[Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test
Dan KB6NU
kb6nu at w8pgw.org
Fri Sep 2 16:15:12 EDT 2005
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, N2EY at aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/1/05 4:30:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kercel1 at suscom-maine.net 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: Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> 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
>
>
>
More information about the Elecraft
mailing list