm speculating here, is that the timing is different and the culture is different.  New Zealand was in the middle of a rule review at the time of the ITU rule change anyway so eliminating IMC testing at the time was more convenient than it was here.  From what I understand the law makers in the UK have an attitude of "we know what's best" and often make law changes without reviewing public opinion and sometimes make laws in opposition of popular opinion.

In the USA the FCC makes a review of its rules every two years.  In July of 2003, when the change to ITU rules took effect, the FCC was near the end of its review and likely didn't have the time to make such a potentially radical change to Amateur radio licensing.  With the next review coming up in 2004 the FCC had two years to consider what, if any, changes were needed in Amateur licensing.  In that time the FCC was inundated with petitions and comments.

Recently NCI has stated its impatience with the FCC and gave it an ultimatum.  Now NCI has not threatened lives of those in the FCC, but it has threatened to point out to Congress how the FCC may be in violation of certain rules by retaining the IMC testing.  Rules such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I imagine that has caught the attention of the FCC on some level.  If they are to retain IMC testing they are going to have to explain why they ruled in opposition of certain federal laws and rules, public opinion (it may be a minority view but it is a vocal minority view), common law, etc.

Every thing I see is pointing in the direction of the FCC eliminating IMC testing for all Amateur licensing at the end of its current rule review period.  What I'm asking here is for evidence to the contrary.

Many people consider the end of IMC testing the "watering down" of the testing.  Getting a license is not supposed to be difficult, it's supposed to be relevant.  Making testing difficult for the sake of making the testing difficult is hazing.  Amateur radio isn't some kind of college fraternity, it's a radio service created and controlled by international and federal law.  Keep that in mind when talking about changes to the rules on licensing.

 

There is an indication that I am going to die one day, and I look everyday for evidence to the contrary. So far I have not found any such evidence.