December 2006 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:14956] Clarifications
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 18 Dec '06

18 Dec '06

Dan Henderson spoke with Bill Cross a few minutes ago. Bill confirms that when the Report and Order in 05-235 takes effect, presumably 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, all Technicians will have Tech Plus privileges. (This was our assumption, but the news release was ambiguously worded.) He also advises that the automatic control segment of 3585-3600 kHz is not immediate but will take effect at the same time. Dave K1ZZ P.S. Bill was not aware of the news release until he opened his email this morning.

1 0

[arrl-odv:14955] Re: WT Docket 05-235
by w3kd＠aol.com 18 Dec '06

18 Dec '06

FYI: While it is too early to determine what the lame rationale is that FCC will use for moving the 80 meter automatic control segment down to 3585-3600 kHz, it is more than fair to assume that they had this "fix" planned for their snafu on Section 97.221(b) some time ago, most likely long before we filed our recon petition, and after we brought the snafu to Cross' attention. So it isn't that they gave our recon petition a quick look (though if they had seriously considered it and were reasonable, they might have acted differently.) I believe that they intended all along to get the 05-235 order out by the 15th, with their 97.221(b) "fix" in it, and the scramble on the 15th late in the day (Commissioner Copps office called me about 5 PM on Friday the 15th, and according to them, it was close to, but not quite, a done deal by that time) was just to account for the fact that the fix they put in the 05-235 order was the subject of our recon petition. Chris, W3KD -----Original Message----- From: jbellows(a)skypoint.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Cc: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 6:39 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:14945] Re: WT Docket 05-235 I have to disagree with Frank to a certain extent on this. CW may not be a religion, but many adherents view it as if it were a religion, in the sense its followers are true believers. To them belief is a matter of faith not necessarily fact in the scientific sense. If history has shown us anything it is that converts are the strongest believers and those that have beliefs impressed upon them are the most rebellious. (If any doubt - check out Reformation in Wikipedia) Having already violated every bit of good advice from my father about not discussing religion in public, I will move on. I happen to be a believer. When confronted with a true believer the CW is the heart of Amateur Radio I try to nod affirmatively and say that I believe the CW is strong enough to stand on its own merits. The relative success of local ops working CW in the 10 Meter Contest over those working phone was a good example. We didn't cause the Morse requirement to be eliminated as a license requirement, that was the good and thoughtful folks at FCC; the same folks who sat on their fat **** for a year or two to act after telegraphing (no pun intended) their intent to eliminate the Mores requirement These are the same friendly folks who rejected our Petition for Reconsideration without any comment after two (or was three )days of "intense" thought. We can only hope the quick action on the Petition for Reconsideration was the dawn of a new era of quick action at FCC. Perhaps it is "Morning in America." Probably not still, we did the right thing and we should let our members know that. Moreover we need to let them know CW is still a viable and highly prized mode amongst ARRL leaders, but just that a mode. It is up to those of us who are true believers to "keep the faith" and find converts. That isn't the job of FCC or for that matter ARRL. As far as the difficulty of current tests are concerned, I suggest that we try and view the material through the eyes of someone brand new to Amateur Radio without 20, 30 or more years of Amateur Radio behind us. We all remember how foreign and sometimes bewildering the terms and concepts were through the eyes of a newcomer. Better yet, go to a VE session and watch the examinees "sweat it out." If you want a Christmas smile then check out the look on the face of someone you just passed. That will put you in the Christmas spirit and renew your faith in Amateur Radio. Happy Holidays to all!! 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 7:39 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14945] Re: WT Docket 05-235 Joel Harrison wrote: > As I stated in my email yesterday, it is good to see the FCC finally > act of WT Docket 05-235. > > <SNIP> Joel, I could not agree more with the statement below. The FCC has ruled: CW is Mode and NOT a religion. I for one have had the debate up to my ears for far too long! I will be interesting to see how ham radio goes in the next few years. It is, I am sure, not the end of the world. And yes, it is LONG overdue! I think it's a nice Christmas present. > For me personally, I’m glad we have the Morse issue behind us so we > can move forward. The debate has burdened us for far too many years. > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > p.s. Just so you don’t get the two mixed up, I’m not happy with what > the Commission did regarding our 80 meter recon petition. That, > however, is another matter to address and deal with. > ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

1 0

[arrl-odv:14954] Re: WT Docket 05-235
by Frank Fallon 18 Dec '06

18 Dec '06

Jay, I have no problem with people who are religious, even if it is CW. They can be religious CW operators. What I object to is anyone who wants to shove their religious beliefs down my throat or force me to become a member of their religion. I object to Taliban CW operators or their fellow travelers. They are entitled to their beliefs and I will not mock them or attack them. Hey, I am a liberal! And I work CW DX and get into CW contests but I am not a good CW operator and do not expect to go to CW heaven. Nor do I expect to get into FOC. I am not going to gloat about CW being dropped because I did not push to get it dropped. Nor did ARRL. I realize full well that this is a real blow to some guys and a few gals but they should have seen it coming. I told a lot of clubs that I have spoken to in the last two years that I expected the FCC to drop CW testing. They told us that years ago. (see my BTW below.) I have a real fear that to we (the ARRL) may become so fearful of those who are really Taliban and want to wrap our woman up in red white an blue burkas and use nothing but CW that we will go along with a push to make the exam harder. Please, let's do a reality check here. Today's radios are so complicated and use SMT components that most of us cannot fix. Why would we ever want to put questions on the exams which only a bench technician with a dual trace storage scope and a computer program designed to mimic the test points in a particular radio could answer. It is no longer like the old days when we fixed our own radios. That is gone. We now have UPS lights on our radio. When the light comes on call UPS to pick up the radio and we ship it back to the manufacturer who replaces the defective module. Almost no one traces a problem down to the component level anymore and replaces the component. That has long ago ceased to be cost effective. Making exams harder is NOT the answer, it is just another problem. Please, let us not go there. BTW: The FCC signaled that they would drop the CW testing requirement back in 1999 or 2000 when the dropped the CW testing speed down to 5 WPM. At that point the great one at FCC, Bill Cross, after he debunked all the reasons given by the Taliban for keeping the code said that the sole reason for keeping the CW testing requirement was the iinternational treaty language. When that went away more than two years ago, it was pretty obvious what the FCC would do. It's just that as slugs they move slowly. None of should be surprised by the FCC decision. We can be annoyed at their lack of sped but we can't be surprised unless e did not read the initial document closely or entirely. 73 de Frank....N2FF...... Bellows wrote: >I have to disagree with Frank to a certain extent on this. CW may not be >a religion, but many adherents view it as if it were a religion, in the >sense its followers are true believers. To them belief is a matter of >faith not necessarily fact in the scientific sense. > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:14953] 05-235
by Jim Weaver 18 Dec '06

18 Dec '06

I seem to agree with many of the comments made concerning the arrival of the no code era. I personally believe one of the most valuable actions we can take is to attempt to avoid further division within the Amateur Radio ranks and to preach (see what you started, Jay) sanity within the ranks. Having said this, I have attached a rater lengthy item (several paragraphs long) that I will include in my next newsletter to GLD members. If anyone wishes to read it, you are invited to do so. If anyone wishes not to read it, you are invited to hit the delete button. 73, Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:14945] Re: WT Docket 05-235
by John Bellows 17 Dec '06

17 Dec '06

I have to disagree with Frank to a certain extent on this. CW may not be a religion, but many adherents view it as if it were a religion, in the sense its followers are true believers. To them belief is a matter of faith not necessarily fact in the scientific sense. If history has shown us anything it is that converts are the strongest believers and those that have beliefs impressed upon them are the most rebellious. (If any doubt - check out Reformation in Wikipedia) Having already violated every bit of good advice from my father about not discussing religion in public, I will move on. I happen to be a believer. When confronted with a true believer the CW is the heart of Amateur Radio I try to nod affirmatively and say that I believe the CW is strong enough to stand on its own merits. The relative success of local ops working CW in the 10 Meter Contest over those working phone was a good example. We didn't cause the Morse requirement to be eliminated as a license requirement, that was the good and thoughtful folks at FCC; the same folks who sat on their fat **** for a year or two to act after telegraphing (no pun intended) their intent to eliminate the Mores requirement These are the same friendly folks who rejected our Petition for Reconsideration without any comment after two (or was three )days of "intense" thought. We can only hope the quick action on the Petition for Reconsideration was the dawn of a new era of quick action at FCC. Perhaps it is "Morning in America." Probably not still, we did the right thing and we should let our members know that. Moreover we need to let them know CW is still a viable and highly prized mode amongst ARRL leaders, but just that a mode. It is up to those of us who are true believers to "keep the faith" and find converts. That isn't the job of FCC or for that matter ARRL. As far as the difficulty of current tests are concerned, I suggest that we try and view the material through the eyes of someone brand new to Amateur Radio without 20, 30 or more years of Amateur Radio behind us. We all remember how foreign and sometimes bewildering the terms and concepts were through the eyes of a newcomer. Better yet, go to a VE session and watch the examinees "sweat it out." If you want a Christmas smile then check out the look on the face of someone you just passed. That will put you in the Christmas spirit and renew your faith in Amateur Radio. Happy Holidays to all!! 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 7:39 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14945] Re: WT Docket 05-235 Joel Harrison wrote: > As I stated in my email yesterday, it is good to see the FCC finally > act of WT Docket 05-235. > > <SNIP> Joel, I could not agree more with the statement below. The FCC has ruled: CW is Mode and NOT a religion. I for one have had the debate up to my ears for far too long! I will be interesting to see how ham radio goes in the next few years. It is, I am sure, not the end of the world. And yes, it is LONG overdue! I think it's a nice Christmas present. > For me personally, Im glad we have the Morse issue behind us so we > can move forward. The debate has burdened us for far too many years. > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > p.s. Just so you dont get the two mixed up, Im not happy with what > the Commission did regarding our 80 meter recon petition. That, > however, is another matter to address and deal with. >

1 0

[arrl-odv:14951] Re: WT Docket 05-235
by William Sawders 17 Dec '06

17 Dec '06

There's an opinion I can really agree to. Remember the days when we had to draw" diagrams? The Colpitts...Hartley, and R.F. Amplifiers? For a new ham, that was always tough for me. It might be something to put back into the exams. See ya'll next month. Bill Sawders, K7ZM VD NW Div -------Original Message------- From: Brian Mileshosky Date: 12/16/06 21:38:21 To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14948] Re: WT Docket 05-235 All -- My personal opinion... I'm sad to see the Morse requirement go, but that's from a philosophical standpoint and not a regulatory standpoint. I would be happier if the theory exams were beefed up in response -- a whole lot more than where it is now. The Tech theory seems to have been watered down to where anyone can pass with a few days of memorization. "What is the purpose of the 'Function' key found on your transceiver?" I guess the big thing for me is the seemingly growing attitude -- inside Ham Radio and throughout many other aspects of our society -- that everyone should be able to accomplish anything no matter what, and the easy way to fix that is to make everything easier to accomplish, rather than establishing a bar for those willing to devote time and effort to meet and exceed. For those who can't devote the time and effort, well, that's life. As Rick K5UR has said (and not with respect to the CW requirement, so I don't want to get him in trouble), "Not everyone is cut out to be a Ham." It's the same train of thought used by those who are targeting the game "tag" or dodgeball in our schools. The poor, slow children always seem to the ones who get "picked on," so let's just ban it to make them feel better rather than encouraging them to try harder and get better on the playground so they too can excel at the games. Not everyone is cut out to play tag or dodgeball either. Don't get me wrong, this wasn't the FCC's motivation for doing away with CW, but it could have been FCC's philosophical reason for retaining CW, much like their philosophical reason for requiring a theory exam. Many Hams held out for this day so they could end up on HF through the clock striking midnight on some evening in the near future. Path of least resistance for reward. While I'm not predicting the demise of Ham Radio, I am unfortunately led to ponder when the day will come when even the theory exam will be whittled down to a seemingly level on non-existence because "everyone should be able to get a license if they want one." I can't place blame on the Hams for jumping at the opportunity, and I'll respect every one of them as I do current hams who are on the air...it's the "system" and society that I blame for the 'instant gratification for minimal effort so we don't hurt feelings' attitude that seems to exist. Back to what I alluded to in the first paragraph of my Saturday night rant, it's not just because it's CW (and I'm a CW op, and as Frank said below it's a mode, not a religion). I'd feel better if the theory exams were beefed up as a result, just so a respectable bar remains for one to meet and exceed in order to get their ham ticket. Not everyone is cut out to be a Ham, and that's consistent with an unwritten rule of life that I accept wholeheartedly. My whippersnapper point of view...whew! 73, Brian, N5ZGT > Joel, > > I could not agree more with the statement below. The FCC has ruled: CW > is Mode and NOT a religion. I for one have had the debate up to my ears > for far too long! I will be interesting to see how ham radio goes in the > next few years. It is, I am sure, not the end of the world. And yes, it > is LONG overdue! I think it's a nice Christmas present.

1 0

[arrl-odv:14950] Re: WT Docket 05-235
by Frank Fallon 17 Dec '06

17 Dec '06

A member sent me this from one of the DX lists. I hope it puts a smile on your face. Subject: [dx-list] That Darn ARRL Did It Again! From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw(a)verizon.net> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:54:44 -0500 To: dx-list(a)yahoogroups.com So, based on what I've been reading here, and actually for some time now since the phone band expansion was announced a few months back, let me see if I've got this all straight. The ARRL pushed through the No Code HF license to increase membership and therefore increase revenue. No, on second thought, the ARRL is impotent with the FCC because they have no money to influence the FCC and therefore is to blame for not stopping this. No, no, the ARRL is in bed with the FCC to screw amateur radio operators. No, no, no, the ARRL is just clueless and has no idea what side of the bread is buttered. Ah, shucks, now I've got it, they're just a bunch of back stabbers. Nope! They represent the special interests and sold out the CW ops for the digital ops. No, make that the CW & Digital ops for the Phone ops. No, still wrong, they sold out the "coders" in favor of the "no coders." I think. But they sold out. Or sold somebody out. Or something. Well, they sold something, anyway. No, no, no, wait, now I've got it. The ARRL pushed this through so that they could increase the number of tests given and reap all their money from those! Oops! Still wrong. Actually, the FCC is run by politicians and political hacks (imagine that) who are in league with the League. Or is it that they ignore the League? I keep getting confused. Oh yes, and all the people posting on this DX list and other lists are almost universally against dropping the CW test. Too bad the FCC doesn't read this list and the others and listen to us! My goodness, do they actually expect us to file petitions in this day and age of message boards and reflectors? -------------- Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, Fred and the boys at No Code International must really be thrilled. Not only have they finally got their agenda pushed through, but they got the League to take the heat on it from all sides. Haven't read about anybody complaining about their actions... and weren't they the ones who've been filing the petitions on this in the first place? Come to think of it, haven't heard anybody praising them, either. Interesting. -------------- We have to face an unpleasant truth: Outside of Amateur Radio, the use of the International Morse Code as a regular, routine, and accepted method of communications has virtually disappeared. Outside of beacon and repeater ID's and the like, it's gone. (Tangent: Going to work on the "T" the other day, I heard the Port Authority's repeater ID in CW. The LRT driver muttered 'I wonder what all those beeps mean, I hear them all the time.') So, once the ITU determined that Morse proficiency was a skill the rest of the communications skill didn't need, and dropped it as a mandatory requirement for HF access by Amateur Radio operators, the rest was inevitable. I also think it is unfair to blame the ARRL for being ineffective in stopping this. It's not a question of them being impotent (although Mal does have a good point about the $$$ behind lobbying). I don't think the FCC paid any attention to ANY of the comments filed. Again. Someone in the FCC was given the task of writing up the NPRM, and it sailed through almost unscathed -- because, IMHO, the decision was made to take the path of least resistance and simply eliminate Element 1 BEFORE the NPRM was filed. So all those comments were, IMHO, for naught. Every single one. Why should this surprise you? BPL is technically flawed and an obsolete technology as currently being implemented, yet the FCC is pushing it. Why? Because the politicians running the FCC have friends in the industry who are dangling money. This is a surprise? As I recall, when 220 - 222 was taken away, didn't one of the Commisioners very soon after quit and take a job with one of the firms that lobbied for it? Nah, that couldn't be a payoff... and before anyone says it, that happened when the Other Party had their people in charge of the Gov't, not the Current Party. Political payoffs are, er, non-political in that respect. So what do we do? Well, first we take the only group that has any reasonable hope of dealing with the FCC, gripe about them constantly, fail to fund them, fail to support them, leave them with few tools (including $$) at hand, and then when they fail to succeed at a near impossible task, assess blame, quit, turn others against them, threaten to form a new group and split our ranks further, and leave them is worse shape to continue the fight or fight the next one. Yeah, that makes sense. Here's a novel thought to chew on: You say the League is part of the problem, not part of the solution? Fine. Then find a good communications attorney, figure out how to afford him (or her), have his staff research the FCC's notice for obvious flaws. Then file suit to stop it, or take whatever other action deemed appropriate. THAT should show the League how to do things, right? After all, it will probably be a week or three until the Notice shows up in the Federal Register, especially with the holidays coming up, and then you have another 30 days until it takes effect. Plenty of time for a crack research team. Well, it's that, or continue to kvetch and moan here on the reflctor, which won't actually DO anything, but will make us all feel better, right? Oh, and please, keep blaming the League. After all, it has to be SOMEBODY's fault, and they're an easy target, right? 73, ron w3wn __._,_.___ Messages in this topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dx-list/message/39957;_ylc=X3oDMTM2dmJwa20yBF…> (1) Reply (via web post) <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dx-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOWVrcm1uBF9TAzk3MzU…> | Start a new topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dx-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlczF0NGZhBF9TAzk3MzU…> Messages <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dx-list/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMzZkanNqBF9TAzk…> ============================================ The following bulletins are published on the DX-list. ARRL W1AW DX Bulletin on Thursday. ARRL W1AW Propagation Bulletin on Friday. OPDX Newsletter from KB8NW on Sunday. 425 DX News from Mauro, I1JQJ, weekly NW7US E-alerts once daily plus specials as needed. ============================================ Yahoo! Groups <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNWg0N2hqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwM…> Change settings via the Web <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dx-list/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODdhNnF2BF9TAzk3MzU…> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest <mailto:dx-list-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> | Switch format to Traditional <mailto:dx-list-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dx-list;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdXFqbG1iBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0…> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe <mailto:dx-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=> Recent Activity * 4 New Members <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dx-list/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Rzb2NoBF9TAzk3…> Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dx-list;_ylc=X3oDMTJldXF2cWNmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0…> New Message Search Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search. Share feedback on the new changes to Groups <mailbox:///C%7C/Documents%20and%20Settings/Frank%20Fallon/Application%20Data/Thunderbird/Profiles/sllzcwpw.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/Inbox?number=2074085743> . Web Bug from http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=1006104/grpspId=1705063108/msgId… __,_._,___

1 0

[arrl-odv:14949] Re: WT Docket 05-235
by Frank Fallon 17 Dec '06

17 Dec '06

Brian and All, There is a danger here...... I think we would all like to see more hams and more kids in ham radio. By making the exams harder, whatever that means (more questions or more difficult material) we may be limiting our market. Kids are going to have to up their reading skills or be older to master the material. Older individuals will be intimidated by the number of questions. This is not going to be helpful. In the past every time there is a perceived "dumbing down" ( I really hate that expression!) we, as a group, want to "upgrade the exam" to stifle that criticism. I hope that this time we will resist that temptation. We have over the past few years increased the size of the question pool and broadened the scope of the exam. Both of those things make the exam more difficult. Perhaps we have already gone too far to pacify those who scream, "ARRL is dumbing down ham radio!" I got my Novice ticket in January of 1962. I actually took the exam in October of 1961 just after I finished college and had started teaching. I thought the exam was hard because I knew nothing about radio and I was not a science or engineering major. Dave Sumner took that same exam as his entrance to ham radio at about the same time. A few years ago he brought in the license manual from that era. When I looked at it I was astonished at how small the question pool was an how simple the exam seemed. But that was hind sight looking back almost 40 years. I think I have learned a lot since then and forgotten a lot of what the Army taught me later in 1962 in the Signal Corps' "Field Radio Repair School." I believe we frequently loose sight of the fact that we are getting an operators license and not an engineering license. Please, let's resist those who want to make things harder or expand the question pool. Should we choose that route we may find that we are getting even fewer hams than we are now. (This is not directed at you Brian or anyone on the Board...) On a side note, I went through sixteen years of Catholic school all the way through college, but I don't believe that you have to suffer or do some form of medieval penance in order to become a good ham. But to hear some of our members talk I sometimes think they do. Some expect that if you want to become a ham, you have to go off to a monastery, wear sack cloth and study all day long and occasionally go to hamsfest and flail away at your bare back with hunks of RG-8. Hey, I thought this was the 21st Century and not the middle ages - the 1950's and 1960's. Sometime in January or February we will need to make a reality check. But then the entire country seems to be in a period of denial or alternate reality, a twilight zone if you will. 73 de Frank...N2FF...... Brian Mileshosky wrote: ><SNIP> > >While I'm not predicting the demise of Ham Radio, I am unfortunately led >to ponder when the day will come when even the theory exam will be >whittled down to a seemingly level on non-existence because "everyone >should be able to get a license if they want one." I can't place blame on >the Hams for jumping at the opportunity, and I'll respect every one of >them as I do current hams who are on the air...it's the "system" and >society that I blame for the 'instant gratification for minimal effort so >we don't hurt feelings' attitude that seems to exist. > >Back to what I alluded to in the first paragraph of my Saturday night >rant, it's not just because it's CW (and I'm a CW op, and as Frank said >below it's a mode, not a religion). I'd feel better if the theory exams >were beefed up as a result, just so a respectable bar remains for one to >meet and exceed in order to get their ham ticket. Not everyone is cut >out to be a Ham, and that's consistent with an unwritten rule of life >that I accept wholeheartedly. > >My whippersnapper point of view...whew! > >73, >Brian, N5ZGT > > > >>Joel, >> >>I could not agree more with the statement below. The FCC has ruled: CW >>is Mode and NOT a religion. I for one have had the debate up to my ears >>for far too long! I will be interesting to see how ham radio goes in the >>next few years. It is, I am sure, not the end of the world. And yes, it >>is LONG overdue! I think it's a nice Christmas present. >> >> > > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:14948] Re: WT Docket 05-235
by Brian Mileshosky 17 Dec '06

17 Dec '06

All -- My personal opinion... I'm sad to see the Morse requirement go, but that's from a philosophical standpoint and not a regulatory standpoint. I would be happier if the theory exams were beefed up in response -- a whole lot more than where it is now. The Tech theory seems to have been watered down to where anyone can pass with a few days of memorization. "What is the purpose of the 'Function' key found on your transceiver?" I guess the big thing for me is the seemingly growing attitude -- inside Ham Radio and throughout many other aspects of our society -- that everyone should be able to accomplish anything no matter what, and the easy way to fix that is to make everything easier to accomplish, rather than establishing a bar for those willing to devote time and effort to meet and exceed. For those who can't devote the time and effort, well, that's life. As Rick K5UR has said (and not with respect to the CW requirement, so I don't want to get him in trouble), "Not everyone is cut out to be a Ham." It's the same train of thought used by those who are targeting the game "tag" or dodgeball in our schools. The poor, slow children always seem to the ones who get "picked on," so let's just ban it to make them feel better rather than encouraging them to try harder and get better on the playground so they too can excel at the games. Not everyone is cut out to play tag or dodgeball either. Don't get me wrong, this wasn't the FCC's motivation for doing away with CW, but it could have been FCC's philosophical reason for retaining CW, much like their philosophical reason for requiring a theory exam. Many Hams held out for this day so they could end up on HF through the clock striking midnight on some evening in the near future. Path of least resistance for reward. While I'm not predicting the demise of Ham Radio, I am unfortunately led to ponder when the day will come when even the theory exam will be whittled down to a seemingly level on non-existence because "everyone should be able to get a license if they want one." I can't place blame on the Hams for jumping at the opportunity, and I'll respect every one of them as I do current hams who are on the air...it's the "system" and society that I blame for the 'instant gratification for minimal effort so we don't hurt feelings' attitude that seems to exist. Back to what I alluded to in the first paragraph of my Saturday night rant, it's not just because it's CW (and I'm a CW op, and as Frank said below it's a mode, not a religion). I'd feel better if the theory exams were beefed up as a result, just so a respectable bar remains for one to meet and exceed in order to get their ham ticket. Not everyone is cut out to be a Ham, and that's consistent with an unwritten rule of life that I accept wholeheartedly. My whippersnapper point of view...whew! 73, Brian, N5ZGT > Joel, > > I could not agree more with the statement below. The FCC has ruled: CW > is Mode and NOT a religion. I for one have had the debate up to my ears > for far too long! I will be interesting to see how ham radio goes in the > next few years. It is, I am sure, not the end of the world. And yes, it > is LONG overdue! I think it's a nice Christmas present.

1 0

[arrl-odv:14947] My Response To The WT 05-235 Lamenters
by dick＠pobox.com 17 Dec '06

17 Dec '06

16 DEC 2006 - 2300 CST Below, is the text of a recent reply I sent to a good friend who is lamenting the loss of the Morse code licensing requirement. He does not blame the ARRL, but he is very unhappy with the FCC. I thought you all might be interested in my response. If not, trash it before you read it. 73 - Dick, W9GIG =========================================================================== Hello <deleted> ... I'm sorry to hear that you are really distressed over the latest FCC R&O. However, I'm not ready to put on a black armband over the elimination of the Morse code licensing requirement. I personally would like to have it kept as an Extra Class requirement because I believe Extras should be knowledgeable about all amateur radio communications techniques and modes. I believe CW communications will continue to be a widely used mode if its users go out of their way to recruit new people. I also doubt if we will be deluged with masses of CBers or worse. Most of these people are not interested in amateur radio and the current tests will stop many of them. I have not read or heard about the trashing of amateur radio in those countries that have already dropped the code requirement. Perhaps the difficulty of the written exams should be increased as a means of creating a higher level of technical competence. But this will not screen out the real lids, turkeys, 80 Mtr pig farmers, etc, that we have been afflicted with almost since the dawn of radio communications. The only way this can be kept to an acceptable minimum is to really mentor all new licensees, not bitch about them over the air as I have been hearing for years. We must all take a personal interest in making these people comfortable and encourage them to only use good operating practices. I admit there have been times that all I wanted to do was to ignore both the new and the long-standing RF A--hole(s) at meetings. Sometimes that's all you can do if you want to keep your sanity. (I never get into an over-the-air discussion or dispute about amateur radio licensing.) But most of the time if a bridge of friendship can be built, these people turn out to be similar to the rest of us. To quote long deceased Walt Kelly's cartoon character, Pogo, "I have met the enemy and they are us." Merry Christmas! Dick, W9GIG

1 0