"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
6...
wrote in news:fITJe.3606$op.62
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:


What a bunch of crap from the people who suggest that the code requirement
should be kept. Who ever uses it? Nobody! Listen to the frequencies and
how much code do you hear? Virtually none.

Actually, many times of the day I hear more CW activity going on than voice.
For those who fear that NO-CODE will turn ham radio into a new CB land --- I
think that the reality of no-code licenses for VHF/UHF suggest otherwise.
My observation is that VHF/UHF repeater use in many places I travel is on
the decline. Most traffic seemse to be evening nets, and old friends
chatting on the way to/from work. Other than that, I hear a log of quiet.

There may be some selective hearing going on there. If you don't know /
like CW, you are probably not going to spend a lot of time seeking it out.

snip


Face up to the realities of today's communication. It isn't used and it's
not important.

How many hams build / modify their own radios? I suspect a very small
percentage --- so why require everyone to know all that electronics stuff?
Why not a special class of license that allows one to open their radio's
case --- or build their own radio? Just the old timer trying to keep the new
guys out?

So if CW is out, then certainly one must consider APRS, Packet, EchoLink and
similar VOIP technologies IN. Why not have a programming / networking
license?

Len Hodgett posted in another thread
"I have better things to do with my time than learning to use a totally
dead language.
I'm not interested in ham radio as a hobby, I already have too many.
For me is it strictly a communication tool when I'm on then water.
Nothing more, nothing less"

I think that sums it up for many of the "no-code" crowd --- they don't want
to be a part of the hobby, they want to pick and choose what suits them --
the general self centered dumbing down of America.


On the other hand, I don't think removing the code requirement will
necessarily kill either CW usage (at least in the short run) or ham radio.
The large number of people who enjoy CW will continue to operate / contest
and recruit.



FWIW -- My inability to learn CW kept me out of ham radio for 40 years. It
never occured to me that the licensing requirements should be dumbed down to
accomodate my learning disability. I eventually found a learning method
that worked for me and I finally passed the 5 then 13 WPM test. While CW is
still a struggle for me, it is my primary on-air mode.

-- Geoff

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
k.net...
jds wrote:
well, call me an old fart then. if someone is too damn lazy to learn
code, let em be limited to a technician. i use cw 99% of the time. try
talking to some guy in italy that doesnt speak english any better than i
speak italian, add accent= wtf did he say??? an "a" is .- in any
language. jeez , 5wpm is a real obsticle?? i could copy 10 before i even
attempted my novice test.
j.d. kc7mpd

Sounds like a merit badge you have to learn to enter the club.

Bet you still have your Capt'n Midnight decoder ring.

Seriously, if you choose to use code, so be it.

I have better things to do with my time than learning to use a totally
dead language.

I'm not interested in ham radio as a hobby, I already have too many.

For me is it strictly a communication tool when I'm on then water.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the hobby
have to change to accommodate you? Why not expect the licensing test to
drop all the electronics requirements since you don't expect to build /
design / modify any radios. If you plan on having a marine installer hook
up your radio to a backstay, knowing about antenna design seems like a
waste of time. Even if you do, you should probably need to prove you know
something about rigging too. Well Lew, if you want to communicate, use
marine SSB, or Marine VHF, or CB, or FRS, or GMRS, or your cell phone. Want
to talk to HAMS? Get a HAM license.

Want another potentially usefull communications option? If you do much
offshore work, you should consider getting a hand held Aviation VHF radio
with a AA battery pack to put in your "ditch bag". Legal to own? yes.
Legal to operate? Not with out an appropriate license. But, if you just
stepped up from your boat into your life raft, it might be nice to talk with
commercial airline pilots overhead while the rescue people figure out who
the unregistred EPIRB you activated belongs to. --- ILLEGAL ??? COME ARREST
ME --- PLEASE ---- NOW!!!!

Then there is that damn USCG Master License test. You need to know inland
river rules when you only operate in the atlantic coast. You need to know
how many bolts on a 6 inch fire hose coupling when you only operate a 50
foot motor vessel. They actually expect you to know how to navigate with a
chart, dividers, parallel ruler and a pencil --- how archaic is that?
Everyone uses GPSs now. .They really need to dumb that test down too to
accomodate those too dumb, lazy or uninterested enough to be bothered to
learn.


Lew


Jerry
USCG Near Coastal Master / with towing and sailing endorsements
Amateur Advanced

I agree that the code is definitely no longer a reasonable requirement but
you are right that there needs to be some major changes to the exam process
and more serious enforcement of the rules by the FCC to prevent the "CB
syndrome". Out of curiosity I tried the Technician and General online
practice tests last night. I got my General in 1961 and have not even
thought about the technical side in 40 years but scored 97 on the Tech and
91 on the General. If I can do that without even thinking hard any dodo can
pass with a couple of hours of preparation.

The FCC doesn't even seem to be able to stop those self appointed SSB disk
jockeys now. I would hate to see the bedlam if CB became intercontinental.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:06:01 -0400, "Gerald"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
ink.net...
jds wrote:
well, call me an old fart then. if someone is too damn lazy to learn
code, let em be limited to a technician. i use cw 99% of the time.

I don't agree with the code argument, though there needs to be some
form of rite of passage to prevent the airwaves from becoming like
1976 CB radio.


Sounds like a merit badge you have to learn to enter the club.

And that is it's only semi-useful purpose.

Seriously, if you choose to use code, so be it.

And it should be a *choice* not a requirement.

I have better things to do with my time than learning to use a totally
dead language.

Good point. At the advent of Ham Radio, CW was of paramount
importance. Today it is a small side interest, primarily, I suspect,
for DXers.... personally, I have interest in that.

If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the
hobby
have to change to accommodate you?
First of all, "CW" does not equal "HAM."

The hobby has already changed... so has the equipment and most
frequently employed modes of operation. Why not catch up?

Why not expect the licensing test to
drop all the electronics requirements since you don't expect to build /
design / modify any radios.

Electronics requirements are requisites.... code is not.

Want another potentially usefull communications option? If you do much
offshore work, you should consider getting a hand held Aviation VHF radio
with a AA battery pack to put in your "ditch bag". Legal to own? yes.
Legal to operate? Not with out an appropriate license.
Technically, not legal to operate, period.... but in distress. you
will surely get away with it. Anybody that expects to rely on that
sort of emergency com equipment should stay on shore.

But, if you just
stepped up from your boat into your life raft, it might be nice to talk
with
commercial airline pilots overhead while the rescue people figure out who
the unregistred EPIRB you activated belongs to. --- ILLEGAL ??? COME
ARREST
ME --- PLEASE ---- NOW!!!!
I'm not betting that you'll actually talk to an airplane with that
screwy set-up... as for reliability, I've never seen an aviation unit
I'd trust around water/humidity...

Then there is that damn USCG Master License test. You need to know inland
river rules when you only operate in the atlantic coast.
You need to know that to get an OUPV.... because most of us expect to
pass through some form of inland water to enter COLREGS water. This
seems to be some reference to one's inability to communicate via radio
without knowing code.... I can talk and I can type.

Bear in mind that the USCG hasn't used any Morse radiotelegraphy
services in over 10 years...

You need to know
how many bolts on a 6 inch fire hose coupling when you only operate a 50
foot motor vessel.
Only if you seek a master's rating.... if one has no interest in
carrying more than 6 people for hire, why would one bother? If one
only wants to communicate via voice or digital, why would one learn to
use code? Is your 50 foot motor vessel "Inspected?" If not, what's the
point?

They actually expect you to know how to navigate with a
chart, dividers, parallel ruler and a pencil --- how archaic is that?
They know that an understanding of TVMDC, tides, winds, and the
likelihood that equipment can fail is important. CW is not the *basis*
for any electrical/electronic knowledge.... in the present day, it is
a poor language for communication. In CWs day, it made sense, it
doesn't any longer. Your argument should be that learning crystals and
tubes is necessary to understanding solid state technology... Not,
learning pig-latin make you part of the Ham Club....

Everyone uses GPSs now. .They really need to dumb that test down too to
accomodate those too dumb, lazy or uninterested enough to be bothered to
learn.

You need to concentrate on that GMDSS and GROL license to go with that
Master's License....

The GMDSS will help you not rely on CW as such a crutch..... :-)

--

_ ___c
\ _| \_
__\_| oooo \_____
~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.

http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
Homepage*
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:38:24 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote (with possible editing):

....snip

What a bunch of crap from the people who suggest that the code requirement
should be kept. Who ever uses it? Nobody! Listen to the frequencies and
how much code do you hear? Virtually none. Actually when I do hear it,
it's generally a one way transmission over the top of voice conversations.
It's an archiac form of communication that no one uses. To have the FCC
finally come to that conclusion emphasizes that point.

I think you must have a pretty lousy receiver, Geoff. I hear cw on
all bands. Frankly, just because YOU think it is obsolete, doesn't
make it so. It is by far, the simplest mode of transmission and any
technical radio guy could rig up a CW transmitter in an emergency. I
honestly don't think the same could be said of SSB or any of the other
modes.

I haven't made up my mind as to whether or not reading code should be
a requirement for some form of license, but it absolutely, in my
judgment, should not be eliminated.

It's the old guard who says "Well, if I had to learn it, every one should
learn it!" These are also the people who claim to have walked up-hill to
school (both ways) in 3 feet of snow...every day. That is unless it was
when it was 110 degrees and the locust were out.

Face up to the realities of today's communication. It isn't used and it's
not important.

From God's lips to your ear. Your opinion only. And my words are my
opinion only, although based on continuously holding an amateur
license from 1954 to present.
--

Larry W1HJF - Amateur Extra Class license holder.




-- Geoff
--

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

On 8 Aug 2005 13:35:16 -0700, "Skip Gundlach"
wrote:


I was quite happy to learn the code - but find it a total anachronism
today.

L8R

Skip, rehabbing as patiently as I can (no activity, arm and shoulder
restrained)

I know code is a waste of time but all you need currently is 5 wpm.
You can get to 5 wpm in a day. They do it at the Pacificon expo here
in the SF bay. At 5 wpm you can copy individual characters or even
write the dot-dashes down and transcribe at the end.
And who knows you may find that you like it. I never did but I did
push myself to 13 wpm.

Get well,

Jeannette
aa6jh
Bristol 32, San Carlos, Mexico
http://www.eblw.com/contepartiro/contepartiro.html

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:37:43 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote:

I agree that the code is definitely no longer a reasonable requirement but
you are right that there needs to be some major changes to the exam process
and more serious enforcement of the rules by the FCC to prevent the "CB
syndrome". Out of curiosity I tried the Technician and General online
practice tests last night. I got my General in 1961 and have not even
thought about the technical side in 40 years but scored 97 on the Tech and
91 on the General. If I can do that without even thinking hard any dodo can
pass with a couple of hours of preparation.

The FCC doesn't even seem to be able to stop those self appointed SSB disk
jockeys now. I would hate to see the bedlam if CB became intercontinental.

Hey I passed the Extra by learning the answers in the book. I had to
take the test twice but I passed.

Jeannette
aa6jh
Bristol 32, San Carlos, Mexico
http://www.eblw.com/contepartiro/contepartiro.html

In article , Larry wrote:
wrote in
:

the code is part of our heritage

So isn't sailing. Shall we require all power boaters to be licensed
sailors, tested in sail, before we allow them to drive bassboats?

I think not.

Wouldn't be a bad idea at all! :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Subject

Code is gone in Canada.

Read it and weep.

www.rac.ca


Lew

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"jds" wrote in
news:jiTJe.29418$HV1.22431@fed1read07:

well, call me an old fart then. if someone is too damn lazy to learn
code, let em be limited to a technician. i use cw 99% of the time. try
talking to some guy in italy that doesnt speak english any better than
i speak italian, add accent= wtf did he say??? an "a" is .- in any
language. jeez , 5wpm is a real obsticle?? i could copy 10 before i
even attempted my novice test. j.d. kc7mpd




Many people still ride horses, too. But, alas, that is NOT a requirement
before one drives a car. The analogy is the same. You do not have to
know
how to ride a horse before you are allowed to drive a car. You can be
licensed to drive a ship, but are not required to row a boat.

We're all glad you love CW. I'm hoping FCC comes to its senses and
restricts CW to the CW part of the band. The only thing it is used for in
other parts of the band is a jamming device. There is no reason for it to
be used in any other part of the bands.

--
Larry

OK, I will put my oar in on this Larry. I have used cw for emergency
communications traffic after we were hit by the tail end of a typhoon and
all I could get going was a 5 watt CW rig running off a lantern battery. I
passed the traffic on a phone net.on 75 meters. Remember what the FCC uses
to justify ham licenses at all...the word emergency is there. CW should not
be relegated out of the other mode frequencies because in an emergency it
needs authority to be there. Common sense says operate normally in a CW
portion only. I hate code myself, but got my Novice at age 12, Technician 6
months later and General and commercial Radiotelephone 2nd with Ship Radar
at age 13, First Phone at age 17.
I have 48 years as a ham and have to admit CW has very little justification,
but since ham radio is a hobby, the hobbyist who wants to use should have a
segment for CW only and a minimum testing requirement to use it there.
73
Doug K7ABX

Lines: 37
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: ldjgbllpbapjglppdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbodb mhinbnphfkclebdillphahkfobdkeocbfcemeajkmmmkchffnc gfnojaonepigafjffeobjmmidimdbilghjebdimapnohlpmoen ljlcafhlni
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:47:14 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:47:14 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.boats.cruising:264506 rec.boats.electronics:61216


On 2005-08-09 said:
the code is part of our heritage
So isn't sailing. Shall we require all power boaters to be licensed
sailors, tested in sail, before we allow them to drive bassboats?
I think not.
True enough which is why I've said there should be access to hf which
is meaningful and usable, not just a few cw sub bands as was the case
with the old novice tech plus. I've been advocating hf access to
phone and digital modes such as then rtty since the 1970's in fact.
THe part of my comment you snipped however states my position
clearly. FOr the extra class license you should be able to at least
know the code, just as you should understand digital logic, a bit
about fast scan video etc. A guy can still get a bunch of enjoyment
out of hf radio with a general class ticket and use it from his vessel
effectively. Example: THe only thing I ever knew about video was
frame rates due to my work in recording studios and using smpte sync.
I'll probably never bother with fast scan or slow scan tv but I had to
answer questions about it for my extra class ticket. There are also
questions on the extra exam about propagation, Smith charts, etc. etc.
Essentially however we're in agreement here. It's about time that FCC
got with the program on this one! Have been saying it was time since
30 years ago. Just would like to see some code knowledge still part of
the knowledge base tested for an extra class license.

73




Richard Webb, amateur radio callsign nf5b
active on the Maritime Mobile service network, 14.300 mhz
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--