sorgatz@ttidcc.UUCP ( Avatar) (11/26/85)
< munch! gobble! chomp! chew! Why don't "THEY" fix this bug? >
As an individual who is about to take the 5 wpm test and become a Novice
for the 1st time I am (understandably) interested in the tone of this
proposed license change and concerned about it's possible effect on the
format of Amateur licenses here in the US. It has long been proposed that
the FCC restructure the licenses so as to permit the operation of radio
equipment by individuals without Morse communications skills. The typical
hue and cry from the ARRL and the 'ranks has been; "What? then it'll be
just like CB radio out here! NO WAY!" ... this was what made me learn the
code. I've resigned myself to the fact that there is but one way to have
that ticket! As an aside, one of my friends asked a question, which I simply
couldnt answer: "Why don't they (the FCC) require a tough-technical exam,
and convey voice/data/etc privs. then if a person wanted to use A1,F1/etc
_then_ require them to pass an exam on Morse code!" ...I couldnt answer him
because I was laughing too hard! (-|
-Avatar->
Erik K. Sorgatz
Transaction Technology Inc. (Citicorp's R/AD West) ... . ... . ...
3100 ocean Park Blvd. (zone V1) . | |..|..| | .
Santa Monica, Ca. 90405 |.|....|....|.|
USENET path: {garfield,lasspvax,linus,cmcl2,seismo} |.|....|....|.|
!philabs!ttidca!sorgatz | | ...|... | |
("..My poor Krel! Even they must have evolved up from the ..| | .|. | |..
mindless primative..after a million years of shining sanity, they could
hardly have known what power was destroying them!" -Dr. Morbius F.P.)k2sk@ky2d-2.UUCP (Bob) (12/01/85)
> < munch! gobble! chomp! chew! Why don't "THEY" fix this bug? > > As an individual who is about to take the 5 wpm test and become a Novice > for the 1st time I am (understandably) interested in the tone of this > proposed license change and concerned about it's possible effect on the > format of Amateur licenses here in the US. It has long been proposed that > the FCC restructure the licenses so as to permit the operation of radio > equipment by individuals without Morse communications skills. The typical > hue and cry from the ARRL and the 'ranks has been; "What? then it'll be > just like CB radio out here! NO WAY!" ... this was what made me learn the > code. I've resigned myself to the fact that there is but one way to have > that ticket! As an aside, one of my friends asked a question, which I simply > couldnt answer: "Why don't they (the FCC) require a tough-technical exam, > and convey voice/data/etc privs. then if a person wanted to use A1,F1/etc > _then_ require them to pass an exam on Morse code!" ...I couldnt answer him > because I was laughing too hard! (-| > > -Avatar-> > Erik K. Sorgatz > Transaction Technology Inc. (Citicorp's R/AD West) ... . ... . ... > 3100 ocean Park Blvd. (zone V1) . | |..|..| | . > Santa Monica, Ca. 90405 |.|....|....|.| > USENET path: {garfield,lasspvax,linus,cmcl2,seismo} |.|....|....|.| > !philabs!ttidca!sorgatz | | ...|... | | > ("..My poor Krel! Even they must have evolved up from the ..| | .|. | |.. > mindless primative..after a million years of shining sanity, they could > hardly have known what power was destroying them!" -Dr. Morbius F.P.) Eric and Peter, I hardly know where to begin in answering your question about the necessity for a code exam. except to say that I have been a ham for 26 years and I can remember the issue being as hotly debated when I started. The real answer as i see it is that for some even the toughest technical exam is easy because of professional training, more brain power or just being still in school and practiced at studying. On the other hand, a lot of potentially good hams would be screened out by such tactThe technical exam should be (and is) just hard enough to insure that new hams can handle the equipment without danger or inconvenience to themselves or others and without creating unnecessary interference with other radio services. That part is tough enough for most. The code, in addition to the obvious serves another purpose. It is a skill that one cannot "cram" for. It is like learning to ride a bike or speak a new language. It requires one to put in his time and there is no real shortcut to its learning. It is a barrier which tests ones determination to become licensed. In ham radio we have a nearly century old proud tradition of community service, self help and policing, strict adherence to the FCC regs (no matter how arbitrary!) and a kind of "Can Do" attitude which has served this country well in exchange for the precious spectrum we borrow from it. The real difference between us and CBers (it is foolish to characterize them all as illiterate truckers) is that we all had to WORK for our licenses and we CARE about the hobby. We didn't just get a rig as an Xmas gift. I have been giving the exams for just over a year now and I believe in the system now more than ever for I see the people who pass and those who fail. If you were in my place and with the power to judge, you would probably fail a lot more of them! Of course we do NOT have that power nor want it and we try to give everyone every opportunity to pass. If as I believe we might, the FCC bows to the pressure from within and without and eliminates the CW requirement, it will be the beginning of a process that will change Ham Radio beyond our recognition and may even destroy it. In addition to all that, CW can be very handy and (above about 25 or 30 wpm) useful and fun! It may even save your life someday! Give it a try. 50,000 hams can't be all wrong! Thanks for wading throught this wordy reply! 73 GL in your test! Bob K2SK >> P.S. LOVED your Morbius quote!! - (old Robby the Robot fan!)
stephany.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (12/03/85)
Flame thrower on: The Krell killed themselves off because they did not want to be told that they had to spend 4 hours leaning 5 WBM code and spent all their time bitching. Flame thrower off. Joe N2XS
tanner@ki4pv.UUCP (Tanner Andrews) (12/04/85)
As I recall, we are obligated by WARC to require a code test for operation on the "low bands". This international treaty obligation may be hard for the FCC to waive. I don't believe that the obligation applies to 2-M and above, so it is possible that a limited no-code ticket might be issued for some limited set of bands (my advice: 220 and 1296), possibly for data only. tanner andrews, systems compudata south, deland -- <std dsclm, copies upon request> Tanner Andrews, KI4PV uucp: ...!decvax!ucf-cs!ki4pv!tanner
jgpo@iham1.UUCP (John, KA9MNK) (12/06/85)
> As I recall, we are obligated by WARC to require a code test for > operation on the "low bands". This international treaty obligation > may be hard for the FCC to waive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the United States never signed the WARC treaty, so, as a result, the FCC can do whatever they please. John Opalko, KA9MNK AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL ...!ihnp4!iham1!jgpo