|
FCC proposes to drop code on all licenses!
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/100/?nc=1
Good news for boaters! FCC proposes to drop ALL Morse code requirements on ALL licenses! THE TIME OF YOUR HAM LICENSE HAS ARRIVED! The public comment window is open! Tell the FCC to get rid of the code! Now, they should replace the code test with a TYPING test so you can carry on a decent conversation with those dunderheads that can't type 5wpm on packet, pactor, PSK31, RTTY, etc........No typing endorsement, no data modes! As an Extra Class, I also propose to drop the stupid ARRL band segregation on "class" and "modes". How stupid.... 73 DE W4CSC -- Larry NNNN |
How does one comment?
I was just about to engage in my code-learning phase of rehab, my typing having been authorized, and my waiting only for the return of my laptop with the installed nav software before beginning. 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) |
"Skip Gundlach" wrote in
oups.com: Skip, rehabbing as patiently as I can (no activity, arm and shoulder restrained) YO! Skip! Welcome back! Just be patient. FCC is, once again, going to be telling archaic ARRL to take a hike. It's 30 years too late, but they're coming around. Ham radio is dying of OLD AGE and FCC know it. -- Larry |
|
Larry wrote:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/100/?nc=1 Good news for boaters! FCC proposes to drop ALL Morse code requirements on ALL licenses! THE TIME OF YOUR HAM LICENSE HAS ARRIVED! The public comment window is open! Tell the FCC to get rid of the code! snip Sounds like many of the old farts have finally died. Lew |
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 |
|
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. Want to make ham radio a PITA to use, be my guest, there are other options. Lew |
"jds" wrote in
news:jiTJe.29418$HV1.22431@fed1read07: well, call me an old fart then. if someone is too damn lazy to learn code, let em be limited to a technician. i use cw 99% of the time. try talking to some guy in italy that doesnt speak english any better than i speak italian, add accent= wtf did he say??? an "a" is .- in any language. jeez , 5wpm is a real obsticle?? i could copy 10 before i even attempted my novice test. j.d. kc7mpd Many people still ride horses, too. But, alas, that is NOT a requirement before one drives a car. The analogy is the same. You do not have to know how to ride a horse before you are allowed to drive a car. You can be licensed to drive a ship, but are not required to row a boat. We're all glad you love CW. I'm hoping FCC comes to its senses and restricts CW to the CW part of the band. The only thing it is used for in other parts of the band is a jamming device. There is no reason for it to be used in any other part of the bands. -- Larry |
|
"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message 6... wrote in news:fITJe.3606$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: 36
Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling X-Trace: ldjgbllpbapjglppdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbodb mhinbnphfkclebmodoldmkocifcjbkcbfcemeajkmmmkchffnc gfnojaonepigafjffeobjmmidimdbilghjebdimapnohegaadd lclgmijlpk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:47:16 EDT Organization: BellSouth Internet Group Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:47:16 GMT Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.boats.cruising:264507 rec.boats.electronics:61217 On 2005-08-09 said: 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. Agreed in many respects. I'd like to see the ham radio tests a little tougher on the theory, question pools not available to anybody but registered volunteer examiners etc. study materials should be built around the student learning the damn material and not on memorizing answers to multiple guess questions. 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 -- POOR PLANNING ON YOUR PART Does NOT constitute an emergency on our part! |
|
"Doug" wrote in
nk.net: 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 And, I think that CW only segment is where this phone band jammer should be confined to stop the jamming. I think, like 160 meters, you'll soon see the band segregation cease as soon as the old farts who've kept it segregated for their Extra Class elitist friends becomes moot. We don't need band segregation, which makes it really hard on the net operators. 14.100-14.150, for instance, is a total waste of bandwidth for US amateurs as it's a PHONE BAND, dammit, in the rest of the world. How stupid to keep US hams segregated from it, just like the low end of 40 meters where the rest of the world uses it as a PHONE BAND. Wonder what ever happened to that proposal to open up 50 more KC below 7000 Khz broadcasters no longer use? The whole HF band may be a ham band quite shortly. Government and commercial interests want satellite operations, not noisy old Titanic comms on HF at amazingly slow data rates anyone can intercept. The whole band is as obsolete as our friends in Newington, CT. As to the testing, let's stop licensing unqualified hams. There is no ham radio test any more. I have friends whos wives have no idea how to put batteries in a flashlight with Extra Class tickets. They just memorized the test questions and got their Extras. How stupid. HAM RADIO WAS DESIGNED TO INSURE ELECTRONIC TECHNICIANS AND OPERATORS IN TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY! It sure isn't going to help the military any more like it did when they drafted them all in WW2. Let's dump the whole, stupid giveaway test rote memorization program and make it so only people interested enough to study electronics can get ham licenses. Ham radio was never just a hobby! It's a national resource for TECHNICIANS the government can grab in emergencies....I'd like to see it returned to that mode. -- Larry |
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? Oh, I WISH they'd learn to pay attention to anything but turning the key and twiddling the wheel..... -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message k.net... Sounds like many of the old farts have finally died. Careful Lew, some of those Ole Farts still lurk here in these groups. Some place in this thread, we will soon hear some defense of the age old code requirement. I have my rig installed and have prepared myself for the written portion of the General Class (several years ago, during a business trip, while stuck in a motel room.) I've tried 'hooking up' with a few of the Ole Timers here in my neighborhood, but their widows meet me at the door with the sad news. The few that still survive, deny that the FCC might ever drop the code requirement. Additional the don't seem to realize that there are frequently Mariners on HF/SSB on the upper side of "their band". One ole fellow couldn't imagine that I had a Marine station and Marine operators license and had never taken a test. Sorry if I step on some toes. I would have gotten a Ham license back in my teens if it weren't for the code and my inability to distinguish tone differences and tone shifts. I could do 10 wpm on a key or on paper, as long as I could send or visualize the dots and dashes. Boy Scouts taught and tested me but the Hams wanted me to receive using audio. Steve |
"Steve" wrote in
: Sorry if I step on some toes. I would have gotten a Ham license back in my teens if it weren't for the code and my inability to distinguish tone differences and tone shifts. I could do 10 wpm on a key or on paper, as long as I could send or visualize the dots and dashes. Boy Scouts taught and tested me but the Hams wanted me to receive using audio. Steve You played it wrong, Steve. When I was 10 I used to spend my nights at a ham's radio shack behind his house. He figured the only way to get rid of me and get to use his equipment again was to get my my own ham license, loan me an old receiver and help me build a 5Y3/6V6 transmitter for my Novice station.....(c; I missed his big Hallicrafter's transmitter and National NC-303 receiver so ended up getting General so I could use my license on his station...hee hee. We were still friends up til his death at 89 years old.... -- Larry |
Steve wrote:
Careful Lew, some of those Ole Farts still lurk here in these groups. Some place in this thread, we will soon hear some defense of the age old code requirement. Precisely why I made the comment. HAM radio and its practitioners may have been a critical resource 55-60 years ago (WWII vintage); however, today HAM is an old dog that time has passed by. Today's real resource is an 8 year old kid who writes video games, satellite tracking and some other interesting stuff the kids do today. Time to put the old farts, including myself, out to pasture. Lew |
On 2005-08-09 22:06:01 +1000, "Gerald" said:
"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 That was the best rebuttal of the "you need to dumb things down so I too can pass this test!" Amen Jerry. PS. I am through all the practical reqirements for our AYF Coastal Skipper Certification and working towards the Offshore Certificate. -- Regards, John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789 S/V Chagall |
On 2005-08-10 13:41:35 +1000, Lew Hodgett said:
Steve wrote: Careful Lew, some of those Ole Farts still lurk here in these groups. Some place in this thread, we will soon hear some defense of the age old code requirement. Precisely why I made the comment. HAM radio and its practitioners may have been a critical resource 55-60 years ago (WWII vintage); however, today HAM is an old dog that time has passed by. Today's real resource is an 8 year old kid who writes video games, satellite tracking and some other interesting stuff the kids do today. Time to put the old farts, including myself, out to pasture. Lew Speak for yourself Lew! I'm 59 and I still get a kick out of learning new stuff. I have to preface this with the fact that I am an EE grad who worked in the IT sector for 30+ years. But keeping up with new comms technology keeps you young! Nothing like digital voice, OFDM modems et al. Hell in a couple of years SSB could be going the way of Ancient Modulation even on HF! -- Regards, John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789 S/V Chagall |
"Gerald" wrote:
If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the hobby have to change to accommodate you? Depends on whether you expect the HAM hobby to survive. Unless some serious changes are made, there won't be enough new blood attracted to the hobby for it to survive when all the existing old farts are gone. Lew |
John Proctor wrote:
Speak for yourself Lew! I'm 59 and I still get a kick out of learning new stuff. A mere youngster. I have to preface this with the fact that I am an EE grad who worked in the IT sector for 30+ years. But keeping up with new comms technology keeps you young! Nothing like digital voice, OFDM modems et al. Hell in a couple of years SSB could be going the way of Ancient Modulation even on HF! SFWIW, the State of Ohio gave me a PE license a long time ago and as long as I send them some money every year, it remains in tact. Never had to use it, but it looked good hanging on the wall of my office. Doing techie things was a way to feed the bull dog all those early years, but today my horizons have broadened. Today I learn less and less about more and more until someday I will know absolutely nothing about everything. Perhaps that day is closer than I thinkG. Lew |
On 2005-08-11 02:36:02 +1000, Lew Hodgett said:
John Proctor wrote: Speak for yourself Lew! I'm 59 and I still get a kick out of learning new stuff. A mere youngster. I have to preface this with the fact that I am an EE grad who worked in the IT sector for 30+ years. But keeping up with new comms technology keeps you young! Nothing like digital voice, OFDM modems et al. Hell in a couple of years SSB could be going the way of Ancient Modulation even on HF! SFWIW, the State of Ohio gave me a PE license a long time ago and as long as I send them some money every year, it remains in tact. Never had to use it, but it looked good hanging on the wall of my office. Doing techie things was a way to feed the bull dog all those early years, but today my horizons have broadened. Today I learn less and less about more and more until someday I will know absolutely nothing about everything. Perhaps that day is closer than I thinkG. Lew Lew, The true search for knowledge begins by understanding what you don't know. From this point the quest is a wonderful journey. I am flattered that at 59 I am a mere youngster. I've been saying that for years ;-) The rate of change in technology is marvelously stimulating and one of the things that keeps me feeling young. -- Regards, John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789 S/V Chagall |
John Proctor wrote in
news:2005081107103716807%lost@nowhereorg: The true search for knowledge begins by understanding what you don't know. From this point the quest is a wonderful journey. I am flattered that at 59 I am a mere youngster. I've been saying that for years ;-) I'm 59, too. My neighbor's 9-year-old girl asked me what it was like to be 59. I told her it was like being 9, but with money...(c; -- Larry |
In article , Larry
wrote: I'm 59, too. My neighbor's 9-year-old girl asked me what it was like to be 59. I told her it was like being 9, but with money...(c; LOVE it! SOOOOO true for those that work to live instead of the other way around. They're demanding "extra hours" at work currently. In my case, that just means that I'm taking fewer of those hours off I scheduled months ago with my managers' blessing. Come December --use or lose-- I doubt I'll be near the office much. [Nephew lives in Florida, is a member of a co-op sailing club, and has offered us the time he can't use. Life can get VERY good!] -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Lew -
I find myself on both sides of this debate. On the one hand ... Eliminate the code requirement --- * I agree that perhaps the time for CW TESTING has passed. Not the use of CW mind you, just the testing. Not the use of CW mind you, just the testing. CW is still quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as intense contesting. It will be a popular mode for awhile. CW is still quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as intense contesting. It will be a popular mode for awhile.As the last generation of Hams who "had to " learn CW fade away -- perhaps CW will start to wind down too because not enough people are being introduced to this mode. But that will because of "the will of the people" not some silly FCC regulation. *The CW requirement is being dropped in most other jurisdictions in the world --- not that they are any smarter than we are --- but it clearly is the trend. * If I am to be true to my generally conservative beliefs, then the requirement probably should go. The government should not be using its regulatory powers to control our hobbies in this manner. Band allocations yes, emission types - perhaps --- to insure there is no RF anarchy. Beyond that --- butt out my life. On the other hand -- keep the code requirements -- AKA no change. *I believe the argument that code should be dropped because it is killing the hobby is, at best, specious. I am not at all convinced that dropping CW is going to breath and great amounts of life into the hobby. NO-CODE licenses have been available for years. No great influx of young hams in the VHF/UHF bands. *From listening to the no-code debate for years, I am convinced that most (not all) people who want to drop the code requirement because they want the HF privileges, but they don't want to bother to learn the code. There is no deep concern for the future of ham radio hidden in there anywhere; Just the increasingly popular "I want..." but "I don't want to...". I want a lot of money, but I don't want to work too hard. I want a nice car, but I don't want to get a job". I want access to Winlink200 for free email while cruising, but I don't want to learn the code. I don't think that is a sufficient reason to change the requirement. Today, kids have so much to pick from. Their communications options are amazing (compared to 50 years ago --- hell, compared to 10 years ago!) cell phone voice, cell phone IM, email, internet IM, chatrooms, websites... Back in the old days those of us who were classified as "geeks" turned to electronics and ham radio as a way to express our geekiness. Today, the geeky kids turn to robotics and/or programming. Count the number of websites devoted to building robotics VS the number devoted to building RF stuff. Worthy of note --- not much of that communications technology did anyone much good around ground zero on 9-11 of the hurricanes in Florida last year, or ... pick your disaster. Cell phone service was pretty much crippled on the east coast (entire country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on ticking... But, it just where the excitement is right now. I think that is the biggest challenge to Ham radio's future If the genesis of ham radio was one of insuring that the country had a good standby supply of communications technicians available during times of war (WW1 / WW2 ??) then the history of CW knowledge is very obvious. That national defense requirements are no longer the same. Now, there may be a legitimate Homeland Defense, Emergency Readiness need to have back up (or supplemental) communications in the hands of a larger number of trained and organized citizens. Ham participation in the aftermath of Hurricanes, in the aftermath of 9-11, in the aftermath of the next natural/terrorist disaster may be reasons for the FCC to want to Keep Ham radio alive. I think that having a good base of ham operators can be a good thing for the country --- but only if they are ON THE AIR practicing their various communications specialties. I am starting to ramble... To summarize, I am firmly on the fence with conservative tendencies leaning to - less regulation is better regulation. "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message nk.net... "Gerald" wrote: If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the hobby have to change to accommodate you? Depends on whether you expect the HAM hobby to survive. Unless some serious changes are made, there won't be enough new blood attracted to the hobby for it to survive when all the existing old farts are gone. Lew |
Plus -
I still have and use paper charts right next to my GPS fed computer with charting software. Which is all located at my nav station where I keep my sextent that I enjoy using whenever I am offshore. It is good to be able to verify that the GPS is working ok! A little of the new, a little of the old. "Gerald" wrote in message ... Lew - I find myself on both sides of this debate. On the one hand ... Eliminate the code requirement --- * I agree that perhaps the time for CW TESTING has passed. Not the use of CW mind you, just the testing. Not the use of CW mind you, just the testing. CW is still quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as intense contesting. It will be a popular mode for awhile. CW is still quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as intense contesting. It will be a popular mode for awhile.As the last generation of Hams who "had to " learn CW fade away -- perhaps CW will start to wind down too because not enough people are being introduced to this mode. But that will because of "the will of the people" not some silly FCC regulation. *The CW requirement is being dropped in most other jurisdictions in the world --- not that they are any smarter than we are --- but it clearly is the trend. * If I am to be true to my generally conservative beliefs, then the requirement probably should go. The government should not be using its regulatory powers to control our hobbies in this manner. Band allocations yes, emission types - perhaps --- to insure there is no RF anarchy. Beyond that --- butt out my life. On the other hand -- keep the code requirements -- AKA no change. *I believe the argument that code should be dropped because it is killing the hobby is, at best, specious. I am not at all convinced that dropping CW is going to breath and great amounts of life into the hobby. NO-CODE licenses have been available for years. No great influx of young hams in the VHF/UHF bands. *From listening to the no-code debate for years, I am convinced that most (not all) people who want to drop the code requirement because they want the HF privileges, but they don't want to bother to learn the code. There is no deep concern for the future of ham radio hidden in there anywhere; Just the increasingly popular "I want..." but "I don't want to...". I want a lot of money, but I don't want to work too hard. I want a nice car, but I don't want to get a job". I want access to Winlink200 for free email while cruising, but I don't want to learn the code. I don't think that is a sufficient reason to change the requirement. Today, kids have so much to pick from. Their communications options are amazing (compared to 50 years ago --- hell, compared to 10 years ago!) cell phone voice, cell phone IM, email, internet IM, chatrooms, websites... Back in the old days those of us who were classified as "geeks" turned to electronics and ham radio as a way to express our geekiness. Today, the geeky kids turn to robotics and/or programming. Count the number of websites devoted to building robotics VS the number devoted to building RF stuff. Worthy of note --- not much of that communications technology did anyone much good around ground zero on 9-11 of the hurricanes in Florida last year, or ... pick your disaster. Cell phone service was pretty much crippled on the east coast (entire country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on ticking... But, it just where the excitement is right now. I think that is the biggest challenge to Ham radio's future If the genesis of ham radio was one of insuring that the country had a good standby supply of communications technicians available during times of war (WW1 / WW2 ??) then the history of CW knowledge is very obvious. That national defense requirements are no longer the same. Now, there may be a legitimate Homeland Defense, Emergency Readiness need to have back up (or supplemental) communications in the hands of a larger number of trained and organized citizens. Ham participation in the aftermath of Hurricanes, in the aftermath of 9-11, in the aftermath of the next natural/terrorist disaster may be reasons for the FCC to want to Keep Ham radio alive. I think that having a good base of ham operators can be a good thing for the country --- but only if they are ON THE AIR practicing their various communications specialties. I am starting to ramble... To summarize, I am firmly on the fence with conservative tendencies leaning to - less regulation is better regulation. "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message nk.net... "Gerald" wrote: If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the hobby have to change to accommodate you? Depends on whether you expect the HAM hobby to survive. Unless some serious changes are made, there won't be enough new blood attracted to the hobby for it to survive when all the existing old farts are gone. Lew |
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:06:01 -0400, "Gerald" 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. I don't belive that will be a real issue. CB was a passing FAD. I don't see the 70's type of activity on CB anymore. Aside from the truckers legit use of the service and the ever-present LIDS (they exist in HAM land too), it seems pretty quiet most of the time. No-code has been the law of the land for VHF/UHF for years --- no CB crap problem there. 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. Rely on it? No. Available as a back up? why not? 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... I'm not sure what you mean by "screwy" setup. Aren't airliners are supposed to monitor 121.5? Most probably actually do. I have a Yaesu VXA-100 aviation transceiver in a waterproof bag in my ditch bag. It's there if I need it. Once I'm in the liferaft, it's a little late to wish I had it. FedEx doesn't deliver 150 miles offshore. Oh well, each to therir own... 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. I have neen boating up and down the coast of the US / and bahamas for 40 years. Never had any use for the inland river rules. They apply to the Mississippi, Ohio... rivers --- not the ICW or rivers along the US East Coast. This seems to be some reference to one's inability to communicate via radio without knowing code.... I can talk and I can type. No, it is a reference to people decideing what they think they should learn to get a license --- and a geneal desire to dumb things down. Bear in mind that the USCG hasn't used any Morse radiotelegraphy services in over 10 years... I will try to keep that in mind... thanks. Although, RACONS all still use it. As do aeronautical VORs and NDBs --- but you knew that. So it's not all that DEAD after all, is it? 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? Merit badge. What if the 7th person shows up? Because I can. Why not? Is learning more than you think you need to know a bad thing? If one only wants to communicate via voice or digital, why would one learn to use code? If you are only going to operate store bought radio equipment, why bother to learn the electronics? If you are just going to hook a store bought marine vertical or hook up to a back stay, why learn about antennas? If you are only going to use WinLink2000 and participate in the Waterway Nets, why bother with all that silly satellite knowledge? Why should any license test cover material that you say you don't need to know? That's an interesting proposition --- let the applicant pick the questions they feel they should be asked. 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. I'm not disagreeing with you there, but a backup gps or two is a lot cheaper than a set of current charts. I'll bet you a buck that within the next 5-10 years, we will be having the same discussion about the TVMDC stuff as we are about CW. Just out of curiosity, couldn't we use your argument above to justify a resurgence in Celestial navigation? What if all the equipment fails and my charts blew away? Could happen!!!!!!! Sorry, I'm losing it here ... the HVAC guys should be done any minute now and I can get back to my real life. CW is not the *basis* for any electrical/electronic knowledge.... in the present day, it is a poor language for communication. So just what does that mean? A poor language for communication? It's not really a language, it is a mode. It may not be "state of the art". It may not be as widely used as cell phones. It may not be as popular as internet, but it is very efficient and very effective. I will grant you that it is not a very popular mode of communications. No if you want poor communication, just listen to any politician answer almost any question during an interview. 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.... Not at all. In fact I don't think I have argued that CW should be kept. My only objection to its removal is because it seems to be driven by people who don't want to learn it for one personal reason or another. The "good for ham radio" line is usually a bucnh of nice sounding crap. _ ___c \ _| \_ __\_| oooo \_____ ~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC. Passed through there and in/out the inlet many a time. |
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:47:59 GMT, ahoy wrote:
Hi Jeannette, congratulations on making it to San Carlos. (and on your 13 wpm) Is the mighty Toad still there? They would be anchored out near the Harbor entrance and not next to the bar with the amazing Mexican rock band. Isn't it about 1000 degrees there right now? Sale vale. Thanks, I can't answer any of these questions coz I am unfortunately back in the US with my nose to the grindstone until November. Oh well.. It's too hot there now anyway and the boat is on the hard till the end of hurricane season. Jeannette Bristol 32, San Carlos, Mexico http://www.eblw.com/contepartiro/contepartiro.html |
"Gerald" wrote in
: Worthy of note --- not much of that communications technology did anyone much good around ground zero on 9-11 of the hurricanes in Florida last year, or ... pick your disaster. Cell phone service was pretty much crippled on the east coast (entire country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on ticking... [Lots of clipping from the above post] So what did morse code have to do with the above? How much of the communication during the hurricane(s) was code vs voice? I can guess that it was probably close to 100% voice. I would also point out that cell service was disrupted in the immediate area around the 911 disaster, but the rest of the country wasn't effected, other than perhaps overloaded circuits. Q: How did the reports from the hijacked plane that crashed into the field come in? A: Cell phones. -- Geoff |
Gene Kearns wrote:
Hmmmmm...... well, I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on the "good for ham radio" bandwagon. Maybe it will eventually interest some more qualified people.... that would be good, I think. If anybody wishes to make the.... argument that the test is too *hard,* well, I just went deaf. However, I *am* willing to listen to those people that aren't wishing to make things easier (because it's just too hard), but want the test to be more about what they intend to *do* with Amateur Radio. A couple of questions. My only interest in HAM radio is to be able to get necessary weather forecasts and communicate with other sailors who happen to be in my net at the moment, when I'm at sea or in an anchorage. I choose not to want to open up the box and play with what's inside. I choose not to design and build radio equipment. I quit building Heath Kits more than 30 years ago. I think of HAM radio as nothing more than a utility, like electricity or water or sewers. If I have to stop and review operational procedures every time I turn it on, it becomes a bigger PITA than it is worth. Given all of the above, what are my best options? Lew |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com