NCVEC Files No-Code Petition

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W2DUG @ July 31 2003,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is right to focus your efforts on learning the code, but not just in order to pass the license exam.  That is not a good enough reason.

I think the NCVEC realizes that, and perhaps that demonstrates some wisdom on their part.

- Doug[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But, you don't remove a requirement without replacing it with something else. To do so just lowers the standard. That demonstrates some stupidity on their part.

 

QUOTE: W2DUG

I can't imagine how passing the test could be more gratifying than having your first CW QSO at any speed, and you don't need to take a test for that one...it IS the test!


NJ1K
You can't imagine it because you haven't done it!!!!!

Do it and you might understand!!!!!!!!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ July 31 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">QUOTE:  W2DUG

I can't imagine how passing the test could be more gratifying than having your first CW QSO at any speed, and you don't need to take a test for that one...it IS the test!


NJ1K
You can't imagine it because you haven't done it!!!!!

Do it and you might understand!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
.-. .-. --- --

 

Well I have sit on the sidelines through this post and made some observations and I have decided to don my Asbestos sute before climbing upon the soapbox...

One of the things that I have observed through this quite lengthy thread is the majority of people that are for the code want to preserve the code test and I respect them for that. They busted their butts studying the code to get to their HF privliges. Every single person that has a General Licence or above has had to pass a 5WPM code test. Some had to pass 13WPM before restructuring to gain their General license and 20WPM to get their Extra license class. Granted there are a few in my generation that expect to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Now I am a no-code Tech. I have been studying for about 2 weeks since the WRC-03 came down with removing the code requirements from Amateur radio. I feel that if I was getting HF privliges handed to me, it's not fair to the rest of the people that have had to work hard to get themselves.

Now as for the conversation that has carried on here about as to what will happen if the code requirement is removed, it boils down to the following mindsets in their respective camps.
From the pro-code camp we hear, "Oh my! They are going to remove the code requirement and all of the good-buddys are going to come take over our bands! I'll be damned if those people are going to do that! We must fight!" Then you have from the anti-code camp, "It's not fair that they don't hand it to us now. We have computers."

Of course this isn't what everyone means, but that is my quick take on the whole conversation. Most of the pro-code people have complained about this and then turn around and use the "CB" escape phrase in this type of subject of code requirements. Then it gets ugly and the very people that resort to the name calling and "holier than thou" syndrome. This type conduct reminds me of my CB days. I find it ironic that the people that complain about the no-coders and the CB mentality, sink to CB tactics to uphold their position.

I read a post before I replied that the ARRL couldn't vote. I believe that the ARRL is waiting to hear from the Division directors as to what the people they represent want. I know here in the Great Lakes Division there was an e-mail sent out as an informal survey what we thought.  My belief is that the some of the leaders in the ARRL DO read the articles and postings here on QRZ and other ham radio web sites.

I feel rather ashamed of my fellow Amateur brethren bickering among themselves about how they should carry on a QSO with other hams or how they got to their respective license class. If KB4ABC wants to use PSK31 to talk with W6XYZ that is fine. If KC2MNO wants to use AM on 40 Meters, fine. But we shouldn't punish hams for what they believe. So what if a few are lids. I know a few lids in my area, but I don't shun their operating practices, I try to give them some pointers on how to operate better. And if I ever am operating poorly, I would hope someone would tell me. It may have never occured to anyone that the lids don't know they are doing any thing wrong.

So please understand we are all on this forum because we all have a few things in common, we all like talking to each other on the airwaves, we all like the experimentation aspect of our hobby, and we all like the challenge of what our hobby sets before us. I just hope that somewhere along the lines if the US decides to get rid of the code requirement they make the written tests harder, MUCH HARDER.

73 de Matt

 

So learning code and taking the test is a "stressful experience".   I say Boo Hoo.

It's the learning of something difficult, mastering something like code that gives hams the satisfaction and knowledge that they have advanced themselves beyond what the general population knows.

Amateur radio has always been a hobby comprised of people willing to go the extra mile to earn operating privileges. It has nothing to do with the necessity of code in everyday life, just like we don't really need to know how "radio" works.  Icom makes it work, so why do amateurs need to know?  For the same reason, for the satisfaction of knowing that we understand it and some of us can even apply the knowledge to build our own equipment.

Those who do not wish to learn code have the Tech license.  If that is not enough, they have CB and they have FRS radios.  Or if all else fails, use email or instant messages, or whip out the cell phone.

Leave this hobby to those who love it and the traditions that go with it.  Those who have pride in accomplishing something that takes extra work and devotion.

Sometimes people ask me what ham radio is about.  They invariably say "is that CB radio"?  And time and time again, I say no, we have to take written tests and code tests to get the license.  And we have to identify on the air and we are generally courteous to each other, it is a fraternity.  And as soon as they hear about the tests, they usually decide they are not interested enough to bother with learning anything.  And I don't want that person in the hobby.  If it were "free" they would take a license on the spot.

Have you ever noticed how anyone will take something if it is free?  They don't take it because they want it, like it or even need it.  

This really has become the era of "give me everything I want without earning it".  It makes me sick.

I am obviously in favor of keeping the code requirement.  In fact, I think it should be boosted back up to 13 and 20 wpm like it was before.  5 wpm is a joke.

Go ahead, let them send in that wimp petition.  I am ready to send in pro-code comments to whoever I have to.

Steve, K1YA

 

I become an extra a few years back by passing the 20 wpm test, and I really don't feel that passing a 5 wpm test is impossible or unrealisitic for anyone.  Even after all of that, I feel that it should probably be dropped, but ONLY on the condition that the written tests are made more difficult.  Specifically the General and Extra tests, which currently require 5 wpm.  If one requirement is taken away, corresponding changes should be made.

 

You knew it was coming sooner than later. I'm surprised and disappointed that the NCVEC initiated this action.

For most of the respondants it appears that the code/no-code issue is an emotional topic. I've copied code for a living for about 15 years and still found it fun to send code via amateur radio. Twenty years later I still enjoy it. However, I found myself in agreement with the FCC when they proposed to eliminate the 13 and 20 WPM requirements.

The ability to copy code at 5, 13 or 20 WPM does nothing to advance the technical aspects of our hobby. It is nothing more than a "gate" one must go through to get to your final destination.

Maybe a better "gate" would be to blindfold each applicant for a General license, give them a pile of parts including electronic components, a hot soldering iron and tell them to build an operating, 1500w digital transmitter within 30 minutes. The applicants for an Extra class license would have do the same thing while standing in water and if at any time they actually walked on water they would automatically be given an Extra class license.

After reading some of the previous comments concerning the pros and cons of the petition, what concerns me is this:

If we eliminate the code requirement, how do we prevent amateur radio from becoming an expensive version of CB?

I believe this is the real issue we should be concerned about whe we talk about eliminating the code requirement. Code has served as a "gate" to keep most of the undesireable elements out of our great hobby. Obviously it has not worked as intended in all instances and it has kept great hams from advancing. Nonetheless, I think there is something to be said about serving the greater good.

However, if we assume that the code requirement will go away, how do we keep our hobby clean? What will the impact be of approximately 360,000 Technicians, Tech pluses and Novices suddenly having access to all HF bands?

Is the FCC going to have the resources (money and personnel) to keep the amateur bands clean? I believe that the "bad operator" problem will grow significantly and begin to mirror CB sooner than later. If you don't understand what I mean, all you have to do is look at how successful the FCC has been in cleaning up CB.

So here's a recommendation for what it's worth (which isn't much). I don't claim that it's the best - it's just a suggestion:

1. Keep the privileges Technician class (without code) licensees have as they are today.

2. Upgrade all current Novices and Technicians with code to General and let them have limited HF privileges in selected segments within each or selected bands with power restrictions.

3. Upgrade all current General and Advanced class licensees to Amateur Extra class with all privileges associated with that class of license. Since Extra class is the pinnacle of our current licensing system, it doesn't seem too much for an applicant to demonstrate the ability to copy code at 5 WPM. After all, since this is the pinnacle, shouldn't an Extra class applicant be able to demonstrate his/her knowledge of today technology (whatever that is)? A test that demonstrates that should be developed.

So there's my two cents.

In summary, how are we going to keep our hobby clean and relatively free of the undesireable elements? what will be the impact of another 360,000 hams potentially jumping on the HF bands - mostly on voice? Will the FCC be able to keep up with the stupid ones and will they have the resources to do that?

Bob/AA3RR

 

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7MK @ July 29 2003,192)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keying an analog continuous wave (CW) signal on and off with a key makes that mode no more "digital" than turning 110 volts AC on and off with a wall light switch makes the incandescent bulb in your ceiling light or table lamp digital.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keying an analog continuous wave (CW) signal on and off with a key makes that mode no more "digital" than turning 110 volts AC on and off with a wall light switch makes the incandescent bulb in your ceiling light or table lamp digital.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Since we've solved the code / no code debate several hundred posts ago, I thought it would be fun to argue about something else. CW is digital modulation.

digital modulation: 1. The process of varying one or more parameters of a carrier wave as a function of two or more finite and discrete states of a signal.

Digital modulation is determined by the use of discrete modulation states.  Examples:

QAM defines discrete phase amplitude states
FSK defines discrete frequency states
CW defines discrete amplitude states.

Analog modulation ranges between bounds with no discrete states. Examples:

AM - frequency and amplitude bounded by frequency and amplitude of analog input signal

FM - Frequency and phase bounded by analog input signal.

 

Has anyone noticed it's the same folks that keep going back and forth, folks it's time to get a life, you all can bash each other till the cows come home, it will not solve the problem, let the FCC do thier job......

 

Gee, my commercial license was devalued, my amateur
ticket was watered up....I am not complaining but
as one poster noted we are now a society of appliance
operators! When was the last time you saw a rig for
$200 in kit form or a place where you could buy the
components to build your own rig???
The old days are gone, so let's move on to the
next thing in the evolution of the hobby. I choose not
to participate in a lot of things but do enjoy it as
a HOBBY.
WA2NTW

 

I've been a ham a long time and learned the code when I was a kid.

Honestly, code or no code is a moot point. 5 WPM is skirting no code and I don't think keeping it simply as a "wall" makes sense.

I think we're looking at the wrong end of the goat.

I say OK, let's lose the code. But, at the same time, let's lose the VE program and the "pass-by-rote" open book tests.

While we're at it, let's make anyone who wants the higher privileges retest on the theory at a general class level or higher without the benefit of knowing the questions and answers ahead of time.

You do that and I for one will welcome you aboard even if you can't send SOS.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ July 31 2003,20:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">QUOTE:  W2DUG

I can't imagine how passing the test could be more gratifying than having your first CW QSO at any speed, and you don't need to take a test for that one...it IS the test!


NJ1K
You can't imagine it because you haven't done it!!!!!

Do it and you might understand!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wait a minute...you're telling me that you got more satisfaction from passing the test than having CW QSOs?

I thought the whole point of learning the code was to use it on the air, not just for the sake of passing a test!  Isn't that what all you old timers have been telling us all along?

If you want to use it, you have to learn it with or without a test.  If you learn it, you are benefitting from it.  The test isn't the benefit, USING IT is the benefit.  If the test is required, then you take it.  If it's not, you don't, but either way the code has been learned and can be applied.

Maybe you didn't get my point, NJ1K.  I guess as a beginner and a no-coder, I should expect to get trashed even if I DO make a point in favor of code.  That must be the modern-day elmering program in action.

- Doug

 

w5vj:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While we're at it, let's make anyone who wants the higher privileges retest on the theory at a general class level or higher without the benefit of knowing the questions and answers ahead of time.

You do that and I for one will welcome you aboard even if you can't send SOS.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So, all of us that passed a Radiotelephone test are automagicly "in"?

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5vj @ July 31 2003,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say OK, let's lose the code.  But, at the same time, let's lose the VE program and the "pass-by-rote" open book tests.

While we're at it, let's make anyone who wants the higher privileges retest on the theory at a general class level or higher without the benefit of knowing the questions and answers ahead of time.

You do that and I for one will welcome you aboard even if you can't send SOS.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sounds good to me.  I passed my General written when I went for the Technician ticket without studying the General material.  I didn't even know that was an option, but the VEs encouraged me to try it after getting a perfect score (which, admittedly, is no real challenge, but I think the VEs wanted to see me screw up).  I hadn't expected to delve into the code yet at that point, but I figured it would be forthcoming after I learned a bit more about operating.  Little did I know I would be considered a complete low life without the code element as a beginner.

If they used your system, you would already be welcoming me aboard, and I would be happily stepping aboard, ready to learn.

- Doug

 

if this is such a big deal. why has " e - ham " and the " arrl " web sites not said any thing about this ? if some one knows the answer, please feel free to look me up in the PROFILE section of this web site, and send me an e -mail with the correct answer, since I am not going to look through this mess to find an answer, no insult toward any one, but this post is a mess. if there is a bit of important truth in it, would nt the 'arrl " website or the "e - ham " website have some mention of it ? check for your self and think.....