[Elecraft] OT: Some "No Code" background

[EricJ]

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:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to lists at subich.com
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to eric_csuf at hotmail.com
>
>