Dropping the Code Test

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Elecrafters:

I realize that this issue has been visited before, but this message is more
a call to action than simply venting a complaint.

FCC Notice 05-235 has come out in the Federal Register and comments are due
by October 31.

There are a great many of us who would at least like to see a CW
requirement maintained for the Extra Class  exam. There is a very small
(but real) chance that the FCC would do that if they are provided with
novel and compelling reasons. (Note: The traditional arguments, such as
"Without the code test, ham radio will become another Citizen's Band," are
known to the FCC, and they are unconvinced by them. We need to get the FCC
to say, "Gee, we never thought of that.") If you'd like to see some
semblance of a code test preserved, this is the time to think outside the box.

Will such comments assure that the FCC will change their minds? Maybe not.
However, the way for us to guarantee that the code requirement is dropped
for all classes is for us to do nothing.

In the spirit of participatory democracy, I urge all US list members to
file their comments, irrespective of their positions on the issue. (I
expect that the list members should get used to filing FCC comments. There
is worse on the way. The British government has already floated a trial
balloon to drop ham licensing altogether in the UK. It is only a matter of
time before the FCC tries to follow their bad example.)

If you are unfamiliar with how to file, you can check out the Web site of
my local club:

www.ks1r.net


There I have posted an explanation of how to file and a copy of my filing
to serve as a template.

73,

Steve Kercel
AA4AK  


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Paul:

By far, the simplest way to file is via the FCC Web site. You just need to
spin up a Word or Word Perfect file and attach it to your posting per the
instructions at the Web site.

There is a procedure for handling paper copies, but I do not recommend it.
It is too easy for it to be mishandled.

73,

Steve
AA4AK


At 08:25 PM 9/1/2005 -0400, you wrote:

>Dr. Steve, How many copies of our letter do we need to send to the FCC?
>Paul Gates
>K1  #0231
>KX1 #1186
>XG1
>[hidden email]
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stephen W. Kercel" <[hidden email]>
>To: "elecraft" <[hidden email]>
>Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 4:28 PM
>Subject: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test
>
>
> > Elecrafters:
> >
> > I realize that this issue has been visited before, but this message is
> > more
> > a call to action than simply venting a complaint.
> >
> > FCC Notice 05-235 has come out in the Federal Register and comments are
> > due
> > by October 31.
> >
> > There are a great many of us who would at least like to see a CW
> > requirement maintained for the Extra Class  exam. There is a very small
> > (but real) chance that the FCC would do that if they are provided with
> > novel and compelling reasons. (Note: The traditional arguments, such as
> > "Without the code test, ham radio will become another Citizen's Band," are
> > known to the FCC, and they are unconvinced by them. We need to get the FCC
> > to say, "Gee, we never thought of that.") If you'd like to see some
> > semblance of a code test preserved, this is the time to think outside the
> > box.
> >
> > Will such comments assure that the FCC will change their minds? Maybe not.
> > However, the way for us to guarantee that the code requirement is dropped
> > for all classes is for us to do nothing.
> >
> > In the spirit of participatory democracy, I urge all US list members to
> > file their comments, irrespective of their positions on the issue. (I
> > expect that the list members should get used to filing FCC comments. There
> > is worse on the way. The British government has already floated a trial
> > balloon to drop ham licensing altogether in the UK. It is only a matter of
> > time before the FCC tries to follow their bad example.)
> >
> > If you are unfamiliar with how to file, you can check out the Web site of
> > my local club:
> >
> > www.ks1r.net
> >
> >
> > There I have posted an explanation of how to file and a copy of my filing
> > to serve as a template.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Steve Kercel
> > AA4AK
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Post to: [hidden email]
> > You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> >  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
> >

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[wayne burdick]

I really enjoy CW but life/work/family interferes with pursuing it. I
bet this is the case for many of us.

But I'm trying to make more time for operating (QSO a day keeps the FCC
at bay?), on the theory that increased utilization of the CW segments
can't hurt the cause. I sometimes wonder if an Elecraft "Worked All HF
CW Segments Recently" certificate would be a step in the right
direction ;)

See you on the air?

73,
Wayne
N6KR


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Wayne:

Certainly there is a principle of use it or lose it. If there is a movement
down the road to eliminate the CW (or narrow bandwidth, if ARRL gets its
way) segments, the key argument will be (whether valid or not) that they
are relatively unused.

Thus, irrespective of how the code test thing turns out, we need to occupy
the space.

73,

Steve
AA4AK


At 08:23 PM 9/1/2005 -0700, wayne burdick wrote:

>I really enjoy CW but life/work/family interferes with pursuing it. I bet
>this is the case for many of us.
>
>But I'm trying to make more time for operating (QSO a day keeps the FCC at
>bay?), on the theory that increased utilization of the CW segments can't
>hurt the cause. I sometimes wonder if an Elecraft "Worked All HF CW
>Segments Recently" certificate would be a step in the right direction ;)
>
>See you on the air?
>
>73,
>Wayne
>N6KR
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Post to: [hidden email]
>You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
>Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
>Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 9/1/05 4:30:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

> There  are  a  great  many  of  us who would at least like to see a CW
>    requirement  maintained  for  the  Extra  Class  exam. There is a very
>    small  (but  real)  chance  that  the  FCC  would  do that if they are
>    provided  with  novel  and  compelling reasons. (Note: The traditional
>    arguments,  such  as  "Without  the  code  test, ham radio will become
>    another   Citizen's  Band,"  are  known  to  the  FCC,  and  they  are
>    unconvinced  by  them.  We  need to get the FCC to say, "Gee, we never
>    thought  of that.") If you'd like to see some semblance of a code test
>    preserved, this is the time to think outside the box.
>

Some ideas:

1) Don't compromise on what you really want. FCC has a history of going a
step farther, so a comment for Extra only code tests looks to them like a comment
for none at all. If you think Element 1 should stay, say so!

2) Point out the wide use of Morse Code on HF by hams, and particularly its
use by hams who are technically inclined, homebrewers, etc.

3) Despite the popularity of the mode, hams using Morse Code are rarely the
subject of FCC enforcement actions.

4) Take the time to read the NPRM a couple of times, and specifically comment
on FCC statements that you disagree with. For example, FCC called the FISTS
recommendations of written-test changes "vague", yet they specifically spelled
out exact steps to be taken to improve the written tests.

5) The reductions and eliminations in Morse Code testing since 1990 have not
resulted in longterm changes in the growth of US amateur radio. Nor have they
resulted in an increase in technical development, etc.

6) Suggest that FCC could do something similar to Canada (they still have
code testing, but the grade is considered part of the overall testing, not a
go/nogo standalone element).

7) Suggest that if the code test is eliminated, the bottom 15% of each HF
band should be set aside for Morse Code only.

8) Write your comments in the standards form used by many commenters. (search
ECFS for my comments to previous proposals - last name "Miccolis")

9) Include a brief description of your amateur and professional experience,
education, etc. Whil it may feel like bragging, the FCC does look at who is
commenting as well as what they say.

10) Take your time, spellcheck, proofread, etc. It really matters.


Just IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stephen W. Kercel]

   At 09:09 AM 9/2/2005 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:

     In  a  message  dated  9/1/05  4:30:13  PM  Eastern  Daylight Time,
     [hidden email] writes:

     There  are  a  great  many  of  us who would at least like to see a
     CW
         requirement  maintained  for  the  Extra  Class  exam. There is
     a very
         small   (but   real)  chance  that  the  FCC  would  do that if
     they are
         provided   with   novel   and   compelling  reasons. (Note: The
     traditional
         arguments,  such  as  "Without  the  code  test, ham radio will
     become
         another    Citizen's   Band,"   are   known  to  the  FCC,  and
     they  are
        unconvinced  by  them.  We  need to get the FCC to say, "Gee, we
     never
         thought   of  that.")  If you'd like to see some semblance of a
     code test
        preserved, this is the time to think outside the box.

     Some ideas:
     1)  Don't  compromise on what you really want. FCC has a history of
     going  a step farther, so a comment for Extra only code tests looks
     to  them  like  a  comment  for none at all. If you think Element 1
     should stay, say so!
     2)  Point  out  the  wide  use  of  Morse  Code  on HF by hams, and
     particularly   its  use  by  hams  who  are  technically  inclined,
     homebrewers, etc.
     3)  Despite  the  popularity of the mode, hams using Morse Code are
     rarely the subject of FCC enforcement actions.
     4)  Take  the  time  to  read  the  NPRM  a  couple  of  times, and
     specifically  comment on FCC statements that you disagree with. For
     example,  FCC  called  the  FISTS  recommendations  of written-test
     changes  "vague",  yet they specifically spelled out exact steps to
     be taken to improve the written tests.
     5) The reductions and eliminations in Morse Code testing since 1990
     have  not  resulted in longterm changes in the growth of US amateur
     radio.   Nor  have  they  resulted  in  an  increase  in  technical
     development, etc.
     6)  Suggest  that  FCC  could  do something similar to Canada (they
     still  have  code  testing, but the grade is considered part of the
     overall testing, not a go/nogo standalone element).
     7)  Suggest  that if the code test is eliminated, the bottom 15% of
     each HF band should be set aside for Morse Code only.
     8)  Write  your  comments  in  the  standards  form  used  by  many
     commenters.  (search  ECFS  for my comments to previous proposals -
     last name "Miccolis")
     9)  Include  a  brief  description of your amateur and professional
     experience, education, etc. Whil it may feel like bragging, the FCC
     does look at who is commenting as well as what they say.
     10) Take your time, spellcheck, proofread, etc. It really matters.
     Just IMHO
     73 de Jim, N2EY

   Jim:
   Your HO includes quite a bit of wisdom.
   A few specific reactions:
   1)  Although  many on the list will not agree with me, the reason that
   my  filing is an argument keeping an "Extra only" code test is because
   I  actually  believe it. Speaking only for myself, I have no objection
   opening  the HF bands to people only interested in digital; so long as
   they keep out of the CW-only segments.
   2)  I  personally  agree  with  the  "wide  use of CW by home brewers"
   argument;  it  does  illustrate the fundamental principle of advancing
   the  radio  art.  However,  I  offer  as  how the argument needs to be
   included  in  a  context of other arguments; the FCC is unpersuaded by
   this argument alone.
   3)  This  one  is wonderful! I do not recall its having been mentioned
   before.   Do   you   have  statistics?  Are  they  readily  available?
   Bureaucrats  like  numbers.  If one could show that 99.9% (or whatever
   large  fraction) of enforcement actions are against non-CW operations,
   it would be a telling point.
   4) This is a must. It is clear to me from many of the comments already
   filed  that  the commentor has not read the Notice. Such comments will
   be  dismissed  out  of  hand.  As your FISTS example demonstrates, one
   needs  to  find  the  factual errors in the Notice (easy to do because
   there are so many) and refute them in a polite but compelling manner.
   5) Another true point.
   6) Intriguing.
   7)  Keeping  "CW  only"  segments  is  critical.  Unfortunately,  mode
   allocation   is  outside  the  scope  of  05-235.  I  would  encourage
   commentors on 05-235 to focus on the code test. However, there will be
   future threats to the CW segments, and whenever the FCC floats a trial
   balloon on that idea we need to strangle it in the cradle.
   8)  This  is  very  important.  Preparing the comments in the standard
   format adds enormous credibility.
   9)  Yes,  including the commentor's relevant credentials is a critical
   element  of  the  filing;  it  is  not bragging. These invitations for
   public  comment  are  not  a  popularity  survey; they are intended to
   uncover  considerations that have previously escaped the FCC's notice.
   Arguments  that  can  be  credibly presented as "expert opinion" weigh
   more heavily than those that appear (whether rightly or wrongly) to be
   sentiment or speculation.
   10)  Yes,  especially proofreading by human eyes. It is important that
   the   filing  look  professional  and  carefully  prepared.  A  sloppy
   presentation  predisposes  the reader to presume that the reasoning is
   sloppy as well.
   73,
   Steve
   AA4AK
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Dan Romanchik KB6NU]

Are there any novel and compelling reasons for keeping the
code test? I'm not sure there are. None of N2EY's points are
really good reasons for keeping the code test. For example,
he points out that CW is still quite popular with only a 5
wpm requirement. I rather doubt that dropping the test
entirely is going to diminish the mode's popularity.

Instead of wasting time complaining about the FCC dropping
the testing requirement, CW enthusiasts should be promoting
its use. One thing you can do is get on the air and make a
CW contact or two every day. Another is to encourage all
your amateur friends to work more CW. Invite them over to
your shack and show them how much fun working CW can be.
Make CDs with the K7QO and G4FON courses and pass them out
at club meetings, hamfests, etc.

73!

Dan KB6NU

Stephen W. Kercel wrote:

>    At 09:09 AM 9/2/2005 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>      In  a  message  dated  9/1/05  4:30:13  PM  Eastern  Daylight Time,
>      [hidden email] writes:
>
>      There  are  a  great  many  of  us who would at least like to see a
>      CW
>          requirement  maintained  for  the  Extra  Class  exam. There is
>      a very
>          small   (but   real)  chance  that  the  FCC  would  do that if
>      they are
>          provided   with   novel   and   compelling  reasons. (Note: The
>      traditional
>          arguments,  such  as  "Without  the  code  test, ham radio will
>      become
>          another    Citizen's   Band,"   are   known  to  the  FCC,  and
>      they  are
>         unconvinced  by  them.  We  need to get the FCC to say, "Gee, we
>      never
>          thought   of  that.")  If you'd like to see some semblance of a
>      code test
>         preserved, this is the time to think outside the box.
>
>      Some ideas:
>      1)  Don't  compromise on what you really want. FCC has a history of
>      going  a step farther, so a comment for Extra only code tests looks
>      to  them  like  a  comment  for none at all. If you think Element 1
>      should stay, say so!
>      2)  Point  out  the  wide  use  of  Morse  Code  on HF by hams, and
>      particularly   its  use  by  hams  who  are  technically  inclined,
>      homebrewers, etc.
>      3)  Despite  the  popularity of the mode, hams using Morse Code are
>      rarely the subject of FCC enforcement actions.
>      4)  Take  the  time  to  read  the  NPRM  a  couple  of  times, and
>      specifically  comment on FCC statements that you disagree with. For
>      example,  FCC  called  the  FISTS  recommendations  of written-test
>      changes  "vague",  yet they specifically spelled out exact steps to
>      be taken to improve the written tests.
>      5) The reductions and eliminations in Morse Code testing since 1990
>      have  not  resulted in longterm changes in the growth of US amateur
>      radio.   Nor  have  they  resulted  in  an  increase  in  technical
>      development, etc.
>      6)  Suggest  that  FCC  could  do something similar to Canada (they
>      still  have  code  testing, but the grade is considered part of the
>      overall testing, not a go/nogo standalone element).
>      7)  Suggest  that if the code test is eliminated, the bottom 15% of
>      each HF band should be set aside for Morse Code only.
>      8)  Write  your  comments  in  the  standards  form  used  by  many
>      commenters.  (search  ECFS  for my comments to previous proposals -
>      last name "Miccolis")
>      9)  Include  a  brief  description of your amateur and professional
>      experience, education, etc. Whil it may feel like bragging, the FCC
>      does look at who is commenting as well as what they say.
>      10) Take your time, spellcheck, proofread, etc. It really matters.
>      Just IMHO
>      73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>    Jim:
>    Your HO includes quite a bit of wisdom.
>    A few specific reactions:
>    1)  Although  many on the list will not agree with me, the reason that
>    my  filing is an argument keeping an "Extra only" code test is because
>    I  actually  believe it. Speaking only for myself, I have no objection
>    opening  the HF bands to people only interested in digital; so long as
>    they keep out of the CW-only segments.
>    2)  I  personally  agree  with  the  "wide  use of CW by home brewers"
>    argument;  it  does  illustrate the fundamental principle of advancing
>    the  radio  art.  However,  I  offer  as  how the argument needs to be
>    included  in  a  context of other arguments; the FCC is unpersuaded by
>    this argument alone.
>    3)  This  one  is wonderful! I do not recall its having been mentioned
>    before.   Do   you   have  statistics?  Are  they  readily  available?
>    Bureaucrats  like  numbers.  If one could show that 99.9% (or whatever
>    large  fraction) of enforcement actions are against non-CW operations,
>    it would be a telling point.
>    4) This is a must. It is clear to me from many of the comments already
>    filed  that  the commentor has not read the Notice. Such comments will
>    be  dismissed  out  of  hand.  As your FISTS example demonstrates, one
>    needs  to  find  the  factual errors in the Notice (easy to do because
>    there are so many) and refute them in a polite but compelling manner.
>    5) Another true point.
>    6) Intriguing.
>    7)  Keeping  "CW  only"  segments  is  critical.  Unfortunately,  mode
>    allocation   is  outside  the  scope  of  05-235.  I  would  encourage
>    commentors on 05-235 to focus on the code test. However, there will be
>    future threats to the CW segments, and whenever the FCC floats a trial
>    balloon on that idea we need to strangle it in the cradle.
>    8)  This  is  very  important.  Preparing the comments in the standard
>    format adds enormous credibility.
>    9)  Yes,  including the commentor's relevant credentials is a critical
>    element  of  the  filing;  it  is  not bragging. These invitations for
>    public  comment  are  not  a  popularity  survey; they are intended to
>    uncover  considerations that have previously escaped the FCC's notice.
>    Arguments  that  can  be  credibly presented as "expert opinion" weigh
>    more heavily than those that appear (whether rightly or wrongly) to be
>    sentiment or speculation.
>    10)  Yes,  especially proofreading by human eyes. It is important that
>    the   filing  look  professional  and  carefully  prepared.  A  sloppy
>    presentation  predisposes  the reader to presume that the reasoning is
>    sloppy as well.
>    73,
>    Steve
>    AA4AK
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Craig Rairdin]

> Are there any novel and compelling reasons for keeping the
> code test?

Since we seem to be opening this topic again, let me repeat something I said
before: The written tests (at least the Extra Class exam) already require
knowledge of the fine details of certain modes, such as the level of black
and white in SSTV transmissions. Requiring applicants to know 5 WPM Morse
code is not unlike requiring knowledge of the details of these other modes.

In lieu of a 5 WPM code test, I would not be opposed to putting code
questions on the written test. All 40-50 letters, numbers, punctuations, and
prosigns could be put in the question pool. One or two questions could be
drawn at random in any particular test.

I'm in favor of 5 WPM for Extra (actually, I'm in favor of 20 WPM for Extra,
but I'm a fair, flexible, open-minded kind of a guy) but would accept a
couple alternatives: 1) put the code in the written test as described above,
or 2) remove all questions about the specifics of any given mode from the
written test. You can search the list archives or browse the test questions
for specific examples of questions that are candidates for removal.

Craig
NZ0R
K1 #1966
K2/100 #4941

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jessie Oberreuter]

      I'm a little behind on QRP-L, and I'm trying to avoid contributing
noise on the topic, but this one slipped through and caught my attention.

      I'm not sure how compelling this might be to the FCC, but it means a
lot to me:  I think of Extra Class licensees as elmers and mentors.  As
such, I expect an Extra Class holder to be at least knowledgeable about,
if not proficient in, a much wider range of radio activities than the
other classes.  Indeed, I expect an Extra to have explored activities and
modes that he or she may not even be personally interested in simply
because without doing that leg work, one can't be an effective mentor for
other hams with different interests.  For example, I have virtually no
interest in operating PSK31, but I took the time to build a warbler and
play with the mode simply so I could offer the option to a friend who
likes radio, but has a hard time hearing in the presents of typical band
noise. Similarly, I have no interest in ATV, but spent time pursuing it
just so I could help a friend who /was/ interested get a start.  Thus,
when I run into an Extra Class op on the air who can't exchange a name and
RST at 5wpm, I feel let down: how can you claim to be a contributor to the
art and community without making even the most basic investment in the
second most popular operating mode?
      The incentive to become an Extra should not be the bandwidth -- it
should be the recognition that you are a person who cares enough about the
hobby to become a well versed contributor.

      Thanks for the bandwidth, de kb7psg.

>>      Some ideas:
>>      1)  Don't  compromise on what you really want. FCC has a history of
>>      going  a step farther, so a comment for Extra only code tests looks
>>      to  them  like  a  comment  for none at all. If you think Element 1
>>      should stay, say so!
>>      2)  Point  out  the  wide  use  of  Morse  Code  on HF by hams, and
>>      particularly   its  use  by  hams  who  are  technically  inclined,
>>      homebrewers, etc.
>>      3)  Despite  the  popularity of the mode, hams using Morse Code are
>>      rarely the subject of FCC enforcement actions.
>>      4)  Take  the  time  to  read  the  NPRM  a  couple  of  times, and
>>      specifically  comment on FCC statements that you disagree with. For
>>      example,  FCC  called  the  FISTS  recommendations  of written-test
>>      changes  "vague",  yet they specifically spelled out exact steps to
>>      be taken to improve the written tests.
>>      5) The reductions and eliminations in Morse Code testing since 1990
>>      have  not  resulted in longterm changes in the growth of US amateur
>>      radio.   Nor  have  they  resulted  in  an  increase  in  technical
>>      development, etc.
>>      6)  Suggest  that  FCC  could  do something similar to Canada (they
>>      still  have  code  testing, but the grade is considered part of the
>>      overall testing, not a go/nogo standalone element).
>>      7)  Suggest  that if the code test is eliminated, the bottom 15% of
>>      each HF band should be set aside for Morse Code only.
>>      8)  Write  your  comments  in  the  standards  form  used  by  many
>>      commenters.  (search  ECFS  for my comments to previous proposals -
>>      last name "Miccolis")
>>      9)  Include  a  brief  description of your amateur and professional>>      experience, education, etc. Whil it may feel like bragging, the FCC
>>      does look at who is commenting as well as what they say.
>>      10) Take your time, spellcheck, proofread, etc. It really matters.
>>      Just IMHO
>>      73 de Jim, N2EY

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Jessie:

Your point is well taken. If you have not already done so, I would
encourage you to repeat it in a filing to the FCC.

73,

Steve
AA4AK


At 02:12 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Jessie Oberreuter wrote:

>      I'm a little behind on QRP-L, and I'm trying to avoid contributing
> noise on the topic, but this one slipped through and caught my attention.
>
>      I'm not sure how compelling this might be to the FCC, but it means a
> lot to me:  I think of Extra Class licensees as elmers and mentors.  As
> such, I expect an Extra Class holder to be at least knowledgeable about,
> if not proficient in, a much wider range of radio activities than the
> other classes.  Indeed, I expect an Extra to have explored activities and
> modes that he or she may not even be personally interested in simply
> because without doing that leg work, one can't be an effective mentor for
> other hams with different interests.  For example, I have virtually no
> interest in operating PSK31, but I took the time to build a warbler and
> play with the mode simply so I could offer the option to a friend who
> likes radio, but has a hard time hearing in the presents of typical band
> noise. Similarly, I have no interest in ATV, but spent time pursuing it
> just so I could help a friend who /was/ interested get a start.  Thus,
> when I run into an Extra Class op on the air who can't exchange a name
> and RST at 5wpm, I feel let down: how can you claim to be a contributor
> to the art and community without making even the most basic investment in
> the second most popular operating mode?
>      The incentive to become an Extra should not be the bandwidth -- it
> should be the recognition that you are a person who cares enough about
> the hobby to become a well versed contributor.
>
>      Thanks for the bandwidth, de kb7psg.
>
>
>>>      Some ideas:
>>>      1)  Don't  compromise on what you really want. FCC has a history of
>>>      going  a step farther, so a comment for Extra only code tests looks
>>>      to  them  like  a  comment  for none at all. If you think Element 1
>>>      should stay, say so!
>>>      2)  Point  out  the  wide  use  of  Morse  Code  on HF by hams, and
>>>      particularly   its  use  by  hams  who  are  technically  inclined,
>>>      homebrewers, etc.
>>>      3)  Despite  the  popularity of the mode, hams using Morse Code are
>>>      rarely the subject of FCC enforcement actions.
>>>      4)  Take  the  time  to  read  the  NPRM  a  couple  of  times, and
>>>      specifically  comment on FCC statements that you disagree with. For
>>>      example,  FCC  called  the  FISTS  recommendations  of written-test
>>>      changes  "vague",  yet they specifically spelled out exact steps to
>>>      be taken to improve the written tests.
>>>      5) The reductions and eliminations in Morse Code testing since 1990
>>>      have  not  resulted in longterm changes in the growth of US amateur
>>>      radio.   Nor  have  they  resulted  in  an  increase  in  technical
>>>      development, etc.
>>>      6)  Suggest  that  FCC  could  do something similar to Canada (they
>>>      still  have  code  testing, but the grade is considered part of the
>>>      overall testing, not a go/nogo standalone element).
>>>      7)  Suggest  that if the code test is eliminated, the bottom 15% of
>>>      each HF band should be set aside for Morse Code only.
>>>      8)  Write  your  comments  in  the  standards  form  used  by  many
>>>      commenters.  (search  ECFS  for my comments to previous proposals -
>>>      last name "Miccolis")
>>>      9)  Include  a  brief  description of your amateur and
>>> professional>>      experience, education, etc. Whil it may feel like
>>> bragging, the FCC
>>>      does look at who is commenting as well as what they say.
>>>      10) Take your time, spellcheck, proofread, etc. It really matters.
>>>      Just IMHO
>>>      73 de Jim, N2EY

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Dan:

See interposed comments.

73,

Steve
AA4AK



>Instead of wasting time complaining about the FCC dropping the testing
>requirement, CW enthusiasts should be promoting its use.

***************
I am not asking the list members to waste their time with recreational
complaining.

I am asking that the list members answer the FCC's call for comments in the
expectation that the FCC will be influenced by well reasoned input. Failing
to do so is like failing to vote in an election. If someone does not like
the outcome, but did nothing personally to try to stop it, they have nobody
to blame but themselves.
****************


>One thing you can do is get on the air and make a CW contact or two every
>day. Another is to encourage all your amateur friends to work more CW.
>Invite them over to your shack and show them how much fun working CW can
>be. Make CDs with the K7QO and G4FON courses and pass them out at club
>meetings, hamfests, etc.

******************
As I've already noted, I certainly agree with a "use it or lose it"
principle to CW operating. It is a very unusual day that I do not have a CW
contact. I work no other modes.
*******************


>73!
>
>Dan KB6NU


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jim Brown-10]

>>Instead of wasting time complaining about the FCC dropping the testing
>>requirement, CW enthusiasts should be promoting its use.

Strongly agree. I'm a CW guy. I own some mics, but I work SSB only for
contests.

Last night I tuned around the CW portions of 80, 40, 30, and 20. This morning,
I did the same. DEAD!  One QSO going on 80, one Q and some guys chasing two DX
stations on 40, two Q's on 30, a couple of weak signals on 20.

I put out more than a dozen CQ's (4x4 each time) on 40 with 500 w into a
decent dipole. No responses. Only Q was FO/N6JA that I called on 40. Granted,
the bands haven't been great lately, but I counted fewer than a dozen Q's
going on at one time, split between four CW bands!  

Last year, I went to a lot of trouble to get a wire to work on 160. Virtually
the only time I can use it is during contests. Any other time, if I call CQ or
tune up, someone complains that I shouldn't get in the way of their DX chasing
(and I'm not in the window).

Use it or lose it! Don't blame the FCC for CW inactivity -- it's US!

Jim Brown  K9YC


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stephen W. Kercel]

>I sometimes wonder if an Elecraft "Worked All HF CW Segments Recently"
>certificate would be a step in the right direction ;)
>
>See you on the air?
>
>73,
>Wayne
>N6KR


Wayne:

In keeping with a number of comments on the list there is something useful
that Elecraft could do. You might consider a "CW QSO Every day Award;" to
win the prize, the applicant must make a signed statement that he/she has
made a CW contact on 365 consecutive days. Instead of checking 365 QSL
cards, use the Honor System like ARRL does on QRP DXCC. There is not much
motivation to lie; the reason for bucking for the award would be to do
one's bit to keep the CW segments occupied. In fact, you might offer a
sweetened incentive by giving a plaque (perhaps at the applicants expense)
for anyone who does 30-plus minute daily CW ragchews for 365 consecutive
days. Maybe post the pictures of the winners on the Elecraft Web site or
some such thing.

73,

Steve
AA4AK




_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Kevin Rock]

All y'all may think of firing up the rig and joining the Elecraft CW Net.  
We try to make a bit of noise on 20 meters on Sunday.  Other than that I
do make CW contacts almost every day of the week.  I don't know about the
rest of you but I need to take a break and do chores which span multiple
pages on my voluminous Honey Do list.  Thus I take a break on Saturday to
do what ever I am told (asked?).

I do get on the air.  I use CW.  The bands may not be fantastic but I work
at least an hour a day every day except Saturday.  Some nights I run in
other CW nets or on the NTS system.  Occasionally I sneak in a contact on
Saturday night when SWMBO is not looking or when I've been especially
good.  Ten hours a week on the air using CW should hold up my end of the
bargain.
    73 and I'll hear you on the air.
       Kevin.  KD5ONS  dit-dit


On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:55:45 -0400, Stephen W. Kercel
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Wayne:
>
> In keeping with a number of comments on the list there is something
> useful that Elecraft could do. You might consider a "CW QSO Every day
> Award;" to win the prize, the applicant must make a signed statement
> that he/she has made a CW contact on 365 consecutive days. Instead of
> checking 365 QSL cards, use the Honor System like ARRL does on QRP DXCC.
> There is not much motivation to lie; the reason for bucking for the
> award would be to do one's bit to keep the CW segments occupied. In
> fact, you might offer a sweetened incentive by giving a plaque (perhaps
> at the applicants expense) for anyone who does 30-plus minute daily CW
> ragchews for 365 consecutive days. Maybe post the pictures of the
> winners on the Elecraft Web site or some such thing.
>
> 73,
>
> Steve
> AA4AK

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Larry Makoski W2LJ]

Steve,

The North American QRP CW Club is sponsoring such an award.

http://www.arm-tek.net/~yoel/qsoaday.html

73 de Larry W2LJ

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bill Coleman-2]

On Sep 2, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Stephen W. Kercel wrote:

>    Your HO includes quite a bit of wisdom.
>    A few specific reactions:
>    1)  .... Speaking only for myself, I have no objection
>    opening  the HF bands to people only interested in digital; so  
> long as
>    they keep out of the CW-only segments.
...
>    7)  Keeping  "CW  only"  segments  is  critical.  
> Unfortunately,  mode
>    allocation   is  outside  the  scope  of  05-235.  I  would  
> encourage
>    commentors on 05-235 to focus on the code test. However, there  
> will be
>    future threats to the CW segments, and whenever the FCC floats a  
> trial
>    balloon on that idea we need to strangle it in the cradle.
...

This is where I point out that there are NOT CW-only segments on HF.  
The only CW-only allocations are on VHF (50.0-50.1, 144.0-144.1)

CW is allowed EVERYWHERE. Other modes are currently confined to  
restricted subbands.

The key to keeping CW is to use it, IMHO.

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: [hidden email]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

There was a time when getting an extra class license in the USA required
first having years of experience as an Amateur Radio licensee, then passing
tests significantly harder than the those for the other exams, both theory
and code.

The "Extra" was something one expected only those who had done a lot of
self-study and work, or someone who had a good technical school education
would try for.

Times change...

Ron AC7AC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Dan:

I agree that in all likelihood the FCC will drop the CW requirement for all
classes, and Western Civilization will not collapse as a consequence.
However, I think it is useful to file comments, in the unlikely case that
the FCC just might listen.

Nevertheless, as several people including you have mentioned, the real
issue for us CW jocks is peopling the bands and encouraging non-CW hams to
take up the mode.

I see several specific steps that could help:

1) The idea that Wayne brought up half in jest, of having an award for lots
of CW contacts might be useful. I wonder if maybe some respected
institution like QCWA might sponsor such an activity. In fact, I may bounce
it off some of my friends in QCWA.

2) KX-1 owners (I'm not one now, but expect to be soon) could show off
(i.e., actually demonstrate) their rigs in club meeting programs, hamfest
forums, field days, SETs and so on. Nothing is quite as impressive as
showing people that you can do effective communications with a rig you can
fit into a shirt pocket.

3) I think it would be especially useful to have KX-1 owners participate in
organized emergency drills.  Here in Maine, emergency communications is
extremely popular. It occurs to me that having several KX-1s in a drill is
a dramatic demonstration of "here's how we do it when the repeater goes down."

4) I've been discussing with some colleagues of mine in the UNE Psych
department a radical new strategy for teaching the code by harnessing the
brain's natural synesthetic abilities. If I get the kinks worked out, I may
try it on some of the local club members who have expressed an interest in
learning the code. If I get it right, it will make learning the code far
easier than conventional strategies.

73,
Steve
AA4AK

At 08:12 PM 9/2/2005 -0400, you wrote:

>Steve--
>
>I don't want to beat a dead horse, but even though I'm about as big a CW
>man as you can get, I've yet to hear a unique and compelling reason to
>keep the Morse Code requirement. Without those compelling reasons, filing
>a comment with the FCC is really a waste of time. This is not an election,
>and filing a comment is not like casting a ballot.
>
>The biggest waste of resources I've seen to date is the FISTS special
>issue on the FCC's NPRM. They printed and mailed to every member the text
>of the NPRM and urged FISTS members to file comments critical of this
>move. I think the money would have been better spent sending out more K7QO
>CDs and sponsoring CW classes and contests.
>
>CW is not going to go away should the rules be changed. There are plenty
>of CW ops, like you and me who love the mode, and the many advantages will
>keep pulling in new CW ops.
>
>Let's spend our time wisely. And in my humble opinion, the way to do that
>is to talk up CW when we can, demonstrate it to people whenever and
>wherever, and teach newcomers how much fun it can be. That will make much
>more of an impact than filing a comment with the FCC.
>
>73, Dan KB6NU
>p.s. If you really want to file a comment with the FCC on this NPRM, might
>I suggest that you file one noting that they decided against creating a
>new entry-level class with some HF priviledges. I think this does more
>harm to CW operation than dropping the code requirement. Too many
>licensees get stuck in "Tech hell" where just about all they're prepared
>to do is talk on a repeater. How boring and useless is that?
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jack Brindle]

I disagree. The Extra written exam is significantly harder today than  
it was 30 years ago. There is a lot more detailed EE theory in it now  
than there was back then. I took the test twice - in 1974, when I  
didn't have the EE knowledge (but _was_ a student in EE), and last  
October (well after earning my degrees). This one was far harder than  
the first try, even if I did miss only two questions. The degrees, 25  
years of EE/CS experience and a lot of advanced experimentation in  
digital communication modes (both in ham radio and professionally)  
really helped. The only way I could see non-technical folks passing  
the exam is to memorize all the questions/answers.

I believe that it is important to keep the Extra test hard - with  
advanced technology questions. But is CW important for the exam?  
Probably about as much as knowing which PN codes are the best for  
Spread Spectrum, and why. Or maybe why FEC is used in data  
transmissions and how to design a good scheme. Perhaps things like  
that should be on the exam...

The use of CW is an important and very enjoyable part of ham radio,  
just as much as any other mode. At this point it is important for us  
to once again fill the bands with CW, voice and data transmissions or  
we will start to lose them (as is being attempted by the BPL folks).  
If it takes deleting the CW requirement to accomplish that, then go  
for it!


On Sep 2, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> There was a time when getting an extra class license in the USA  
> required
> first having years of experience as an Amateur Radio licensee, then  
> passing
> tests significantly harder than the those for the other exams, both  
> theory
> and code.
>
> The "Extra" was something one expected only those who had done a  
> lot of
> self-study and work, or someone who had a good technical school  
> education
> would try for.
>
> Times change...
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

- Jack Brindle, W6FB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[EricJ-2]

 
So doesn't that make those portions of a band where other modes are not
allowed "CW Only"?

Eric
KE6US
www.ke6us.com


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bill Coleman


CW is allowed EVERYWHERE. Other modes are currently confined to restricted
subbands.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com