FCC Proposes Abolishing Morse Code Requirement 439
TaxSlave writes "According to this ARRL article, the Federal Communications Commission has finally decided which path it wants to take with the Morse Code requirement for an amateur radio license. International requirements for Morse Code were done away with some time back, and several countries quickly abolished the requirement. Now, the FCC has proposed doing the same thing. Next step, months of comments, discussion, and navel-gazing."
well... (Score:5, Informative)
Was learning Morse so much of an obstacle for new members? Personally, I had to learn Morse long time ago, and it's not hard at all.
On the other hand, maybe with the development of the digital technologies, the analog radio technology potential members are just not bothering looking into it.
The FCC said it did not believe a new entry-level license class was warranted because current Novice and Tech Plus licensees already can easily upgrade to General. "We also note that, if our proposal to eliminate telegraphy testing in the amateur service is adopted," the FCC continued, "a person who is not a licensee will be able to qualify for a General Class operator license by passing two written examinations, and that a person who is a Technician Class licensee will be able to qualify for a General Class operator license by passing one written examination." The FCC said it does not believe either path to be unreasonable.
Written examinations? Nobody has to type the Morse anymore? Anyone here who got his license recently care to shed some light on this one?
Re:well... (Score:2)
Re:well... (Score:2)
As for flying planes, huh? What does flying planes have to do with morse code?
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:well... (Score:2)
Ahh. Didn't know that.
Do many pilots actually know morse code? I don't think my dad does, though he's only VFR rated. Is it actually required that pilots learn it? (I see some morse code training aids intended for pilots now that I look for it, but am not sure if it's required or not.)
What speed is it sent at? I learned enough morse code to barely pass the 5 wpm test so I could get my Extra class license, but only barely, and haven't really us
Re:well... (Score:3, Informative)
I already knew Morse code when I learned to fly, and surprised my instructor when I tuned to a navaid and confirmed the identity without looking at the chart. Maps for visual and instrument navigation include graphical depictions of the Morse code that is broadcast. So, there's no need for a pilot to know Morse code.
What speed is it sent at?
As you have alre
Re:well... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it used to be faster in the past, but as for now, it's only 5 wpm. Most tests are done with a Farnsworth speed of 5 wpm, but the actual dits and dahs are set at around 13 wpm, with large gaps between letters making up the difference.
Re:well... (Score:2)
Hmmm. Maybe I should upgrade to General, just for the fun of it. I went to look at the ARRL website, and if I can provide proof that I held a tech license before 1987, I can upgrade for only the cost of taking an exam (but not really taking it).
Yes, it used to be faster in the past, but as for now, it's only 5 wpm. Most tests are done with a Farnsworth speed of 5 wpm, but the actual dits and dahs are set at around
Re:well... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, one important point that pilots tend to overlook is that if a navaid is out of service, the navaid will broadcast TST/TEST (or some other variation) in morse on the frequency. I rarely ever see people identify stations, and it annoys me beyond belief. Simply tuning into the station and flying around blindly is completly arrogant and stupid. Not only are you putting yourself in danger, you're putting the lives of others in danger. Y
Re:well... (Score:2, Informative)
Because the various aviation navigational beacons still broadcast their identity in morse code.
Re:well... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
If you take a second written test, and pass the morse test, now you are a General with most HF privileges.
Take a third written test (no more morse test, you already passed that) and now you're an Extra, with all privileges.
Yeah, I'm a no-code Technician. Don't plan to learn code, either. I hope the FCC votes to remove the code requirement for HF, but I also hope that a portion of each band is reserved only for those who do pass a code test. That way, they can go there to get away from us no-code schmucks who are cluttering up the rest of the frequencies.
Re:well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Best idea I've seen in a long time, and I'm neither a ham nor do I read morse.
5 WPM is something like 3 bits per second. Very slow compared to what we are accustomed to, but it is an enormous gain over no connectivity whatever.
Re:well... (Score:2)
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most hams seem to take the attitude of "I had to learn it, I'm glad I did, but I don't use it" when it comes to code. If my current difficulty learning code continues, I really doubt I'll use it, unless my life depends on it (which, since no one else will be able to understand, will be a useless excercise). Too many bad memories.
Of course, the pro-code group will start slamming the FCC with form letters DEMANDING they keep the morse code requirement (and getting rid of all the fornecation and cussin' on the broadcast stations while they're at it). Since most of the people who don't want the code requirement aren't all that militant, the FCC will cave. As usual the ARRL will editorialize in QST about how great it was to learn morse as a boy at the feet of Edwin Armstrong, and how all those POWs were able to keep their spirits up by banging code out on the pipes, etc. This will generate a new round of debade in usenet and eham.net.
Meanwhile, more kids will miss out on learning about electronics, thinking a radical case mod makes them an engineer. More spectrum will be sold off to private parties, or rendered useless due to broken technology that has no practical use.
Very nicely said. (Score:3, Insightful)
>build circuits, program PCs, and fix just about
>anything, but I can't transmit below 50MHz because
>I can't seem to learn a 150 year old communications
>method.
As someone who passed the 20 wpm a decade ago and who actually does use cw more than any other mode when on the radio, I couldn't agree with you more.
Sure, there are instances where cw is really important - say, passing emergency traffic when conditions are poor - but it's absurd to sug
I Can't Remember Morse Code (Score:4, Insightful)
And I learned morse code three times. First time was when I got a pair of Radio Shack walkie-talkies when I was six. They had the code right on the radio and had a beeper. My friends and I got fairly proficient. Then, twice agian, a few years apart in Boy Scouts. At that time, I never used it beyond the specific functions I learned it for, so I forgot it after the first function and have since forgotten it again.
Some things stick really well in my long-term memory but Morse code isn't one of them. I'm the same with Palm Graffiti.
I have no doubt I could learn it again in a couple days to take a Ham test, and probably do darn well on it, but then I'd just never use it and forget it again. So I'm a different kind of example of why the test isn't such a wonderful idea.
Amateur radio is less than well (Score:2)
"On the other hand, maybe with the development of the digital technologies, the analog radio technology potential members are just not bothering looking into it."
Ya think?
I do a bunch of radio-related research, and hold a Novice license. I have easily passed the technical portion of Tech Plus and General practice tests. However, I haven't the time to devote to learning Morse, and I haven't the slightest inclination to memorize a bunch of frequency bands that are readily available in tabular form [arrl.org]. A
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. But there are many remote places that the Internet has not reached and may never reach. Also, amateur radio has far better mobile operating abilities (i.e., when your cell phone is not in range of a tower, you can still use ham radio to make contact). The Internet (and, incidentally, cell phones) also tends to become unavailable when natural disaster (such as hurricanes or tsunamis) strike.
Ham radio is becoming overshadowed by the Internet, but Ham still has a few tricks up it's sleeve. It will still be relevant -- if not as popular -- for decades to come.
Certianly for disaster situations (Score:5, Interesting)
Ham communication is quite robust because it's essentially a mesh network, every node connected to all other nodes. Since the signal propagates in all directions, and on some bands nearly all over the world, anyone tuned in on it can hear it, with no physical connection. A single transmission can reach many listeners, who can then contact others through any number of means.
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there aren't. If you can see the sky, you can get the internet. Services like Iridium and Globalstar have made that possible.
Now, Iridum and Globalstar are low-bitrate (2400/9600 baud, respectively), but that's fine for email and IM. Even that limitation will some day be a thing of the past.
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
If you pay, as another posternoted.
The important thing about ametueur radio jockies is that is that the network is extremely robust, free, and everywhere. It works for long distance communciation, especially when overoptimized pay services fail. Iridium -- sorry, I have to giggle just a bit there. Ham is a (very modest) reserved spectrum for a network of people that communicate when everything else fails. There's already talk about how to handle jamming; not a solved problem, but in general, it is distributed enough to pose attackers serious issues.
The great power of terrorist attack is uncertainty, followed closely by communication. I find it heartening that as much as the US government might fuck up, at least we are left with a good emergency response channel, made of people who don't attach to the government. That's a really positive feature.
Way back on topic, but I have mixed feelings about dropping the Morse requirements. They've been loosening the rules for a while, but at some point, we're loosing the idea that one can actually assemble kit. We probably already have lost that. Morse is rather important - listening to a fuzzy transmission bounced off clouds from somewhere else in a language you don'nt know is great for learning. And learning is vital for ami radio folks.
OK, I've probably placed, and dated myself. Time to shut up.
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I have no personal stake in the requirements other than I'd like these people to be good enough to justify their access to the rather valuable section of the RF spectrum we've set aside for them. I'd like to think they might be able to put to
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of us even have that covered. I keep an old AN/GRC-19 set around "just in case". It's a military rig from the 60s that uses EMP-hard tubes. Output power is 100 watts, which is good for about 50 miles with a 15-foot whip antenna. Of course, I'll be scrounging car batteries left and right to operate it, since it draws some hefty amps, but since 95% of the cars on the road today won't survive an EMP, I don't think they'll be in short supply.
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
If you can see the sky, you can get the internet. Services like Iridium and Globalstar have made that possible.
As long as the ground stations are still operating. I'm sure thy have redundancy, but a natural disaster at a ground station site could certainly cripple their capacity, if not access altogether (a huge tropical airmass like the one that stayed over the midwest and dumped feet of rain would certainly impede comms to the bird).
Do these services have the capacity to handle the tremendous load of
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
If an unfortunate router goes out, parts of the internet go away. If you have a widespread failure (for example, a natural disaster or crippling attack), then you can't trust the infrastructure; it probably doesn't work at all. During the Sept. 11 attacks, and for a while after, telephone and cellular network were unusable. The HAM radio people are what kept communications alive. This was a similar case during that power blackout that covered most of the NorthEast.
It's also a lot of fun to do just as a hobby.
What's the point of broadcast TV or radio, since we have cable? Why bother with regular telephone service, we have VoIP and the internet?
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:2)
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Were you anywhere near there? The telephone networks were completely unusable. Cellular was gone. As far out as 75 miles, telephone communications weren't working properly. This covered the entire tri-state area. Now they've improved things since then, but the point is that this sort of thing happens, and that telephone and cellular were found to be unreliable in an emergency. For what it's worth, 911 *did* go down in some areas. This was a result of a total collapse of the telephone system in parts of lower Manhattan, and the eventual draining of backup power. 911 has reserve capacity in the telephone system, and dedicated circuits. It does not have infinity circuits.
Internet service was just out in many areas, as in completely non-functional. When you have no telephone line and no power, you have no internet. Those on dial-up were SOL, since you couldn't make any calls across the whole region. DSL had issues because of the huge amount of interference. In areas that still had power, cable internet was generally working.
Large chunks of rescue and relief coordination was done by hams. That information is available with hardly five seconds of research. The rest was done by government workers with radios, and quite a bit of assistance by UPS (as in the shipping company).
IOW, ham radio was found to be absolutely essential during 9/11. Radio was a total and absolute necessity, as there was *no* other way to communicate.
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
-KC0NBY
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about in the US, but here in Australia, the amateur radio operators become the communications infrastructure [wicen.org.au] during a civil emergency, such at times when telephone cables or electricity lines don't work, or when two bodies without a common communications infrastructure need to work together. This sort of thing. [wicen.org.au]
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:2, Interesting)
In the event of an emergency, all the fancy digital tunk systems tank, cell phones become overloaded, and folks revert to good old ham radio. The reason being, lots of hams maintain a good set of ready-to-go equipment. Plus many repeaters are emergency power capable, and even without repeaters, long distance communication can be achieved with humans repeating messages (e.g. on HF.)
Most of the major disasters end up using ham radio heavily: 9/11, the recent tsunami, t
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
2) what is the point of the Internet, since most of the globe was already connected by telephones?
3) how are you going to talk to the rest of the globe (or even the guys across the city) when the power is out? Or a hurricane has taken out all of the cell phone towers?
4) And don't forget that ham radio is also about experimentation and tinkering. It's not just about ragchewing (talking) with people on the other side of the world.
Why should ham radio go away just because there's other alternatives? I can send my dad emails ... but that doesn't mean that the telephone is obsolete or useless.
Ultimately, ham radio has two main `points': 1) it's fun, and 2) it's seen as a way to serve the community by providing emergency communication in times of need. Do you really need more than that?
Re:emergency network vs. hobby (Score:3, Informative)
Even my little IC-Q7A with 0.300 watts of power can reach about half of the major repeaters in the city. My Yaesu with 3 watts can reach them all. Both do this with their little `rubber ducky' antennas, and would probably do better with better antennas.
And even if the repeaters went down, I could talk to other people in the city with t
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:5, Informative)
Amateur radio has basically become a service organization, providing emergency communications when the crap hits the fan. In our area, our Ham radio club provides communications for both the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, and acts as a backup communications system for the normal communications channels if they are overloaded or unavailable.
I feel that the Morse requirement definitely hinders the ability of amateur radio to serve in this capacity. A good example of this happened to us a couple of years ago when we were providing communications for the Red Cross during a Forest Fire in the local area which required evacuations. The Red Cross has a policy that their workers have to have available communications at all times to ensure they can contact emergency help when needed. In the area where the forest fire was, there was no cell coverage, so we were providing communications. Also due to the location, the coverage of our VHF (144Mhz) repeater was marginal at best. As a result, we had to rely on 80meters at 3.880 Mhz. The only operators who can work on the 80meter band are operators who have passed the morse test and also a written test. This eliminated about half of the operators at our disposal just because they were not of the correct license class.
Eliminating the Morse requirement would have increased this pool since most operators are able to pass the General Class test with some studying. Morse code is much more difficult, and is really not neccessary. I learned 5WPM code and got my Tech Plus License and then shortly (after another change to the rules) upgraded to Extra. Today, I operate fairly regularly on the HF bands, but I couldn't read morse code if I wanted to since it doesn't interest me and I haven't kept up with it.
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:4, Informative)
97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.
No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.
97.405 Station in distress.
(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.
(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a), of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to assist a station in distress.
The problem is that in many cases, we aren't in a situation which is described as above. We're typically handling "health and welfare traffic" which are things like "we arrived safely" or "we are going to stay here for the night" (which don't qualify) as opposed to "send an ambulance right now" (which does). Having the ability to use the HF bands to pass this traffic is just as important in an emergency response situation as the specific cases where anyone can pick up a radio (licensed or not) and use it.
In addition, amateurs are cautioned that operating outside their permissions even during an emergency may jeapordize their license. The FCC (assuming they hear about it) will likely review the situation and make a determiniation whether or not the operation fell into one of the exemptions. In short, if it's life or death, I can use anything at my disposal to attract attention. If it's not I better be prepared to explain my actions and expect to possibly loose my license or be subject to fines if the FCC doesn't agree that it was justified.
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:3, Informative)
Benefits of Morse code:
1) Lowest signal to noise ratio of any communications system.
2) Lowest power requirements.
3) Lowest bandwidth requirement.
4) You could in theory make a transmitter out of any very simple electrical circuit (perhaps limited range, but
5) An operator can still twitch out a message even if they can speak or they're batteries are low.
I.e. for emergency communications this is simply the best fail sa
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Ham radio is a hobby. People don't do it entirely because it's a practical means of communicating (although it can be that in many situations), they do it because it's enjoyable. It presents challenges which take thought and skill to overcome. There's something about talking to someone on the other side of the world with a few watts into a homemade antenna when the band is noisy. Many people (myself included) love the technical aspects of the hobby. It can be a lot of fun to build a radio from parts, or experiment with different antenna designs. There's a lot more to ham radio than simply utilitarian communication between two people.
Re:Amateur Radio vs. Internet (Score:3, Funny)
What is the point of Linux, when Windows does everything anyone would want and you don't have to compile a kernel or use a command line?
Think about Hollywood! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think about Hollywood! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Think about Hollywood! (Score:2)
No Morse? (Score:5, Funny)
The Real Reason (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Real Reason (Score:2)
Re:The Real Reason (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Real Reason (Score:3, Informative)
That's because Morse Code isn't in the Boy Scout handbook anymore. Hasn't been for years, and neither has there been a Signaling merit badge (also eliminated, along with other "archaic" ones like Beekeeping, Bookbinding and Rabbit Raising). In fact, the Radio merit badge doesn't require Morse either -- it allows the Scout to choose either voice or Morse Code for his required contact in the Amateur Radio track (but no mention of alternative
I think the new FCC rule should be... (Score:2, Funny)
It'd probably at least be funnier that way...
NOOOO! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:NOOOO! (Score:3, Informative)
first morse code post (Score:3, Funny)
dot dot dash dot dot dot dot dash dot dot dot dot / dot dash dash dot dash dash dash dot dot dot dash
Re:first morse code post (Score:2)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clicks, beeps, bloops, etc -- easy to hear over static.
Re:Why? (Score:3)
Clicks, beeps, bloops, etc -- easy to hear over static.
So can low-speed data-streams. It's all a matter of clocking. And it's easier to automate
Now let's bloat this low-speed data-stream with an XML envelope and you can transfer *anything* over it! (j/k)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Which is fine (Score:2)
I imagine that Morse Code will be kept alive for a long time to come, and indeed there may be situations where it's still the best, but that doesn't mean HAM operators should be forced to learn it. HAM is having enough trouble as it is because of the Internet.
In my teenage years, I had a real facination with amatuer radio
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
While it's possible, and has been done for many years, there is still reason to do Morse code. You propose a technological solution to a non-existent problem. These solutions never work out well...
Part of what makes code useful is that you don't need *any
Re:Why?-Pressure seal. (Score:2)
Basically, it plain doesn't matter that *you* don't think it's useful. Most ham operators would disagree with you, and they're the ones that matter. The DoD would also likely disagree with you, all things considered. There's a reason the Army doesn't use cell phones and blackberries, just as there's
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
here's the link to the ARRL article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:here's the link to the ARRL article (Score:3, Funny)
Such a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, few transmission methods can so easily slice through poor radio conditions as Morse. After all, it is one of the earliest forms of digital communications.
--Lord Nimula
Re:Such a shame (Score:2)
True, but there are digital modes that *do* slice through the noise quite easily. In many situations, PSK31 can outperform morse. A PSK31 decoder can pick a signal out of the mud that a human ear can't even detect. Of course, there are other situations where morse outperforms PSK31, so it's kind of a wash.
Morse (or more properly, CW) has a place and should always have a slice bandwidth reserved for it's exclusive use (so
Re:Such a shame (Score:2)
Nope. Modern signal processing runs rings around Morse code. Assuming a friendly modulation scheme, a rake receiver can turn multipath interference into extra signal. ECC codes can reconstruct missing data. Smart transceivers can reduce their signal strength to just the amount needed for communication, allowing better use of spectrum by other people. Ditto for phased array antennas. By comparison, Morse code is t
Re:Such a shame (Score:2)
Re:Such a shame (Score:3, Funny)
How do you account for the space between words then if it's digital? Surely it's ternary - silence, dot, dah...
ternary? ternary? I missed the part where he called it binary communications instead of digital communications.
always sounded like... (Score:3, Funny)
Outdated? Sure. But there's plenty more to do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Outdated? Sure. But there's plenty more to do. (Score:5, Interesting)
Only if you have 80 years of practise.
My SMS speed are faster than my Morse speed, and I bet it's not different with the rest of the world population.
Re:Outdated? Sure. But there's plenty more to do. (Score:2)
Not when you can use predictive text input (e.g. T9), which AFAICT wasn't allowed in the matchup between Morse and SMS.
There's no question that regular abc text input is slow on a cell phone, because you have to press each key multiple times and wait between typing two letters that are on the same key, but with T9, you usually only have to press one key per letter.
That SMS test is worthless (Score:2)
So I say ok, if it's all based on what's faster let's take me a good secretary the keyboard with anyone on the other end versus the coders. They can push past 200wpm when they really get going. Want to try and do that in Morse?
Only one thing to say (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only one thing to say (Score:2)
Curious.
Shouldn't that be... (Score:2)
Fun fact (Score:4, Informative)
I think it might get more people into the hobby to get rid of the requirement. It's not hard to learn Morse code, but it does present a *seemingly* daunting task to anyone who gets an interest in amateur radio. Not mention you can automate both the transmission and reception of it.
Re:Fun fact (Score:2)
Great (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I see it, morse code is more of an impediment to ambition than a sign that someone isn't intelligent enough to learn it. For instance, my no-code Tech license does just about everything I want to. I can already do lots of voice and data comm stuff that I find interesting. I could have "upgraded" to a license with a code requirement, but it really doesn't get me anything I'm looking for.
To me this isn't a sign that ham radio is "dying" like some people would have you believe, but a sign that it is adapting to the times. The more people there are interested in radio, the better the chance is that someone will come up with something interesting and break a few decades of stagnancy.
About time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Drop it TODAY!
Re:About time. (Score:3, Informative)
When Morse Code Came In Handy For Me (Score:2)
dot dot dot dash dash dot dot!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
and I am sure you all agree with me on that!
[w/ apologies to Kenny on South Park. ]
wait one minute now (Score:2, Funny)
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
Hello, Hello, the 1800s are calling and they want their communication method back.
It was time for this 20 years ago. (Score:5, Interesting)
okay, forgive me the flashback, I'm old, remember?
Anyway, since I went to all the trouble to learn CW and get that license, it would be reasonable to conclude that I'd be a strong advocate for retaining the code requirement.
Nope.
I have always thought that the code requirement was dumb, dumb, dumb. As a nerd boy who eventually became a professor of electrical engineering, it was blindingly obvious to me that The Code was a charming bit of history that had no business in modern radio practice. Those who would argue, "but with duct tape, batteries, a couple transistors, I could send an SOS after being shipwrecked on an atoll!" I'm sure you could, and that would have been an interesting argument until about 1975,
But how many of you Slashdotters have cell phones, or some other wireless gadget? When is the last time that any of you actually held a three-lead transistor in your suspiciously sticky hands? And even though it's true that some Righteous Code Dudes have recently out communicated some Valley Girls in a Morse Code/IM Slugfest,
A few days ago, someone showed me a computer parsing some BPSK on 20 meters in a 31 Hz wide channel (not a typo!), passing perfectly good text, with a quality that I claim could rarely if ever be achieved by a human ear.
I'll probably do some CW again soon --- but it'll be for Art's sake, and not because of a misguided notion that it is important to maintain a pool of practitioners skilled in Morse Code.
Because it isn't important. If you think it is, then let me gently suggest that you send a handwritten note across the continent you're on, by horse.
73 de Inspector Lopez
WB7NWP
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, who is it these 'extra class' operators go to when their windows 98 PCs can no longer retrieve their email over their dial up AOL connections due to SAM ware infestation.
Who do they call when they decide to try DSL but can't figure out where on their PC to connect the ethernet cable.
Who do they go to when they receive some e-mail attachement and can't open it (often because their pirated copy of MS Office gorked) - or do manage to get it opened and gomer their system with the worm de jour.
Who is it they go to when they *finaly* decide to try and do something other than whine about hemeroids and the good old days on 20m SSB and connect something like a TNC to their radios, but just can't seem to figure out the lines of an RS-232 link - let alone the pins of a DB-9 (don't ever show 'em a DB-25, they'll stroke out!).
Who is it they call up when they need someone to climb their tower, install a new rotor, replace cable or other maintenance.
(I've got dozens more, but I'm trying to be reasonable here)
And yet - who is it that's not allowed to use HF simply because I refuse to learn an out-dated mode championed by these same 'Technical Leaders'.
I've passed the General written 3 times waiting for this stupid rule to be changed. FINALLY some sense!!
If you love CW, cool - keep on using it. There's NOTHING that says or will say it can't be used. And there'll be many that choose to learn it and continue to operate CW, if for nothing else, the novilty. Enjoy it. But for crying out loud - increase the difficulty of the question pool, tighten the passing score, up the number of questions, make the questions more technical, don't make the question pool public - something applicable to today. Don't rely on a CW test to be your LID filter! Checked 20m lately? It didn't work.
Using CW as a 'barrier' to HF access is about like saying you can't use email unless you can hand code a TCP/IP frame. Or you can't drive a car unless you can cast and machine your own piston rings.
Some of these guys were the gurus of the hollow state erra. But dammit - if you're going to be in a technical hobby, at least TRY and stay current to the last decade's tech! It's about time the license exams became pertinant.
You know - what's worse is what I anticipate happening when the first batch of codeless Generals hit the air. These old hams will use the same tricks of the CBers to try and discourage their new neighbors from using *their* spectrum. Insults, language, over driven amplifiers, intentional interfearance, dare I say - echo mikes...
Instead of a CW exam, every hf operator should be forced to pass an operational review - every freak'n year! Where're the OOs? Where's the log review? Where's the 'self policing' of the hobby? Oh - that's right - you've had a CW exam to take care of that.....
Yea, I posted Anonymously - if some of these HF rag-chewers ever found out who I was, they'd never call for help next time they get phished, gorked a drive, accidentaly deleted their system directory, tried to make a wireless keyboard work, had to install a VOX chip into their new rig, couldn't remember how to program their HT, wanted to update the club's web site.....
About Time (Score:3, Insightful)
And for all you old timer hams, eliminating element 1 as a requirement for General and Extra Classes does not mean that they are abolishing Morse code. It will still probably be used for decades to come, it just will not be a requirement for those who just want to do SSB or digital contacts.
76 KH2YF
Well ... (Score:3, Funny)
Ditch it (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, the FCC isn't saying you can't do code...it's just not requiring it. Make the written tests as hard as you want if you want to raise the bar of entry. Hell, give usage tests to make sure people obey all the laws. Whatever. And people who really like Morse Code will learn it anyway.
I'd request the FCC give tests that are applicable to the current state of ham radio. I don't think that's so unreasonable.
How about some formal tests for coders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Grumble (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a feeling the FCC would be getting rid of the requirement as soon as I had passed it.
However, I still plan on practicing when I get my HF antenna set up, and when I can afford to get an HF rig I may very well do some CW just for grins.
Within the amateur community, there is a school of thought that having a barrier to entry will keep the cildrens' banders and other scum out. To them, I have a three word response:
seventy-five meters
Which, for those of you who are not hams, is roughly the equivalent of reading at -1 - there have been a lot of right assholes on that band who have done just about every "don't" in the book - transmitted music, cursed, jammed other stations, etc. And that band is only open to Morse qualified operators, and when the troublemakers have been tracked down, they were indeed Morse rated.
(and I *was* going to sign this with my call in Morse, but the stupid lameness filter won't let me.)
Re:Grumble (Score:3, Interesting)
You should, and you'll have fun doing it. You'll never forget the thrill of pounding out your first CW QSO, with the patient ham at the other end helping you along and working with you to complete it. And then you get the QSL card in the mail with the notation: Mode - CW. You try again, make more contacts, and notice that your speed is getting better (and your wris
mixed feelings (Score:3, Insightful)
On the negative side, there is: "I had to. Why shouldn't everyone else?" With some dyslexia, writing down 65 characters/minute was one of the hardest tests I've passed.
But, practically, it would be a shame not to promote a universal basic level of morse because:
1. You can build a transmitter with a handful of primitive components. It's cheap. It's good for the third world.
2. It's simple. Building a transmitter is a good way for kids to play with electronics.
3. It's efficient as all heck. I believe they figure it broadcasts 10 times as well as voice. A hundred watt transmitter can get you around the world comfortably where a 1000 watts might be desirable for voice. Good on several fronts.
4. It's efficiency is multipled because it's small bandwidth means many people can use the spectrum that one voice amateur takes up.
5. Simplicity is good for emergencies. If the tidal wave has arrived, that is a bad time to discover that the morse keyboard has a short. "Let's see now. H --- E --- L ---- P ---- !"
6. A good part of the reason for an amateur service is for emergencies. Isn't it the zen of every superhero to be able to whip up a temporal viewer out of "stone knives and bearskins" like Spock when the need arises?
Time for a change (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I don't sit around talking about my hemorrhoids while eating prunes, as some here posted. I was first licensed in 1969, and hold the same call sign since 1972. Guess what, I'm the guy up high enough in the company to decide whether or not you get to practice all that new knowledge your brand new CS degree says you have. You'd be surprised to find where all those old farts are in business. Oh yeah, I'm a well known open source contributor as well. So much for all that "only new brains can be creative" crap typical on
(rant mode off)
Hopefully, the preceding rant will attract attention and folks will read on. I'm not going to rehash how amateur radio is there in emergencies, how local hams contributed to 9/11 or the last devastating weather event, earthquake, etc. Nor am I going to debate internet versus amateur radio. These are tangents to the real discussion.
As I mentioned, I learned Morse code a long time ago. Frankly, I found that I could do 5 WPM by simply memorizing the dits and dahs and matching them to what I heard. Most of the hams I know would probably agree as to how simple 5 WPM really is, but that should not be a reason to keep the code requirement.
I think that most hams see it as a barrier to entry, not for people who want to be hams, but all those morons who rush out to buy CB radios and want to play "good buddy" with all the truckers. I can safely say that no ham will ever tell anyone who is interested in amateur radio to go away. In fact, most hams I know talk about how to attract more young people into the hobby. No real ham will stand in your way. If he or she does, I'd like to see that individual's license taken away, not support the individual.
For me, amateur radio was how I got hooked into getting an engineering degree. Even now, it is a place for me to experiment with hardware and software in communications settings. By September, I'll have an experimental software defined radio on the air and have some fun as I learn some new stuff. Do I need Morse Code for this? Of course not.
Will I use Morse Code in the future? Sure will. In fact, as more and more people forget code, I'll cherish my ability as something that differentiates me from the masses. In fact, after a long hiatus, I just recently returned to code and enjoy every minute of it.
As a ham, I think the code requirement is dated. It doesn't really stop morons from getting on the air. A scan of the 75 meter QSOs any evening should help you get over your fears that no code will allow irresponsible individuals to run rampant and spoil the hobby. I would not advocate removing the code only portions of the HF bands, which is the next logical step in this process. CW and other digital modes need the spectrum allocation to prevent potential interference from the wider bandwidth modes.
In a related step, I'd like to see 11 meters taken back into amateur radio as a band for an entry level, no test license. Other, better services exist to fill the need CB radio originally addressed and 11 meters would make a great place to get people interested in the hobby.
OK folks, flame on!
Hrm...code or no code? (Score:3, Interesting)
But I thought the written test for technician was too easy. General is a bit tougher, but I think there needs to be more modern questions, i.e. things about psk31 and mfsk16, etc. These are the modes that newcomers will most likely use on the HF bands.
Amateur Radio does need a shot in the arm. THe kids that used to get interested in Radio and become licensed and active hams how are more interested in the Internet. Even though there are still people getting their license at a young age, many of them are not active.
Speaking of being active, I am going to go get on the radio. I wonder how 6 meters is doing. See you on 52.525!
KC2MMW sez... (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason is simple. The morse technique can still be used to send packetized data, ala 300 baud modems and the like. Simple enough to keep a psk31 setup and use that instead of code. What I'm saying is that automatic code sending and recieiving is so inexpensive these days so as to make the real use of code by humans...less relevant.
Dont get me wrong, I admire those who can send and recieve code. The purpose of the amateur service is, however, to advance the hobby and science of radio telecommunications. Morse is well established and it WILL be a matter of pride among hams to learn, build, use, and compete with code. It does not serve to advance the hobby, the art and science, or the emergency services nature of ham radio to limit it to those who can master the morse code when we have such advanced radio technology.
In short, I dont need code because more advanced technology is affordable. We dont need people to experiment with code keys anymore, we need people to experiment with last mile solutions. The only way to encourage that is to change the focus of the license.
73's
Not obsolete (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Morse Code (Score:3, Interesting)
It may be helpful to document a situation where CW did make a difference in an emergency situation. Say some emergency that occured in the past 10 years or so.