An online discussion area for readers of Ham Radio Online.
So Long CW Farewell Amateur Radio.by LWLongbowKeeping it short, sweet and getting to the point. One can Sum up all the problems with Amateur Radio with just a few key words. Old, Antiquated, Outdated, Dead, ect. Use (CW) if you like feel free anytime to do so. Stop trying to force (CW) on Amateur Radio Operators. I find it Very strange that among the Old (FARTZZZ)(CW)is being Promoted and is not actually being used by them. I will say again that the U.S Coast Guard, U.S Navy, the Maritime Association, and the U.S Government have said goodbye to (CW). Question:?????? why is it that you Old (FARTZZZ) can't seem to let Mr.(CW) Morse just Slip right on into History?????? Well maybe it's because you think you all need little Old man (CW) to protect those little Precious Frequencies from the General Population. The notion of learning (CW) teaches (Discipline) is (Ludicrous) in essence you might also say come on you Savages, and learn this so you can become (Civilized) Oh Boy!!! where have we heard that one before?????? Think about it, sounds like the same scenario doesn't it. In closing, we all need to write these Articles so Everyone can understand whats written. You don't need (Elaborate) words to prove to anyone that you have a Diversified vocabulary. We want the General Population to understand it all. That's the problem with (CW) who gives a Dam about (Code) as long they can understand spoken or written English, which is Universal throughout the world. So Long CW Farewell Amateur Radio. (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 208.251.149.92 |
The three 'R'sbyYou're still out of it. In a qso on HF where one party is fading during an important transmission...(there are important transmissions) the other party only has to send three R's to confirm the QSO. It's a wonder modern sets don't have a 'three R' button. In fact make mine with a small battery backup so I can send a brief explanation of my power outage at ten watts. Hell that could be at a hundred watts from two AA cells, brief as it would be. CW simply works. Sometimes it's the only thing to do. It amazes me how many General Class hams don't even have a key around for that simple task, if no other. It also amazes me how many General class hams haven't the slightest what a cubical quad is even though they supposedly checked answer boxes about it. And that venerable antenna has been described graphically since 1960 that I know of in the General Class license manual. Let's face it. Lot's of cheaters out there and misery loves company. That is, if you accept that an understanding of the three 'R's and the cubical quad ought to be required. To me they are minimal requirements in the radio art. Now that is an 'attitude.' After all, CW is a signaling skill which transcends radio to include car horns and flashlights. Of course it's a 19th century notion. When Morse's engineer got tired of fooling with the ticker tape and just read the clicks my ear. Is that what you guys want? To eliminate the possibility of reading data by ear? Keep CW. In fact, improve and simplify it, if you can. And do tell me what you insist I learn. from IP address 4.16.10.118 |
He can't answer that...by Brian Hancher, KC4GFI"And do tell me what you insist I learn. " You shouldn't have him answer that question. He had to have his grandson punch my call up on qrz.com. from IP address 209.208.16.235 |
Oh!!!!!! Yes I canby LWLongbowCW is (OK) even sometimes I play with it. I have only one answer for you, I am for the abolition of CW as a testing component for any class of license no matter what. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Long Cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc Dubauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 152.163.197.188 |
One (and only one) more time...by Brian HancherYou keep saying I don't get it...let me tell you what I DO get: 1) Learning CW is becoming less and less relevant as a core component of amateur license testing. On that point I think we agree. 2) The desire to prevent the ham bands from going the way of Citizens' Band is a valid concern, which I share. This goes hand-in-glove with the desire to avoid "dumbing down" amateur radio. 3) One valid approach to mitigating the problem of abuse is to increase the value of the priveleges. By making the operators put something into it (getting licensed, and having to work and learn a bit to get that license) they will value that license, and be less likely to abuse it. I say again, LESS LIKELY. That does not mean the idea will hold true in all cases, but only as a GENERAL rule. 4) As an alternative to CW, I have suggested that CW be replaced with demonstrated proficiency in the new technology, whether it is Packet, RTTY, or any other digital mode. I think that would address all three of the previous issues. I think that this is consistent with your stated desire to see hams use the newer technologies. 5) Earlier in this thread, you were specifically asked what you would have an operator learn (in lieu of CW). Yet, the only meaningful bit of commentary you offer is "Abolish CW". I'm going to put the question to you as straight as I can: In your proposal to abolish CW, what steps would you take to address the concerns outlined in #2 and #3 above? Appoint yourself dictator of the FCC for a post. How would you structure the rules? Think carefully about your answer. If you want me to believe that you truly respect the opinions of others, show me hou you would abolish CW and still account for their concerns. from IP address 209.208.30.225 |
all that is needed...by wv2bYes, lets stop trying to deny a ham license to the uncivilized masses. All that should be required is a fully functional thumb to push the ptt switch {or a foot for the foot switch for people with a disability}, and a credit line big enough to buy a transmitter and super magic all band wire antenna {for just $199.95}. Right? from IP address 208.251.64.88 |
Re: One (and only one) more time...by DAC / KB9TKSIn the previous message, Brian Hancher stated: "2) The desire to prevent the ham bands from going the way of Citizens' Band is a valid concern, which I share. This goes hand-in-glove with the desire to avoid "dumbing down" amateur radio. 3) One valid approach to mitigating the problem of abuse is to increase the value of the priveleges. By making the operators put something into it (getting licensed, and having to work and learn a bit to get that license) they will value that license, and be less likely to abuse it. I say again, LESS LIKELY. That does not mean the idea will hold true in all cases, but only as a GENERAL rule." The problem with this logic is that there's already plenty of evidence that it doesn't work. Upping requirements, or holding to the myth that 'CW makes good ops' doesn't get you anything, really. If it did, then 75 and 20 meters wouldn't have certain frequencies that rivalled your basic sewage treatment plant in terms of filth. We would also see no such things as some of the rather off-wack operating practices seen on these bands. What's needed is much better enforcement, not a bunch of hot air about how the license restructuring is going to wreck amateur radio as one sees from a lot of threadworn ops these days. Putting Riley Hollingsworth out there with some real teeth is a good start, but Riley doesn't have the tools that were available just a bit over ten years ago, when much of the FCC's monitoring apparatus was taken offline. Back then, when the wackness appeared on band, it was a pretty simple matter to get on the phone to a monitoring station where ops would check out what was going on and try to figure out where and who the crap was emanating from. No such mechanism exists now. Face it, folks...people left to their own devices simply _don't behave_ as a general rule. And this counts just as equally for kindergarten kids, CBers, and hams. Yes, we're perhaps a bit better at policing ourselves than the other two examples, but we're by no means a perfect group. But does learning high-speed CW help this, or cramming your head full of technical info and jargon? Nope! The same folks you find using these bands as their personal manure-yard went thru that same gauntlet as every other General-class op...if not more for those out there with the higher licenses who're up to this nonsense. So, blame not the no-coders or other entry-level hams for the current messes. Look to your own 'golden' ranks for the REAL problem children. from IP address 206.148.209.173 |
Need operator in BahamasbyPlease help us. We need to contact a ham operator in the Bahamas. The message board/chat group may be accessed at: http://www.egroups.com/group/hurricanefloyd Sending an message to this e-mail address address instantly posts a message to the World Wide Web: eGroup Address: hurricanefloyd@eGroups.com Regards, Eve M. Smith ems@miami-dade.com from IP address 152.163.195.184 |
MTV no different than other media.byMTV's actions are no different than other media. While Contact was being filmed at the Arecibo Observatory, site coordination was also performed on 70cm frequencies. Several times during the filming, we had to address the staff about using protected frequencies (Amateur and Astronomy). There are a great many uninformed persons out there. from IP address 192.65.176.105 |
MTV no differentbyThat's kind of ironic that Contact, a movie that featured amateur radio would have a disregard to the amateur radio service regulations. from IP address 12.20.66.5 |
So Long CW Farewell Amateur Radioby LWLongbowFor all of those people out there who think I am just going to go away, well think twice I am dedicated to the fight to Remove CW from Amateur Radio and I will never stop until it is Dropped as a (Requisite) to access bands (Below 30 MHz. I will continue to write Articles and post them on this Forum, and in Newspapers, Boys Clubs, in Schools, on the World Wide Web, and on my New Web Pages that are going up soon, also with letters to Manufacturers of Amateur Radio Equiptment requesting that they Scrap the Production of those big Monstrous (HF Stand Alone Transceivers) and go for the New Technology. Well my request is not new but I just want to keep something on their minds, smaller is better and they should continue to include all the bands on one Transceiver. If Techs. are going to buy these New Radios with 160,thru 10 meters and with 6 meters 440, and 2 meters all combined on one Transceiver, then expect those Techs to use the bands available on those Transceivers and that means (HF) too. Now you can argue the point about Licensing and what's legal and what's not, but it isn't going to save Amateur Radio. Amateur Radio Manufacturers are not developing the New Transceivers with the Old CW (FARTZZZ) in mind. Wakeup Ham Radio Operators (Money) talks. Anyone can buy Ham Radio equiptment and they don't need a License to make that purchase. Wakeup Ham Radio Operators and let's close the (CW) Coffin on those Old (CW) (FARTZZZ) and move on before it's late. So Long CW Farewell Amateur Radio. (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 209.253.224.160 |
I agree, but....byLWLongbow, I generally agree with your position and enjoy some of your colorful metaphors (skeleton at the CW key of the Titanic wreck: excellent imagery). But you're starting to sound like a broken record even to those of us who agree with you. I'm not flaming, just suggesting that you stick to typing something different each post and maybe use some of the (FARTZZZ) less often. 73 Daren Bush, KD7GIB from IP address 209.222.184.151 |
LWLongbow, I hereby grant you access to HF w/o CWby Brian Hancher, KC4GFI...go buy yourself a CB radio with SSB capability. You can pick one up on the Uniden website for about US$150. You will then have access to what was once the eleven meter ham band, and go chase some DX... Personally, I think that if you can't carry on a reasonable debate without using derogatory terms to describe those with whom you disagree, CB is where you belong. Your behaviour and demeanor are precisely what "Old Fartzzz" DO NOT want on the air. If you can't bring something good to the table, the least you can do is mind your manners. If you can't do that, then go somewhere else. Not all of us appreciate your "us versus them" attitude. from IP address 209.208.17.183 |
Brain Hancer I will overlook your Ideology and grant you Clemencyby LWLongbowWell now I'll see if I can address one or two of your displeasure's. CB Radios, I would enjoy a discussion with you about them. I have (2) one is a BUDDY TX 11B and the other is a BROWNING, both are Base Stations. Let us have a word about the BUDDY TX 11B, it is a beautiful setup black in color (3)unit base station which consists of a Transmitter, Receiver, and Speaker, all matching units. What I know about the BUDDY is it was probably the most powerful CB Radio ever built. And a little bit about it's tubes,it sported (2) 6AW6s and (1) 2E26 on the finale. The Buddy's power as a stock 2 mtr. Radio was 200 watts out and if I can remember when the BUDDY was sold as an (11) mtr. Rig it consisted of (2)additional resistors across the input to the final,(1) diode plus a tuner to handle (10) watts on the (11)mtr band. This Radio was originally built as a 2 mtr. Radio. The BUDDY was developed and assembled by a Company named AUTRONICS Corporation of Pasedena California. In the year 1964 when (11)mtrs was booming and at the height of it's popularity, Electronics Manufacturers sought to cash in on some of the enormous profits that Citizen Band Radio brought to the retail Electronics Market. Anyway CB'ers referred to long distance communications as (SKIP)and from 1963 thru 1964 I was very active on the (11) mtr band, thus I received untold thousands of QSO cards. My station was heard in all states of the Union and many Forign Countries. In 1964 I shut down my station dismantled every thing boxed it up and stored it all away for 34 years. We could go on and on about the radios of the pass. So far as Reasonable Debates are concerned I invite them in any language or as you have determined,(Reasonable)I will debate them even if it is Unreasonable, or otherwise. Nothing anyone can say will rustle up my feathers. That comes with years of wisdom. On the other hand can you define the term Old (Fartzzz)? I don't expect you can, my Grandson looked up your age and other data... sorry! you don't qualify for Old (Fartzzz) status you still have at least 20 years to go before you get there. I achieved old (Fartzzz) status about four years ago. See that term is not a bad thing it just labels the groups that are holding back Amateur Radio. Further there is a local Club near me called the Old (Fartz Club) maybe the term is not as derogatory as one might think. Go back and read your statement, you used the term Old "Fartzzz" don't want people like me on the Air, well now you have just used the term also and that qualifies my point, there are Old (Fartzzz) out there and they don't like any challenges to the Morse Code Requirements. I will again for the 100th time state that I don't want to use Bands below (30) MHz so the notion that I want to use HF is crazy. On the question of Amateur Radio equiptment please don't challenge me with your bragg list, You might get the shock of your life. So come on debate me on the issues you might be suprised. So Long CW Farewell Amateur Radio. (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 209.253.224.234 |
O.F.'s - Qualified...by Brian Hancher, KC4GFILW, I wish you would quit putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to BE an O.F. I simply stated that the O.F.'s don't want people like you on the air (rude, mudslinging, counterproductive., etc.) Now that you mention it, some of us Young Fartzzz would also like to keep the ham bands clear of operators who don't have respect for others! Some jerks pretend like they OWN certain freqencies. Free speech is a right, use of the airwaves is a privilege. We don't need any more rude idiots increasing the "noise" level. As for my definition of O.F.'s, I don't pretend to define them...I don't have to. YOU are the one who started that train of thought, with the O.F.'s wanting to protect the code standard. I might have qualified part of your point by admitting that the O.F.s make up the lion's share of the crowd trying to maintain the code requirement, but so far I have yet to hear you make any point beyond "I don't like CW". Okay, you've presented reasons WHY you don't like CW, but I see you offering no alternatives, no real proposals, no real debate. You are just repeating the mantra "Dump CW". As for equipment brag lists, I don't know why you brought that up, I didn't. I would, however, welcome the opportunity to pit my skills _and_ experience against just about anyone or anything when it comes to operating effectively under adverse conditions. Though I may be relatively young, I am capable of providing a few suprises myself. 73, -Brian from IP address 209.208.30.178 |
A response to Unqualified FAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZby LWLongbowBrian you still don't get it do you? anyway you will never stop the "quote" idiots, "unquote" I don't like what those people do either but there you have it. Privileges....well you know what you can do with Privileges don't you. Owning a gun is not a right, but almost everyone has got a gun registered are not. To use that gun in the commission of a crime is aganist the law, and people or commiting crimes in the thousands including murder everyday. So since you have the solutions to cleaning up and promoting Amateur Radio, (Which I doubt) then we Americans should appoint you to the federal crime commission in Washington D.C because you seem to know so much about enforcing rules, maybe you are just the person that we need to enforce the law, then all crime will stop tomorrow. There are many things that go on in every day life that I don't like. What am I going to do about it, (nothing). And you are not going to do a dam thing about it either... but blow smoke out of your Alligator mouth. As far as me starting the train of thought with the old (Fartzzz) wanting to protect the code standard, that's popycock and you know it is. Anyway you don't know what you are talking about, that statement has been around and on the Internet for years. Bragg lists, yes I mentioned that, as far you telling me where I can buy a CB Rig, that is a joke! if you would like to buy some Ham Radio Equiptment watch for my auction date. And oh! by the way don't forget to bring lots of cash, No items will be sold separately. Soooooooo Long Cccccccccccc Dubauuuuuuu Farewell Amateur Radio. (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 208.251.141.190 |
Untitledby wv2bI know what you mean. I'm going to protest to all authorities to remove the requirement to be tested on parrallel parking from the driver's license exam. I live in the country and never will have to parrallel park, so it is unjust that I have to be tested on it. And besides, in the cities they are doing away with old fashioned parking spaces and building parking garages, so parrallel parking is a dying part of parking technology. Let the protests begin! from IP address 208.251.64.88 |
Again with the ATTITUDE...!byComparing the CW requirement with the parallel parking requirement for a driver's license is simply ludicrous! CW is one mode. Important, certainly, but not as necessary as you seem to think. To correct your analogy, if driver's licenses were administered like ham licenses in order to get a Commercial Driver's License, a potential truck or bus driver would have to parallel park the rig going backward at 30-40 mph! While someone going for a regular license (car only) would only have to do it at 5 mph. And a motorcycle candidate would have to do it at 15 mph. Never mind the fact that you DON'T parallel park motorcycles, that's the way things have always been done, dagnabbit! Give it a little more thought next time. 73 Daren Bush, KD7GIB from IP address 209.222.184.131 |
Re: Attitude???????????by LWLongbowWhere have I heard that one before. This is America, 1999. You (boys) never grow up do you. Attitude!!!!! So Long and goodbye (CW) Farewell Amateur Radio. (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow. from IP address 208.251.149.105 |
I was typing to the other guy!byWell, Longbow, ATTITUDE is the term I use to describe those who think that they are superior to all hams, and the rest of humanity for that matter, because they work CW. In this instance, I was referring to the guy who facetiously suggested he was going to talk to the Department of Motor Vehicles about removing the parallel parking requirement from drivers tests. As if CW is as necessary for radio as the ability to back up a car in a controlled manner is to driving! As if CW is the major mode of amateur radio. That's the ATTITUDE. That's what turns me off from CW and hf. I wasn't referring to you at all. I generally don't feed the trolls. 73, Daren Bush, KD7GIB from IP address 209.222.184.140 |
Oh!! yes I know that, we "Abolisionists help each other out.by LWLongbowI am well aware of what is taking place on this forum. Ed has asked that the name calling stop, but you don't seem to want to honor his request. As long as "Idiots" like you continue to demomstrate asinine behavior, there surely will be chaos on this forum. I will say it again everyone has an opinion and those opinions should be respected no matter what. If you don't like my opinions then stop reading them or just don't respond. I am for the abolition of (CW) as a testing component for any class of license. If we donot make some changes in that direction very soon then Amateur Radio will continue to loose it's popularity and suffer even more loses. The new generation of young people couldn't care less about (CW) and there is almost no support for it at all nor is there enough new Amateurs upgrading to keep the (Hobby) going. something has to change and (5) words a minute is not the answer, I'm trying to help save this hobby not destroy it. Also do anyone have any suggestions as to what could replace (Old Man CW)? Let's re-move (CW) testing from Amateur Radio and move on before it's to late. So Long (CW) Farewell Amateur Radio (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 63.24.117.148 |
Apologies, but...byfrom IP address 209.222.184.149 |
Try Again on "Apologies, but..."bySorry about that, hit return at the wrong time. Okay, the troll comment was out of line and for that I apologize. However, you were suggesting that I had a maturity problem just because I chose to politely take issue with another poster's message. And that tends to make me a little angry. Hope that's understandable. As for my opinion about the ATTITUDE of certain CW operators.... Well, I guess until the lid of the coffin is closed on "Old Man CW" as you very colorfully put it, or they all start being polite to other hams who aren't into CW, my opinion will stand. 73, Daren Bush, KD7GIB from IP address 209.222.184.149 |
A modest proposal...by Brian Hancher, KC4GFI(apologies to Johnathan Swift) At the risk of fanning the flames of the CW Holy War, I'd like to make a suggestion that I haven't heard in any of these discussions. In all this discussion, There seem to be three groups of people: 1) Those who want the status quo, maintaining a code proficiency requirement for HF privileges at current copying speeds. 2) Those who would like to see the code requirement abolished altogether. 3) Those who, for whatever reason, are searching for a compromise of some sort. I simply don't buy the notion that HF is dying. If that were true, then why would anybody BE in group #2? I'll go ahead and confess that I fall into the last group. I'll also be up front and tell you that I learned IMC/CW on active duty in the military, and have actually used it to pass real traffic. This experience has taught me two things: 1) The value of Morse Code. 2) Once a certain level of proficiency is attained (8-10 wpm) the skill is like riding a bicycle, you don't really forget it. Someone who can copy 10 wpm can also send QRSlowyourfistdownplease...to someone sending at some blistering pace. There is a third consideration at play here, the ITU. The code requirement is part of an international treaty concerning the HF bands. Now I know that America doesn't have the greatest track record with treaties, ask any Native American. But let's try to remember this treaty business...would it really help generate international goodwill if a bunch of ugly Americans wanted to change the rules of the game? One of the things that I keep hearing in all this discussion is a need to "keep up with technology" or some similar idea. Another value, held near and dear to the ARRL muckety-mucks during the last license restructuring, was the notion that nobody should lose any privileges. Sorry KF7VY, but there goes your VHF incentive based license structure. Now let's step back for a minute and consider one thing about CW. It is, at its heart, a digital mode. Now let's stop and think about this for a minute...hmmm...digital modes are important...important enough that we are going to require people to know them to operate HF.... In the beginning of the wireless age, there was only one mode, CW. Then we had various flavors of modulating signals to carry voice transmissions, but now it seems that we've invented a rather bewildering array of digital modes...hmmm... Now here's Bri's license restructuring proposal. Appoint me dictator of the FCC and I'll get it done. Technician - Leave requirements and privileges as they are. It ain't broke, don't fix it. General - Leave written exam as is, lower code requirement to 8 wpm. (c'mon, you learn the alphabet at 5, this is doable.) Leave privileges at current General Class levels. Okay, maybe 5, but I prefer 8. Advanced - Privileges of current Extra class license; written exam as is. Code requirement of 13 wpm *OR*...and here's the kicker...demonstrated proficiency in one other digital mode. Take your pick, but you'd have to set up a station and do a live contact to pass this element. Maybe add a few RTTY prosign questions to the written exam. In other words, substitute demonstrated proficiency in a new digital mode for demonstrated proficiency in an old mode. Extra - Eliminate. This license has never been about anything but braggin' rights. Anybody who knows anything about the football rivalry between Auburn and Alabama knows that braggin' rights are not conducive to creating or enhancing ANY kind of goodwill. Of my 3 proposed restructured licenses, this last one is the most likely to occur unless some of you with the 1x2 and 2x1 braggin' rights call signs get down off your high horses. Don't take that as a statement by me that I don't see your point, and don't take it as a threat. It's a logical conclusion based on a tactical analysis of your current position. You are simply, and very badly, outnumbered. Okay, let's see how many flames this draws, I think I've got something in this to make just about everybody mad... from IP address 209.208.17.189 |
What about Novice?byInteresting proposal, Brian, but you didn't address Novice. Does that also go by the wayside like Extra? I like it, let's appoint him FCC dictator and get it done. from IP address 209.222.184.151 |
I'm afraid Novice must go...by Brian Hancher, KC4GFI...nothing against the Novices, (I was once one myself) but under my plan, they wouldn't have to work too hard to upgrade to General... Daren, I think you've made some points that a lot of us with General/Advanced/Extra licenses should heed, specifically ATTITUDE. There was a time when those with the higher classes of license were a tremendous resource to those with Novice/Technician licenses. Often providing encouragement, advice, mentoring and even tutoring, these were the "Elmers", and they seem to be a dying breed. Nowadays, it seems that we are a house divided, and the animosities are rising to unhealthy levels. I'll be blunt here, this bothers me one heckuva lot more than numbers games or pontificating about the merits of one mode over another, CW Holy Wars, and so on... On the one hand I see a group of new hams, mostly products of the information age. These people are savvy in the ways of technologies that didn't exist even ten years ago. The best of this group want to see amateur radio continue to grow and develop into something that is just as meaningful and relevant in the 21st century as in the 20th. The worst of this bunch, well quite frankly they sound to me like typical lazy americans after instant gratification. On the other hand I see a group of mostly older hams, who have invested considerable time and energy into their hobby. The best of them take it beyond a mere hobby, serving with MARS stations, ARES/RACES, and so forth. Ask and economist worth his sheepskin and they'll tell you, if you reduce the price of a good to zero, it will be consumed until its marginal utility is zero. Though they might not put it in these terms many of them fear that "dumbing down" the amateur radio service will allow the quality of the service to become degraded to the point that we are no better off than we would be on CB. Whether or not these fears are mis-placed is another discussion. Of course, the worst of THIS bunch are a pretty egotistical and self-important lot, who would rather be in charge of a fruitless effort than swallow a little pride and do some selfless work for a worthy cause. A house divided will fall. Some of the old timers need a reality check, that's for sure. The words "...because we've always done it that way" are a sure sign of trouble. You simply cannot hold this line forever. You ought to appreciate history well enough to know that. You can either make things happen, watch things happen, or wonder what happened. Your choice. But by the same token, a few of you "kill the code" fanatics need to cool your jets and grow up a bit. I question the work ethic of a few of you as well. If you want to change this part of the world, bring something to the table. It doesn't have to be CW, but being able to make it to the highest level of the latest version of DOOM or HERETIC really doesn't make you any more techno-savvy than someone with a 30 wpm fist. It makes you a product of your time, nothing more. I'd like to be able to rewind the world a little bit and what kind of h#!!raisers some of these geezers were when they were young...and I'd also like to be able to fast-forward the planet for a bit and see how some of the younger people of today are going to react to change when it's their turn to be the older generation. I'll close with a question. Can anybody tell me who won the original holy wars? End of sermon. Amen. from IP address 209.208.17.183 |
A Response to Novice must goby LWLongbowYour plan (Sucksssss) who appointed you to decide what is good or irrelevant for Amateur Radio. Remember your article is just an opinion and soly yours. If you don't like my Opinion don't read it. It appears to me that you are one of those people who can't stand the heat, and it also tells me another thing or two my Articles are getting to you. I respect every Ones Opinion even yours, although I profound'ly disagree with the content of your Statements or should I say Narratives??? I still respect your right to agree and disagree with the issues, and I don't really care about what language you use to deliver your Opinions. This is America (HAM) did you forget. Soooooo Long Seeeee Dubbauuuuuuuuu Farewell Well Amateur Radio. (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 208.251.149.156 |
You are absolutely right LWLongbow...by Brian Hancher, KC4GFI...my opinion is my own. The part about me being dictator was toungue-in-cheek/satire/intended to be humorous. I don't know why I expected you to grasp that...I'm sorry if I asked too much. As far as my not being able to stand the heat...I'll just say that you do not know me...I hate to burst your bubble, but you do not qualify as heat. Another thing, I never said I didn't respect your opinion, but I do not think you present it in a respectable manner. Now let me explain something here about the issues. I happen to have my HF privileges, and have absolutely nothing to gain by advocating a move to open up the HF bands. I hold the opinion that some sort of restructuring is in order, not because I fear for the future of Amateur Radio, but because I feel that it is the right thing to do. I hold this opinion in spite of you, not because of you. From a practical side, you might want to think twice about insulting people who share my perspective. Let's face it, if more General and Advanced Class operators advocated loosening or eliminating the code requirements it would certainly not hurt your cause. (I currently hold General and a CSCE for Advanced). You keep it up with your attitude and you will alienate the very people in the Amateur Radio community who are trying to meet you half way. from IP address 209.208.31.136 |
RE:You are absolutely right LWLongbow...by Al N3TYDHonest I was just passing through went I seen this. I wish not to add to this fire fight but, I am confused...how does one hold a general class license with a CSCE for advanced? Since the code requirement is the same (13WPM) if one holds a general ticket and passes the advanced written test...one would have an advanced ticket not a CSCE, right? 73 N3TYD from IP address 199.224.107.218 |
As I understand it...byThe rules on upgrades are that holding a CSCE grants the priviledges of the new license class, but that the holder does not actually have the title of the license class until the FCC puts its official stamp on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what it said in "Now You're Talking" and on the back of the CSCE I got for my own license last month. Hope that cleared it up. from IP address 209.222.184.148 |
I understand it the same wayby Brian Hancher, KC4GFIWhich is why I have to ID myself as KC4GFI/AA until the FCC puts the official stamp of approval on it. That's the way I understand it. from IP address 209.208.31.117 |
Promoting Amateur Radioby Brian Hancher, KC4GFIFirst of all, I'd like to say that I enjoyed this article, and found it to be well written and timely. There are a few points I'd like to make concerning the statistical methods, but I don't want that to take away from the most important thing I got out of the article. Chart 4 demonstrates a very important point, the membership of the ARRL is not necessarily representative of the larger population of amateur operators. If the ARRL intends to maintain its position as the de facto voice of amateur radio, they had better wake up and smell the coffee. By lobbying for the no-code Tech license, yet remaining ambivalent (at best) to the no-code Techs, they have set themselves up to lose stature if they do not change some things they're doing. Personally, I think the organization is in need change, and I would rather see them get a tune-up than a tune-out. Now, a couple of points on methodology: At the beginning of the article, the author makes the assertion that "Technician class licensees ... now exceed the combined total of General, Advanced and Extra class licensees..." The numbers indicated by chart 4 do not support this assertion. Chart 4 does show that Technicians are the largest group, but not a majority. In chart 1, the author extrapolates a 7 year forecast using 2 years worth of data, using a method that appears to be based on linear regression. I'm not going to get into a graduate level statistical monologue, but there are some real methodological bugaboos there...and I don't place much stock in that... Chart #2...the author fails to account for normal attrition through loss of interest. Some of this bimodal distribution can be accounted for by attrition. Many of the people in the 1-5 year of experience range will not renew their first license. From there, those who stick with it beyond that first renewal tend to stick with it long term. An alternative hypothesis, based on that chart, is that the amateur radio community is largely comprised of a fairly static base of operators who have been operators for a long time, and second, nearly equally large group in a constant state of flux. The discussion of the information presented in Chart 3 does not account for larger demographic trends. The 45-54 age group includes the baby boomers, a disproportionately large group of the general population. I would be curious to see this distribution reworked based on percentages of the total, to see where the real differences lie. To wrap things up, I think there are some things that need a deeper look: 1) Statistics in the context of larger demographic patterns and trends. 2) A more thorough analysis of attrition. Technicians make up the largest group, but part of this is certainly due to the fact that this license is the entry level license of choice; as such, I would hypothesize that this group would see the greatest turnover in membership and suffer the highest (interest, not silent key) attrition. 3) If the data can be made available, I'd like to take a closer look at the age breakdown of the license classes. Living in a part of Florida with a lot of retirement communities, I can tell you that my club's most recent no-code technician class was _filled_ with people over the age of 55. 4) I'd like to compare the membership growth/decline rates to those of the ARRL. At the risk of sounding like some kind of conspiracy theory nut, I'd like to know just how much of what I've been hearing is out of genuine concern for the state of amateur radio, and how much is out of concern for membership numbers, dollars, and the political power that go with those resources. from IP address 209.208.31.217 |
Some quick responses on the issues raisedbyBrian, Good points, and I appreciate the detailed response. First, the data in Chart 4 is a combination of years 1996 and 1997 data, as indicated in the text heading. The conclusion that Techs outnumber the combination of other license classes is based on data as of June 1999, found at AH0A's web site (posted elsewhere in the comments.) So you are correct that there is a discrepancy between Chart 4 and the conclusion; however, that is based on Chart 4 presenting data that is 3 years out of date, whereas the conclusion is based on current data so the conclusion that Techs outnumber G+A+E is correct as of right now. (Also, the 1997 data used in Chart 4 appears to include RACES stations licensees and other licenses not issued to individual hams, so it somewhat inflates the total - I learned this after the fact.). I complete agree with you regarding the extrapolation of the data into the future (I have, in fact, had graduate level statistics courses) and am aware of numerous limitations here. I wanted to do a time series analysis, however, the data I had, in detail, only went back 18 months and was insufficient for projecting very far into the future. Regardless, while the shape of the prediction curve would change using other (and better) statistical techniques, it appears that the same deviations (techs increasing, other classes decreasing) would still be evident. The delta, however, could be more or less. And of course, any regression or time-series analysis can be rendered obsolete by large external factors - such as the license restructuring - causing any predictions of the future to be instantly incorrect. In short, the analysis and chart were done using the minimal data I could get, and were further limited by the time I could invest in this undertaking. Regarding Chart 3, I did, in fact, plan to use a chart of population demographics - specifically a population pyramid chart from current data at the U.S. Census Bureau. I would like to present this chart somehow in the future, but in part due to my time commitments elsewhere, I could not factor it into the article when I wrote it. The population boom between roughly age 35 and 50 is enormous and is an important factor elsewhere, in for example, why we have low unemployment (there are about 1/4th fewer 20-somethings in the population than there are roughly 36-46, for example). Time permitting (highly unlikely at the moment), I would like to rerun the chart with the population demographics superimposed on the Amatuer age data - that would be a fascinating picture. I did my best to work with the best data that I could get a hold of. If anyone could provide better data or analysis, I would very much like to publish that. I had access to no specific data on attrition for example, and could only look at increases or decreases, over time, of entire classes. But nothing on who is voluntarily not renewing licenses and pursuing other interests. That data, if available, would be a valuable contribution. Regarding your item #4 - I run THIS web site 100% as a hobby. I spend money and invest thousands of hours of my time. I do not earn a single cent from this web site - never have and I have no plans to do so in the future. So I have no economic incentive to fudge numbers to increase membership dollars or sales. Overall, I thank you for a very well thought out reply to this column. If you care to locate more data or reinterpret the data using other methods, I would be interested in seeing and publishing the results. Thank you, Ed, KF7VY from IP address 206.71.110.81 |
Fine Business, Ed...by Brian Hancher, KC4GFINicely done reply...I hope I didn't sound too harsh, I do appreciate the fact that it is hard to get good clean data, particularly for time-series analysis. Your article was really good, I'd just like to see your ideas taken and built upon. And yes, I'd be interested in working on some of this with you. I wonder if it might be worth doing a little interrupted time-series piece centered on the time frame when novices got that little SSB sliver on 10 meters...hmm.... I think you misunderstood me on that money and power trip issue. I also did not mean to accuse you of having a hidden or pecuniary agenda here...I was mainly referring to ARRL, which is usually quite effective at framing issues. A lot of good academic research has been misguided because the work began after someone else framed the issue for them, with a built in "spin" in the framing. As I see it there are two related, but distinctly separate issues at play here. 1) The changing nature of amateur radio. Changing needs and desires of operators, changing public service imperatives, etc...from what I gather, you have been working pretty damn hard to try to raise these issues. (And doing it with a mighty slick website, I might add.) 2) The second set of issues involves the ARRL. They have been predominate/preeminent to the point that they border on being a monopoly. Now, they suddenly find themselves in a whole new context, one for which they were totally unprepared, and I think they are having a pretty rough time getting a handle on some of these issues. Not only is the relevance of Amateur Radio being questioned, but the relevance of the ARRL, now more than ever, is being questioned within the context of Ham Radio. This has got to be a rather disconcerting double-whammy for these folks. If they're going to grow in a stagnating market, they're going to have to open up, and I'm not convinced they can do that...(but that's a whole other rant...) The thing to remember is this, the ARRL is in a pretty strong position to try to frame _their_ problems in such a manner that they appear to affect Amateur Radio as a whole. As long as we keep this in mind, we won't (or shouldn't) get snookered into buying into somebody's hidden agenda. In other words, is Ham Radio really sick, or is it simply a matter of a service that has matured, and perhaps created an environment that is more difficult for the ARRL to grow and prosper in? Which brings me right back to what I think was a little gem in your article: How can the ARRL purport to represent Amateur Radio as a whole when it is not representative OF the whole? 73, -Brian KC4GFI P.S. If you're serious about some follow up studies, drop me a line kc4gfi@qsl.net from IP address 209.208.17.187 |
MTV isn't uniquebyBack in the bad old day when I was an OO - and before the FCC went into it's quiet period of no enforcement, I got several complaints of bands coming into the SF bay area and using Amateur frequencies in just this manner. This is a problem of long standing in my book. At the time the FCC was MORE than interested in helping...but we never developed any real-time evidence...so no action was ever taken. The best bet is still to get the FCC involved as early as you can as oppossed to the advice of using the frequencies yourself. Just because they may be boot-leggers - you aren't SURE of that. Further, you might get yourself cited for causing willful interference and such. Yeah- I know that's a long shot - still, get the feds involved as quickly as possible. from IP address 204.242.232.44 |
Modiciations of FSR ?byBeing hams, we are always trying to figure out how to use one radio designed for some use, and get it on the ham bands. So.....anyone ever looked at this current crop of FSR units, running on UHF, and seeing if the PLL can be moved over to the ham band? Be nice to have at least a single channel unit that can be put on one local repeater. I've seen these radios for around $25, so not a bad way to get there. from IP address 130.187.24.49 |
Hurricane damage on Cat IslandbyMy father was on Cat Island during the Hurricane. We are unable to get through and are desperately seeking information. Could someone please see if anyone can get information as to the damage and injuries, if any? My concern is for Robby Robertson, Cutlass Bay Club. Any help you can provide would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks in advance. from IP address 216.2.244.83 |
email MTV's sponsers, watch THEIR action!!byThe attitude of MTV officials in flaunting the law is atypical of todays young adults and teenagers: "laws are for other people" Not MTV. If each amateur would email the sponsers of MTV a copy of the HAM RADIO ONLINE NEWS STORY with a comment: "SINCE YOU SPONSER MTV, A PROVEN LAW BRAKER, I WILL NOT PURCHASE YOUR PRODUCT, NOR WILL MY FAMILY MEMEBERS. I WILL ALSO LET MY NEIGHBORS KNOW, BY WORD OF MOUTH, LETTERS TO NEWSPAPERS, AND RADIO TALK SHOWS, OF YOUR SPONSERSHIP OF A PROGRAM THAT TREATS THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WITH DISRESPECT." I intend to make a list of MTV sponsers today and email them as they often as I can. Go for it. Sponsers are very sensative to negative images given to their products. from IP address 208.251.42.244 |
uhf frequencies.byI work for boeing in wichita ks. As an electrician here, I have noticed a lot of radio control transmitters used on cranes using ham frequencies. The frequency management group here says they are covered by part 19 fcc regs as low power devices. The mfgr of the radios also says they are c overed under part 19. I have not been able to get a copy of part 19 from the fcc. cliff WA0ROX from IP address 12.13.248.14 |
MTV....SHAME ON YOU!!!byI just wonder what would have happened if it would have been an amateur radio operator that did the reverse on them...hmmmm. a great big slapin fine and other things as well i am sure. from IP address 134.217.237.30 |
Irresponsible DealerbyWhile I don't agree with MTV's complete lack of response to inquiries about their production crew's usage of the 70cm band, I believe that they may not have known they were using those frequencies. It's not likely that the MTV stage crew requested the radios to be set to those 16 particular frequencies. I suspect that the dealer who rented and programmed the radios to the stage crew was at fault for the intrusion on the 70cm amateur band. It's possible that the dealer may not have had a license for the use of the proper commercial UHF frequencies, and just figured nobody would notice that they were intruding... of course, I strongly disagree with the response from the site's "director of radio communications", Chris. Instead of showing any actual interest in rectifying the situation, he merely stated that *he* had a ham license, as if that would suggest they were legally using the 70cm band. That was pretty bad, but, then again, I've seen worse ......... 73... Tom, KG4CYX from IP address 206.103.151.22 |
The Domino Effect is now in Motion CcccccWwww /__by LWLongbowSo Long CW you have had your Day! the New Technology is hear. Farewell Amateur Radio. (Honntae) So Long CW Farewell Amateur Radio. Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 12.72.16.233 |
Standby: New Zealand will also say Goodby to CWby LWLongbowSo Long CW Farewell Amateur Radio. (Join Me) in Promoting [CHANGE] in the Amateur Radio World. A Distinguished U.S. Senator once said and I "quote" We need to get rid of that Old Code. "unquote" So Long CW Farewell Amateur Radio. (Honntae) Seven Three LWLongbow from IP address 12.72.16.233 |
MTV.bySomehow I don't think they care about what they did. But maybe that's just me. from IP address 207.229.132.139 |
MTV should be held accountable.by Alex ChandyPunitive fines should be levied by the FCC so that MTV thinks twice before they encroach ham bands again. from IP address 168.187.21.226 |
Why This Kind of Thing Happens...by...probably because some people think that "there's no one on 440 anyway, right?" The story proves that, in many cases, anyone with this idea will be caught. Fortunately, intruders are not a tremendous problem--yet--but if we don't use the UHF/440 area more it certainly could get to be a problem. In commercial operations there is more and more pressure for legal comm channels, and you can't always get what you want through the FCC coordination procedures, so I guess this is what happens in such cases. What I can't understand is why MTV's comm people went to all the trouble to program the HT-1000's on the ham band when all they had to do, and it would have been LESS illegal (if there is such a thing!) if they had simply set up shop on 465.500, 465.550, 465.600, etc., used PL or DPL, and let 'er rip. But no, someone knew where to find a "safer" area to operate because, as I said above, "There's nobody on 440 anyway!" The only "out" MTV might have would be if they had gotten the HT's from a radio rental company and simply assumed that they were operating legally under the rental company's FCC Private Carrier license, but the responses which were given at the site as reported in the story make me think that MTV actually did know what they were doing and that they were operating illegally. Let's try to use UHF/440 more. Does any one of us really know how HUGE a slice of spectrum 20 mHz is these days? Do we realize how many trunked commercial systems could fit into that 20 mHz of juicy space? Remember, "There's nobody up on 440 anyway!" Tom Donohoe, W2NJS Washington DC from IP address 216.192.96.11 |
Hmmm.byI don't think the reason is that deep. Some idiot probably got a deal on radio rentals or something dumb like that. I looks like the guy in charge was trying to be a hardarse when he probably didn't know what the ham was talking about in the first place. They might have radios but we all know that doesn't mean they know what they're doing with them. from IP address 207.229.132.139 |
remember Swatch!bymaybe if hams bombarded them with emails demanding an explanation,,,,, they might at least acknowledge/apologize for what may be simply a blunder or a blase atittude. anyone know their e-mail? I'll glady give them my opinion in a nice straight to the point way. remember hams with dedication and purpose was in my opinion VERY instrumental in "grounding" the Swatch space program. from IP address 209.152.111.178 |
Yes!byBut we must be civilized. If we're not then they will surely ignore us. from IP address 207.229.132.139 |
I agree.by Dave WA7UHZI searched the MTV web site for an email address but could find none. They need to know that this type of encroachment has not gone unnoticed. We adhere to Part 97 and by right expect others to do the same. from IP address 192.152.152.2 |
civilized response still need emailbythis is very true if we can get an email for them any messages to them must be in keeping with good amateur practice,,,,,, but they need to know how we feel. I also searched for a way to contact them but nothing yet. 73 de w0lw ron from IP address 209.152.111.178 |
What about regular mail?byHow about sending an old fashioned paper letter to them? from IP address 207.229.132.139 |
MTV email addressbyI haven't an email address for MTV, but a more suitable tactic would be to send messages to MTV's parent company Viacom. They would probably be more sensitive to negative publicity than MTV. The address for the corporate relations department is info@viacom.com. Check out their web page at http://www.viacom.com. On their site is a press release listing all the sponsors of the music video awards show if any of you wish to boycott. Michael from IP address 12.20.66.5 |
re: Why This Kind of Thing Happens...by DAC / KB9TKSWhy this happens is really a multi-fold thing. It's not answered so simply, and you can't really lump such an incident in with the Swatch fiasco... First of all, look at your offending party here. MTV. This is a division of a _huge_ company with more money than Midas. As such, they don't have to care about who they piss off. And should they get nabbed by Riley for this incident, they'll just write off whatever comparatively-piddly fine is levied as an 'acceptable business loss'. After all, the MTV Music Awards were THE highest rated basic cable show ever, bar none. Consider the ad revenues vs. what the Commission would hit them with, and be afraid. Be very afraid. Second offender: the FCC itself. Enforcement? WHAT enforcement? I can recall back ten or so years ago that the Commission had a real, serious, and active monitoring program. What've they got now? Jack. When something pops up on some unauthorized bit of spectrum, you can't jump on the phone and call an FCC monitor and say 'Hey...check what's on xxxxx'. Haven't been able to do that in quite some time. But hey...that's what 'less government' gets you, right? We may have a real firebrand in Riley Hollingsworth, but most of the rest of Commission enforcement is a sleepy situation, especially when they might have to take on something like TimeWarnerMegaMondoCorp. Rogues gallery exhibit 3: us. Hip trendy MTV nabs spectrum slice from sleepy old hams. Film at 11? NOT! Our perceived irrelevance (or real irrelevance, in the case of some ops) is our worst enemy here. It's not just that we're not using all of that prime 70 cm real-estate, it's that the general public doesn't give a rat's fanny perpendicular as to what we might be doing with it. We have to show the public why they should be concerned if some monolithic company grabs part of our spectrum. Otherwise to them, it's just a footnote of forget to a big glitzy evening of pop stars. And showing why people should be concerned about our service _doesn't_ mean waggling a J-38 at them and saying THIS IS THE GRAND TALISMAN OF YE OLDE AMATEUR RADIO, then promptly lapsing into a nap during which ones' teeth fall out. Nuh-uh. We have to show real, concrete, relevant-to-the-man-on-the-street reasons as to WHY we should be here, why we need that spectrum space, and whatup wif ham radio in general. Expect to see more of this sort of thing if we can't. A lot more. Once one of these big companies sets a precedent, then they _all_ jump in on things like this. Remember: they have more money than you or I, and money runs the way things work these days. By the CEOs, for the CEOs, etc blahblah. from IP address 206.148.209.146 |
re: MTVbySomeone sent me a private email about intruder situations - he is ham, but is also involved with another 2-way radio service that has been suffering from lots of intruders. The bad news, he says, is that in almost ALL cases, the intruders' radios were configured by someone in the 2-way business who is also a ham. I have a hunch that this alleged operation involved a ham operator too. Second, this is not the first intruder situation nor is it the last. Going ballistic at MTV would be inappropriate. Yes, it worked with SWATCH but that situation came perilously close close to backfiring and could have given ham radio awful PR. I expect that only 1 person knew how those radios worked and it probably was not a member of the production crew. Most people have no clue when it comes to radios. The hams in NYC have built a case of solid evidence and have already or soon will be turning it over to the appropriate people. But don't expect any enforcements on this specific event - BUT, do expect that the right people will be watching this organization closely in the future. And they will get nailed if they do it again. The important lessons to us are: 1. Use our frequencies! (I suggested to some of the hams in NYC that perhaps some QSOs on the indicated frequencies could resolve the problem.) 2. We must always keep an eye on signals in the Amateur allocations and be prepared to accurately document all suspicious activity. 3. Consider joining the Official Observer program to assist in this effort. Ed, KF7VY from IP address 206.71.110.81 |
Make some noiseby Wade KU4OJProbably the nastiest noise made by man is either packet or ATV. I figure the best way to deter VHF UHF intruders is to set up a temporary packet or ATV network right on the pirated frequency, using the correct forms of ID and all to keep it legal. Cheap and easy, right? from IP address 199.99.177.2 |
Keep it Legal?by Emil Hrivnak W3HPXHow is willful interference keeping it legal? They shouldn't be there, but willful interference isn't legal either! from IP address 12.4.141.10 |
... .. _ _ . _. ._ ._ .. ... _._ .. ._.. ._..by.. _ _ ._ _. ._. _ _ _ ..._ . .. _ ._._._ less than eight bits per character! from IP address 4.16.71.168 |
Oh, isn't that clever...NOT!byWell, _ .. . . _ _ ..... _ .. _... _, if that is your real name, according to Ed's demographics, more than half on this forum can't read that(though I'd say probably more, since antiquated coders can't bother themselves with newer technology like personal computers). Perhaps a translation would be in order. Frankly, it's just plain rude (like me posting something in binary or hex, that I'd expect you to translate into a packet message, there are many modes out there). Further, though I haen't learned code, I started to, and every learning manual says DON'T learn dots and dashes, but instead learn the sounds "dits" and "dahs", so you've violated your own CW standards and PROVEN that you're stuck in the nineteenth century still doing telegraphy. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone near the end of that same century, obsoleting the telegraph. Amateur satellite obsoletes CW and hf. Get over yourself, antiquated coder. from IP address 209.222.184.148 |
He's not clever, but you're mixing terms...by Brian Hancher, KC4GFITo quote you: "Amateur satellite obsoletes CW and hf. " You're mixing terms between modes and bands here. CW and phone are not the only modes used on the HF bands...if you look I'm sure you can find your "modern" modes in there as well... If you want to appear more advanced than someone still "stuck in the 19th century", then start with your own logic before talking about logic circuits. ...setting the whole CW holy-war business aside for the moment, I submit that HF radio communications is no more obsolete (or less useful) than the following: 1) Gunpowder (circa 1040) 2) The match (1680) 1) the telephone (1876) 2) the internal combustion engine (circa 1877) 3) the incandescent light bulb (1880) Here are a couple of questions for you: Did the fax machine kill the Postal Service? Did the cartridge pen eliminate the pencil? Did the auto (or airplane) eliminate the railroad? In my service as a military operator I came to trust HF more than satellite communications. And yes, I worked them both in the military, at times simultaneously. SATCOM is prone to its own bugs and idiosyncracies (not the least of which is another piece of equipment to malfunction). I've found that decent HF equipment and a good working knowlege of propagation behaviour can yield excellent communications reliability; but that second requirement can be a tougher than learning CW if the operator simply wants to operate an appliance rather than learn the science. Now, on to the CW Holy War: I will grant you that the value of CW is becoming marginal; but however marginal that value is, it is still there. I can tell you from experience that a CW signal will get through when nothing else will, even through heavy noise, interference, and even deliberate jamming. This is why CW is used for communications in the VHF bands as well as HF. (Ever hear of EME or Auroral Propagation?) I will also grant you that knowing CW will not make an operator any better or more technically proficient. By the same token, hooking a radio to a computer and TNC does not accomplish this either. Would I lower or eliminate the CW requirement for HF? You bet I would; but I would substitute a history requirement in its place. You may interpret that history in any manner you please, but to interpret it you must know it. 73, -Brian KC4GFI from IP address 209.208.31.215 |
apology...by Brian Hancher, KC4GFIQuoting myself: "If you want to appear more advanced than someone still "stuck in the 19th century", then start with your own logic before talking about logic circuits." Daren, That came off sounding a little more harsh than I meant it to. Please accept my apology if I've offended you. I've read a couple of your posts, and you seem like you are both reasonable and intelligent. 73, -Brian KC4GFI from IP address 209.208.31.176 |
Don't sweat it.byHey, Brian, This issue seems to bring out the worst in much of the ham community. And you were responding to a post of mine which was on the rude side. That message of all dots and dashes was like a red flag in front of a bull for me (hence the lapse in logic). It's indicitive of the sort of ATTITUDE that is more at the heart of the matter than CW itself. CW is a mode. A useful mode in certain situations as any mode is. But the problem, as I see it, is that all but one of our license classes are based on proficiency IN THAT ONE MODE. As far as the histroy requirement suggestion, sounds good to me. Just finished reading, "The Victorian Internet," by Tom Standage. Excellent history of the rise and decline of telegraphy and a good analysis contrasting it with our own not-so-new "information revolution." And I had to learn about vaccuum tubes for the exam. Fascinating stuff. Especially in light of all the new tubes coming our of Japan, Russia, and the former Eastern Bloc. Gets me to speculating what kind of fine amps I could build. But I digress. Just keep in mind that Technicians are hams also and not inferior to those who do quick CW. 73 Daren Bush, KD7GIB from IP address 209.222.184.137 |
The Victorian Internet, (and Railroad Telegraphy)by KB8QPE DE BILLWHAT A COOL BOOK! By Tom Standage. ISBN 0-8027-1342-4. I bought mine at the local Barnes and Noble. You could likely get it cheaper than I did on the internet. Maybe at amazon.com? But I digress. No matter what, get your hands on a copy of it! Find out about encryption, and how governments tried to suppress it...Love and sex and crime over the wires, The Victorian equivalent of the losers who hang out on 80 metres and say nasty things (I guess that this would be their great-great grandfathers! Oh! So that's where they came from!) The book certainly shows how everything old is new again! I loved it! May I also recommend? Railroad Telegraphy and the Railroad Volume 1 1852-1913 by Robert W. Betts, AB, N1KPR from RWB/CG (Publishing), 8 Little Fawn Drive, Shelton, CT 06484 Copyright 1996 $9.95 USA ($14.95 USD Foreign). from IP address 209.143.14.9 |
| Find more forums on Amateur Radio | Create your own forum at Network54 |
| Copyright © 1999-2010 Network54. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement |