Alun wrote in message .. .
(Lloyd Davies - The Time Lord ) wrote in
:

I think that since Morse Code is old, but not completely useless, I
feel it should no longer be made to be learned to gain access to the HF
bands.

Do I feel that Amateur Radio be made a free for all? No, it should not.
There should be a test, but not a really hard test, but not a easy one
either.

I'll even admit, I'll never get a new Icom 7800, at $10,000.00 - I'll
be lucky to maybe get a used 706 at about 400 or 500 or so.


Lloyd Davies - Time Lord and Talk show host
"On the Domestic Front"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domesticfront/


The ITU requirement for a code test was dropped on July 5th, 2003, so
evidently a majority around the world agree with you.

A majority of the world's governments that bothered to attend and vote
on the issue.

And all they did was change the rules so each country can decide for
itself what is required - just like the written test.

Although a suggested standard for written tests was added at the same
WRC, it's really more of a suggestion than anything else. Countries
can have wide-ranging interpretations of what's "needed". For example,
do you think ol' JY1 and his family had to sit for written and code
exams that were equivalent to what US or UK hams had to pass for the
same privileges? Or do you think the US writtens compare with, say,
those in the UK?

If I'm not mistaken, getting a license in some countries *requires*
successful completion of an approved training course. (I know the
"Foundation" license has this requirement). Doesn't matter if someone
is a Ph.D. in EE, they have to attend and pass the ham radio classes
to get the license - even though such courses are not part of any
treaty and not required in many other countries.

Imagine the reaction here in the USA if the code test were dropped
*and* getting a license required attendance at an approved ham radio
training course. Not a "one day wonder" course such as was recently
the subject of an article on the ARRL website ("Is Your License Class
Efficient" or some such title), but rather a multisession course with
quizzes and a final test that were not from a published pool.

Point is, just because it's not in the treaty anymore doesn't mean all
countries will or should drop it.

I think the FCC will
drop it, but they move at a snail's pace.

They're busy with other things. And perhaps they don't see what all
the fuss is about. After all, we're talking about a 5 wpm code test
that can be passed in a number of ways, with all sorts of adaptations
and accomodations (tone, volume, headphones, typewriter, flashing
light, Farnsworth, etc.) Add to this the fact that today there are
training aids undreamed of in the past - most of them free or quite
inexpensive.

I didn't think it would survive
for as long as a year after it was no longer needed, but it's only nine
months so far, so I could still be right.

I think you meant 'no longer required by treaty'. Whether something is
needed as a license requirement is purely a matter of opinion.

It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.

Most of all, note that the 2000 restructuring did not result in lots
of new hams, even though the requirements for all classes of license
were lowered and the whole structure simplified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:12:59 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:

snip


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.

Must be a Frenchman, Belgium, or a Kraut.

The '.au' in Barry's Internet address kinda localizes him to
Australia......not Austria.....


All a bunch of whinning losers.

Dan/W4NTI

73, Leo

Your right Leo. I didn't check it out. You see I am more interested in
putting down LLLlllllloooooyyyyyydddddd whenever I can.

Dan/W4NTI

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:12:59 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
.. .
On 06 May 2004 04:03:56 GMT, (Lloyd Davies - The
Time
Lord ) wrote:

I think that since Morse Code is old, but not completely useless, I
feel
it
should no longer be made to be learned to gain access to the HF bands.

It's not! I have full access to all HF amateur bands without a lick of
morse.


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.

Must be a Frenchman, Belgium, or a Kraut.

No. I'm a whining aussie.

All a bunch of whinning losers.

We are losers of the morse requirement.

Dan/W4NTI


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.

I should have know so Barry. My problem is when I knew the Aussies they
were real men. You know....had a set of them. Good ole boys, could
outdrink the Queen anyday. Were men of there word. Took the ears and
passed them around at mess for all to see.

What ever happened to the real Aussies?

Dan/W4NTI

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...





The only problem is to those that don't learn Morse Code. They can now
officially say they are half a ham.



Has there been any trouble attribatable to a "non-code" ham fumbling
with code on the
bands? As long as he's not QRMing anyone, other hams will likely
"elmer" him so he
will become more proficinent. This would be a good use of the old
Novice subbands.
By gentlemens' agreements, designate s few frequencies as training
grounds for code
beginners. Not everyone can make it to a code class.

I don't know where its from but I am hearing a lot more phone activity in
the CW bands of late. And not speaking Spanish. English. But who knows.

As for the use of the Novice sub bands. You really should keep more up to
date. The FCC has a proposal out right now to delete them and extend the
phone bands. And guess what? I agree with it.

Dan/W4NTI

Real hams do it with continous wave.

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

I have little sympathy for anyone who would claim that learning morse at
a speed of five words per minute is a lot of work or that it requires a
long time to learn.

Dave K8MN

Your sympathy was not solicited, and it or the lack of it doesn't
change the fact that for many, learning code at 5wpm is difficult and
takes a long time to learn. The real pity are all of the 20WPM
Code-Tape Extras that have never used code.

Anyway Llllllloooooooyyyyyyyydddddd no one gives a crap what you think.


Hey Dan, nice to see we are still freinds. LOL.

Seriously, I have left you alone. Why can't you just let me post my opinions?
I made no personal attack on you with this post. Just for that, expect to see
more and more of me in this newsgroup.

Bye bye -


Lloyd Davies - Time Lord and Talk show host
"On the Domestic Front"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domesticfront/

It is already headed that way. Ummmm K1MAN? 14.313? 75 meters?


Yes man I know that, but does'nt that blow a hole for those folks who code to
stay as a filter?


Lloyd Davies - Time Lord and Talk show host
"On the Domestic Front"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domesticfront/

Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in news:409ABB0C.C1D993E8
@earthlink.net:

Alun wrote:

I'll grant that 5wpm is relatively easy, but still a lot of work

There's a gaping contradiction buried in there some place.

Not atall. Something doesn't have to be hard to take a long time to do.

Now you've added an additional element. We've gone from "easy" to "a
lot of work" to "long time to do". Something "easy" wouldn't seem to
require either a lot of work or a long time to do.

Why not? I don't see any contradiction. For example, bricklaying is easy,
but how long would it take you to build the Great Wall of China? In any
case, I only said relatively easy, by which I meant it is below the speed
at which you can no longer copy individual dits and dahs, which was a
barrier to a lot of people..


I have little sympathy for anyone who would claim that learning morse at
a speed of five words per minute is a lot of work or that it requires a
long time to learn.

Dave K8MN


That's the trouble with this whole debate. It isn't uniformly difficult for
different people.

(William) wrote in
om:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

I have little sympathy for anyone who would claim that learning morse
at a speed of five words per minute is a lot of work or that it
requires a long time to learn.

Dave K8MN

Your sympathy was not solicited, and it or the lack of it doesn't
change the fact that for many, learning code at 5wpm is difficult and
takes a long time to learn. The real pity are all of the 20WPM
Code-Tape Extras that have never used code.


That would be me. Not just tapes, in fact I didn't find tapes to be a good
method of learning, but I've never attached a key to a rig. What was the
point of me learning 20wpm?

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
m:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
Tony P. wrote in
:

In article ,
daviesl2003 @aol.com says...
I think that since Morse Code is old, but not completely useless, I
feel it should no longer be made to be learned to gain access to
the HF bands.

Do I feel that Amateur Radio be made a free for all? No, it should
not. There should be a test, but not a really hard test, but not a
easy one either.

I'll even admit, I'll never get a new Icom 7800, at $10,000.00 -
I'll be lucky to maybe get a used 706 at about 400 or 500 or so.

I didn't find the series of tests difficult at all. The 5WPM and
13WPM were fairly easy too, as I had time to practice the 5WPM while
on a rainy camping trip. Good thing I brought plenty of batteries
and a code practice tapes.


I'll grant that 5wpm is relatively easy, but still a lot of work

13WPM was gotten by actually working HF with what privileges I had
as a Tech+. From there, up to 20WPM and all done.


I'd say it's a bit harder for those with no interest in using CW

I had no particular interest in the topics covered by probably half
the courses I had to pass to get a degree. But I did pass 'em
(grousing all the way) and the priveleges flowed. The philosophy
behind volume of work invested in learning = volume of privs goes back
at least to the guilds of the early Renaissance.


You would have thought we would have learnt since then, rather than aping
the practices of hundreds of years ago.

I think the biggest detriment to testing now is the publication of
the question pools. People can get into the hobby via rote
memorization,

True in some instances, but most people don't have photographic memory

which by the way is what schools teach kids, not how to think but
how to memorize.

So over time the hobby is just going to be awash in nitwits,

I don't think so. Not any more than it already is, anyway!

and then
fade away. There are too many other options to communicate.



...which is another issue altogether. The Internet has hit the hobby
pretty hard.

What's your point?

My point is that we need to recruit people into the hobby.

Ham radio license tests should be reduced to
passing a test on mouse operations in order for ham radio to compete
with the Internet? Passing a one-button mouse test garners a Tech
ticket, two gets a General and two plus a scroller wheel gets the
examinee an Extra?

w3rv


Where do you get that from? I don't think we should reduce theory standards
atall. I just think we need to abolish the code test.