Elecraft

OT: Some "No Code" background

Classic

List

Threaded

9 messages Options

Ken G Kopp

OT: Some "No Code" background

I got one of the 1st Novice licenses issued ... in September, 1951. Took
the exam in Oklahoma City, where the FCC came only once per year. My
"Elmer" was a retired Navy CW op and I was taught well. Long ago I was a
commercial shipboard RO on a NOAA vessel.

I'm one of the six people who created the "no code" license. In what I
consider one of the greatest honors in my Amateur Radio ... I -detest- the
name "ham" ... career the ARRL appointed me as one of the six members of
their No Code Study Committee. BTW, each of us were / are die-hard CW
operators.

We we --told-- by the FCC that we would be getting some form of codeless
licensing and we should come up with something that most could live with.
Lots of "details" were covered over a year and a half of meetings,
conference calls, etc.

I still have a large box of pro and con correspondence in the attic. The
number of letters is about equally divided.

An example of the results ... yesterday I had a KE0 proudly tell me he'd
just passed his "expert" license, and, his radio emitted a multi-tone CB
"roger beep" each time he unkeyed his microphone.

Without the "no code" license we most likely wouldn't have Amateur Radio
with the record 750K licenses we have today, and there's political "safety
in numbers".

Please, let's not start a thread on the subject. I just thought some
"first person" input would be of interest.

73

Ken Kopp - K0PP
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Kevin - K4VD

Re: OT: Some "No Code" background

Hi Ken:

As a CW operator, I think you did well in helping to secure the future of
Amateur Radio (proud to be a ham). Years later it seems apparent to me the
impact has been generally positive.

Your last comment... "Please, let's not start a thread on the subject. I
just thought some "first person" input would be of interest."

Seems like an odd statement to make to a discussion group. I assume you are
trying to avoid a code/no-code argument.

73,
Kev K4VD
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

N6WN

Re: OT: Some "No Code" background

In reply to this post by Ken G Kopp

Ken
I have learning disabilities.
It would have been impossible for me to get an Amateur Radio license
without your efforts.

I have spent been 5 years trying to learn code and am now am almost
competent at receiving 12wpm (I am trying to learn it because it is hard
for me and hits all my weaknesses --- a masochist.).

I would never have tried to learn code unless I had an Amateur Radio license
first.

Thanks and 73
Dan Curtis
N6WN

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Ken G Kopp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I got one of the 1st Novice licenses issued ... in September, 1951. Took
> the exam in Oklahoma City, where the FCC came only once per year. My
> "Elmer" was a retired Navy CW op and I was taught well. Long ago I was a
> commercial shipboard RO on a NOAA vessel.
>
> I'm one of the six people who created the "no code" license. In what I
> consider one of the greatest honors in my Amateur Radio ... I -detest- the
> name "ham" ... career the ARRL appointed me as one of the six members of
> their No Code Study Committee. BTW, each of us were / are die-hard CW
> operators.
>
> We we --told-- by the FCC that we would be getting some form of codeless
> licensing and we should come up with something that most could live with.
> Lots of "details" were covered over a year and a half of meetings,
> conference calls, etc.
>
> I still have a large box of pro and con correspondence in the attic. The
> number of letters is about equally divided.
>
> An example of the results ... yesterday I had a KE0 proudly tell me he'd
> just passed his "expert" license, and, his radio emitted a multi-tone CB
> "roger beep" each time he unkeyed his microphone.
>
> Without the "no code" license we most likely wouldn't have Amateur Radio
> with the record 750K licenses we have today, and there's political "safety
> in numbers".
>
> Please, let's not start a thread on the subject. I just thought some
> "first person" input would be of interest.
>
> 73
>
> Ken Kopp - K0PP
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

N6WN --- Question everything, even this!

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: OT: Some "No Code" background

In reply to this post by Ken G Kopp

Given that amateur radio in the US is now completely "no code" - there
is no need to become proficient even for an Amateur Extra class license
- the early "no code" steps were a Faustian bargain just as the fiction
of "semi-automatic control" for digital operations was a Faustian
bargain.

As much as it pains me to say, we would arguably be better off with
fewer licensees and maintaining a reasonable standard for entry. There
is no credible evidence that amateurs can continue to advance the state
of the art and evidence to the contrary that the current license base
represents a trained pool of operators. The quality of operators and
the behavior heard on the air today is abhorrent when judged by the
standards of 15 years ago.

Perhaps it is time to review the basis and purpose behind amateur radio
and move to a "national park" model. That is a place for those who
have proven that they have the necessary skills to continue to practice
those "ancient" and no longer commercially viable skills. Consider it
the "primitive" areas of the National Parks

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 8/1/2016 5:18 PM, Ken G Kopp wrote:

Rose

Re: OT: Some "No Code" background

Yeah but ... (;-)

Your arguments are correct....

Even at the time of the no code committee meetings it was glaringly
apparent that it was ... essentially ... a case of raw numbers.
Politically we needed ... and now even more so ... need our "body count" in
the face of the economic and political challenges to our
frequencies. The FCC told us this in no uncertain terms.

You should have seen what they initially proposed in their version before
we tweaked it!

73

K0PP
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

EricJ-2

Re: OT: Some "No Code" background

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

I agree with this paragraph, Joe, however, I strongly disagree that a
knowledge of CW at any speed is a reasonable or even a relevant standard
for entry in the 21st Century. There is no evidence that a knowledge of
CW makes a license holder better equipped to advance the state of the
art either. Certainly the quality of some operators and their behavior
is abhorrent, but it is more a reflection of the general population than
it is lack of code proficiency. Furthermore, proof before an examiner of
code proficiency doesn't say anything at all about a trained pool of
operators, esp. in an age when nobody but hobbyists use code anymore.
What are they training for?

The only reason for an FCC amateur license is to show you understand and
will abide by the rules for emitting RF in the amateur radio spectrum.
Evidence for that assertion is that the state of the art in computers
and software is advanced by people including kids who don't have any
license whatsoever. Same goes for astronomy or motorcycle racing or
bicycle design. You name a hobby and most in it are not licensed by
anyone to do it. They just do it.

So a higher standard for entry would involve a proof of understanding of
Part 97, e.g. to show that the prospective licensee knows what emissions
violations look like and has some clue as to how to resolve them.
Testing them on the difference between a Colpitts and Harley oscillator
is and probably always has been pointless.

BTW, I'm about 95% CW for going on 60 years. I haven't been on any voice
mode for at least 10 years, but I do operate some JT9/JT65. I got my
first microphone 24 years after I was first license. I took exams for
General, Advanced and Extra before FCC examiners on both coasts who all
looked like Lou Grant.

A personal observation? Most of the ragchews I have on CW these days are
with no code hams, many of them SKCC members. If a ham likes antennas,
satellites, emcomm, CW or whatever, they will gravitate towards it when
they get the license. The standard of entry is the ability to do it
legally and ethically.

Eric KE6US

On 8/1/2016 3:51 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> As much as it pains me to say, we would arguably be better off with
> fewer licensees and maintaining a reasonable standard for entry. There
> is no credible evidence that amateurs can continue to advance the state
> of the art and evidence to the contrary that the current license base
> represents a trained pool of operators. The quality of operators and
> the behavior heard on the air today is abhorrent when judged by the
> standards of 15 years ago.
>
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
> On 8/1/2016 5:18 PM, Ken G Kopp wrote:
>> I got one of the 1st Novice licenses issued ... in September, 1951.
>> Took
>> the exam in Oklahoma City, where the FCC came only once per year. My
>> "Elmer" was a retired Navy CW op and I was taught well. Long ago I
>> was a
>> commercial shipboard RO on a NOAA vessel.
>>
>> I'm one of the six people who created the "no code" license. In what I
>> consider one of the greatest honors in my Amateur Radio ... I
>> -detest- the
>> name "ham" ... career the ARRL appointed me as one of the six members of
>> their No Code Study Committee. BTW, each of us were / are die-hard CW
>> operators.
>>
>> We we --told-- by the FCC that we would be getting some form of codeless
>> licensing and we should come up with something that most could live
>> with.
>> Lots of "details" were covered over a year and a half of meetings,
>> conference calls, etc.
>>
>> I still have a large box of pro and con correspondence in the attic.
>> The
>> number of letters is about equally divided.
>>
>> An example of the results ... yesterday I had a KE0 proudly tell me he'd
>> just passed his "expert" license, and, his radio emitted a multi-tone CB
>> "roger beep" each time he unkeyed his microphone.
>>
>> Without the "no code" license we most likely wouldn't have Amateur Radio
>> with the record 750K licenses we have today, and there's political
>> "safety
>> in numbers".
>>
>> Please, let's not start a thread on the subject. I just thought some
>> "first person" input would be of interest.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Ken Kopp - K0PP
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
>

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: OT: Some "No Code" background

Administrator

In reply to this post by Rose

Folks, let's end this thread at this time.

It has reoccurred periodically many times in the past and can easily be perused in our archives.

73,
Eric
Moderator
elecraft.com
_..._
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Kevin - K4VD

Re: OT: Some "No Code" background

In reply to this post by Rose

Wait a moment. I do not subscribe to the notion that today's hams are any
less capable than hams of the old days. I think that is old-timer thinking
bordering on the curmudgeonly. "Kids these days."

Today's hams know different things. Things some OT's may not understand,
value or appreciate but still valuable and worth knowing. New techniques,
modes, devices and interests, are a constant I can't keep up with.

New hams are a force to be reckoned with. I'll do my best to keep up with
them and enjoy the fruits of their ingenuity.

Kevin / K4VD
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

stan levandowski

Re: OT: Some "No Code" background

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

I'm very happy with Amateur Radio (or "ham radio" for those who prefer).
It might not be perfect, whatever that measure might be, but it
affords me the opportunity to participate in the world's greatest hobby
in the manner I so choose.

Had our hobby not grown as it did, I wonder if Elecraft would have ever
achieved the size, excellence and reputation is enjoys today? Reading
QST is sometimes beyond my ability to comprehend. I'm no rocket
scientist.

Why should ham radio be "a place for those who have proven that they
have the necessary skills to continue to practice those "ancient" and
no longer commercially viable skills"? There are no commercially
produced regenerative receivers and most modern transmitter don't have
any tubes.

As far as Morse code is concerned, it's the only mode I choose to use -
100%. I also limit myself to HF and to QRP. Those are my choices.

Similarly, there are many others who prefer to focus on just digital, or
just VHF, or just.....you name it.

This hobby has room for real rocket scientists as well as slowpokes like
me.

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:51 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

>
> Given that amateur radio in the US is now completely "no code" - there
> is no need to become proficient even for an Amateur Extra class
> license
> - the early "no code" steps were a Faustian bargain just as the
> fiction
> of "semi-automatic control" for digital operations was a Faustian
> bargain.
>
> As much as it pains me to say, we would arguably be better off with
> fewer licensees and maintaining a reasonable standard for entry.
> There
> is no credible evidence that amateurs can continue to advance the
> state
> of the art and evidence to the contrary that the current license base
> represents a trained pool of operators. The quality of operators and
> the behavior heard on the air today is abhorrent when judged by the
> standards of 15 years ago.
>
> Perhaps it is time to review the basis and purpose behind amateur
> radio
> and move to a "national park" model. That is a place for those who
> have proven that they have the necessary skills to continue to
> practice
> those "ancient" and no longer commercially viable skills. Consider it
> the "primitive" areas of the National Parks
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
> On 8/1/2016 5:18 PM, Ken G Kopp wrote:
>> I got one of the 1st Novice licenses issued ... in September, 1951.
>> Took
>> the exam in Oklahoma City, where the FCC came only once per year. My
>> "Elmer" was a retired Navy CW op and I was taught well. Long ago I
>> was a
>> commercial shipboard RO on a NOAA vessel.
>>
>> I'm one of the six people who created the "no code" license. In what
>> I
>> consider one of the greatest honors in my Amateur Radio ... I
>> -detest- the
>> name "ham" ... career the ARRL appointed me as one of the six members
>> of
>> their No Code Study Committee. BTW, each of us were / are die-hard
>> CW
>> operators.
>>
>> We we --told-- by the FCC that we would be getting some form of
>> codeless
>> licensing and we should come up with something that most could live
>> with.
>> Lots of "details" were covered over a year and a half of meetings,
>> conference calls, etc.
>>
>> I still have a large box of pro and con correspondence in the attic.
>> The
>> number of letters is about equally divided.
>>
>> An example of the results ... yesterday I had a KE0 proudly tell me
>> he'd
>> just passed his "expert" license, and, his radio emitted a multi-tone
>> CB
>> "roger beep" each time he unkeyed his microphone.
>>
>> Without the "no code" license we most likely wouldn't have Amateur
>> Radio
>> with the record 750K licenses we have today, and there's political
>> "safety
>> in numbers".
>>
>> Please, let's not start a thread on the subject. I just thought some
>> "first person" input would be of interest.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Ken Kopp - K0PP
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>