Slashdot Mirror


FCC Drops Morse Code Requirement

leighklotz writes to mention a story discussing what some might consider a historic event. The FCC has dropped the Morse Testing requirement for amateur radio certifications. The public announcement was made on Friday. Ham radio operators will no longer have to study Morse, in a move patterned after other western nations. Says leighklotz: "The U.S. joins Canada and other countries in eliminating the morse code testing requirement, after being authorized to do so on July 5, 2003, when the World Radio Telecommunications Conference 2003 in Geneva adopted changes to the ITU Radio Regulations."

62 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Bad idea? by Perseid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I understand they want more people back on ham radio, but what will the old-timers think of these code-less noobs invading their clique? And, no offense, but will anyone new care?

    1. Re:Bad idea? by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh, it will be easier for me to obtain a license now. I'm now volunteering for a non-profit for which these licenses are useful to have. Probably will learn Morse code anyway since it is a very useful skill to know.

    2. Re:Bad idea? by scsirob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The requirement to do morse code was to enable HAM's to interact with official emergency crew. Since they abandoned Morse code from operations, there's no need to have this requirement anymore.

      No-one forbids anyone from using Morse code. Those who master it will be able to use it as much as they want, and there's specific frequency ranges set aside for morse code communications. It's just that newcomers are not forced to learn one specific, outdated form of communication to take part in all those other forms, including Amateur TV, digital modes, PSK-31, moonbounce, meteor/rain scatter etc. Those who are interested in communication with minimal hardware requirements will continue to explore morse code.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    3. Re:Bad idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I gather that hams have opposed this for years, saying that the lower entry requirements will cause their network to be flooded with the radio equivalents of AOL users. A bit like the time when the Internet suddenly became accessible to many, many, people, most of whom were complete idiots. However, I think that ham radio is a niche hobby, and it's unlikely that the changing requirements will really attract hordes of idiots.

    4. Re:Bad idea? by Zadaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      If they want to avoid people who don't know Morse code, they can communicate on the frequencies reserved for it. But hell, for 6 years the only proficiency you needed was 5wpm to get the highest class license. That's hardly communicating.

      That said, you still need to be licensed. It's not like they're giving everyone a gun, a bag of bullets and a case of beer.

    5. Re:Bad idea? by ztransform · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I grew up in an age where Morse Code seemed unnecessary, I remember the discussions about this all the way through university. Still, I decided to learn Morse Code for myself, and although I only passed at 6 wpm I had hoped that one day I would pass the 12 wpm exam.

      I believe that Morse Code is still good to learn, much like ocean-goers could benefit from learning celestial navigation techniques even though GPS has all but obliterated the need.

      One of the skills of a Ham Radio operator is potentially assisting in civil disasters. And having an extra tool for communication (perhaps a weak morse-only signal) is surely of benefit even if it might only be used rarely.

      So to sum up: I understand the reasons for removing the requirement, but I still think Morse Code is a good thing to learn.

    6. Re:Bad idea? by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think it is a requirement for ATV, or some of the other stuff mentioned.. I have a few friends that are HAMS, I know one is not Tech certified, only the lower level, and he participates in ATV.. I think the limitations are in frequency band usage, and maybe transition power (though few hams use the max allowed).

      It's kind of a mixed bag though.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    7. Re:Bad idea? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Informative

      They will denounce it with bitter fury. Morse code requirements are a subject that shuts down rational discussion among hams as fast as abortion or the Middle East does among the general population.

    8. Re:Bad idea? by tomjen · · Score: 3, Funny

      No the hand gun, bullets and beer are reserved for Dick Cheney.

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    9. Re:Bad idea? by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      One of the reasons that hams do not use the max allowed power all the time is that hams are supposed to use the least power they can to communicate. Not that they always do. Two hams a block or two apart may be chatting with each other through a wide area repeater transmitting at 50 or 90 watts, when they could be communicating simplex at less than a quarter watt.

      Also transmitting at x watts uses x plus some variable depending on the equipment in use power that has to come from some place. Commercial power, batteries, generators, solar cells, windmills all cost money or significant effort to put a signal on the air.

      Lastly, as odd as it seems to some people, we do not want to cause interference with other services or non-radio equipment. It actually bothers us when neighbors report that they are hearing our signals on their TV, computer speakers, or stoves. It means that energy we want to be broadcast for reception by other hams is being picked up by equipment not designed to receive the signal. Either energy that we want to be in the frequency spectrum we are transmitting on is in another spectrum, or the consumer equipment our neighbors are using has been designed poorly or the like.

      There are also big challenges to seeing how far we can communicate with very little power. There are a lot of hams that contest and communicate around the world on less than 5 watts. You know, the amount of energy that an incandescent night light draws.

      --
      You never know...
    10. Re:Bad idea? by kefoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even without the code requirement, getting a license still requires a good deal of work. Every class of license exam includes quite a bit of electronics theory that I think will help to weed out the people who aren't up to the qualifications of having a license and previously would have been turned off by the code requirement. On top of that there's the expense of buying (or building) the equipment and setting up an antenna, so I doubt we'll be flooded by morons any time soon.

      In emergencies or during periods of bad signal propogation morse code often offers the best chance for getting a message through. It requires less power than voice transmissions and is easier to understand through the noise that sometimes clogs the bands. That being said, there are enough of us who do know code (and many who use it exclusively) that hams as a group won't lose their utility in those times.

    11. Re:Bad idea? by packeteer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is something that would be nice to know but realistically it has little to no use for most people.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    12. Re:Bad idea? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ...what what will the old-timers think of these code-less noobs invading their clique?

      This extra-class "old-timer", who had to pass the 20 WPM code requirement, is all for the change. After WWII, all it ever served as was an artificial non-technical barrier to a technical achievement in a technical hobby. I don't object to anyone learning the code and/or using the code, it has some merit as a low-power communications mode with extremely low hardware requirements (like a mirror or your arms) but I don't favor it being part of the gateway to any set of band or operating privileges unless they come up with a new one like "code endorsement" that is simply a certificate.

      Numerous technical advances have come from the ham radio community. It makes little or no sense to hold back a technical wizard's privileges because his ears or fist aren't good enough for morse code. But that's the FCC for you, historically speaking. Sense isn't exactly their forte'.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    13. Re:Bad idea? by drix · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't believe you didn't say "Linux vs. BSD among the /. crowd." :-)

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    14. Re:Bad idea? by dotfile · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not just a different encoding, it's a completely different method of transmission. Morse code usually implies CW (continuous wave) transmission, which is readable by humans at signal levels far below those usable for voice. It's copyable without the use of a computer or any other specialized gear, other than (obviously) a recevier.

    15. Re:Bad idea? by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 12 wpm test hasn't existed for about 5 years. It's been a single 5wpm test for a while now.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    16. Re:Bad idea? by fred911 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Even without the code requirement, getting a license still requires a good deal of work" -- NOT!
      Any monkey with a memory can pass an exam where the question pool is published before the exam. VEC's aren't allowed to change 1 word in any of the questions and are mandated what questions to ask.

        If memorization is what you consider a "good deal of work" wait until you have to pass a real test.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    17. Re:Bad idea? by Myopic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Morse code requirements are a subject that shuts down rational discussion

      emacs is better than vi!

  2. CQ by oz1cz · · Score: 5, Funny

    dit-dit dah-dit dat dit dit-dah-dit dit dit-dit-dit dah dit-dit dah-dit dah-dah-dit

    1. Re:CQ by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Funny

      what the heck is a dat?

    2. Re:CQ by kefoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      For all those who don't know Morse Code, it says "Interesting".

    3. Re:CQ by sbben · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cut the leet.

    4. Re:CQ by Ngarrang · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cut the leet. I think this might be the first time in history someone has accused of Morse Code of being leet speak. Wow.
      --
      Bearded Dragon
    5. Re:CQ by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 4, Funny

      You kids and your damn rap music. Now get off my lawn.

  3. What the Morse? by CriminalNerd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's wrong with the Morse code? Personally, I think that learning the Morse code should be a requirement for radio operation at the very least (or any communications course in general) because the Morse code is very simple to learn and use, and because it is nearly universally recognized. Telling radio operators that they don't need to know Morse code is like telling scientists that they don't need to know the periodic table by heart.

    1. Re:What the Morse? by scsirob · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's nothing wrong with morse code, it's just no longer a requirement to master morse code in order to take part in all sorts of other communication modes. Anyone who wants/likes to practice morse code is free to do so, it's just no longer an obstacle for people who do want to become a HAM operator but have no interest in this single mode of operations.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    2. Re:What the Morse? by chanrobi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, astronomers definitley need to know their periodic tables.

    3. Re:What the Morse? by Nate+B. · · Score: 3, Informative

      Okay, I probably shouldn't reply to a -1 flamebait, but are you aware that the FCC hasn't been in charge of the tests for some time? The Question Pool Committee (QPC), made up of representatives of each Volunteer Exam Coordinator (VEC), determine what is a part of each license class's exam. The FCC has been trying to back away from Amateur Radio for about 30 years now. This is just one more step.

      If you truly care about the direction the Service is headed, then you need to get involved in one of the organizations and work toward that end.

      --

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
    4. Re:What the Morse? by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Once again the EXTRA CLASS hams gets screwed.

      How, precisely, were we "screwed" by this change? I took the 20 WPM test, I passed it, I know code and can use it both ways at about 35 WPM (I can't write any faster than that.) I don't feel screwed by having the "achievement" under my belt, as it were. The only way I feel screwed is by the relatively few people who were able to make it to extra, earning recognition for their relevant skills, you know, like knowing how a blinking radio works? I feel screwed by the number of people turned away from the hobby because they found morse too difficult, though they were technically sophisticated. I feel screwed by a government that doesn't follow international treaties any time it wants, but elected to follow this requirement long after it was obsolete, thus trimming the membership of ham radio. I feel screwed by hams who rationalize that "because I did it, YOU have to do it" is a "good" reason.

      Morse code isn't easy for some people. Just because it was easy for you, doesn't mean it is easy for any other individual. I'm a musician and it came to me naturally and quickly, and I think that is why. On the other hand, I worked for months with several hams trying to get them over the 20 WPM threshold, and it never happened despite hours and hours of investment of everyone's time. It was bullshit then, and it's been bullshit for many decades.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:What the Morse? by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll one-up you on that. I have an MS in Chemistry and I couldn't tell you the atomic weight of Tungsten, or even its Atomic number. I imagine that it is a transition metal, and if for some reason I was doing Tungsten chemistry I'd probably take the time to learn a heck of a lot more than fits in a 2cm square box.

      Sure, I have most of the abbreviations memorized, and weights/series memorized for the more common elements. And guess what - I didn't have to memorize them to pass a test! I'm sure that many reading /. didn't start out coding in java, and may not have ever taken a test, but I'm sure that quite a few have half of the normally-used classes memorized as well.

      When I see kids being forced to cram atomic numbers for a chemistry exam I cringe. No wonder nobody goes into the sciences these days! Make them memorize some facts, and don't bother to worry about whether they understand why things work that way... Are we teaching them science (the process of advancing knowledge in a systematic way), or magic (reciting mysterious incantations carefully lest you end up a newt)?

      I know a ham operator (extra class), and while he can key at 60WPM he tends to spend more time doing PACTOR/AMTOR these days, or using computer-assistance with the code. Actually, he has been trending away from operating at all since it seems like all the regulars are dying off (they just disappear and you don't hear about them again). It would seem that the FCC is doing the right thing in trying to transform the hobby.

      Consider that 50 years ago ham radio was cutting edge. People who now build PCs and PHP applications used to build radios and operate networks/relays/repeaters. Now ham radio has the perception of being ancient technology (although I know that it doesn't have to be that way). Memorizing morse code is about as useful as requiring knowledge of x86 assembly to program a computer, or knowledge of UUCP email addresses to use gmail. That doesn't make either of those things useless - but they aren't essential either and if you want to study functional programming you won't find much use in memorizing indirect memory indexing modes.

  4. What about everyone else? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ditdit ditditdit ditditdah ditdahdahdit ditdahdahdit dahdahdah ditditdit dit dah ditditditdit ditdit ditditdit ditdahditdit dit ditdah ditditditdah dit ditditdit dit ditditditdah dit ditdahdit dahditdahdah dahdahdah dahdit dit dit ditdahditdit ditditdit dit ditdit dahdit dah ditditditdit dit dahditdit ditdah ditdahdit dahditdah ditditdahdahditdit

    1. Re:What about everyone else? by scsirob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You show exactly why morse code should not be a requirement. It sure is an interesting mode, for those who want to explore limited bandwidth modes and long distances. It has zero use to those interested in UHF/SHF experiments, digital modes etc. The requirement to learn Morse code to access HF would be as justified as requiring people to decode AX.25 packets from memory just to allow them access to their local UHF repeater chatbox.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  5. Independence day Aliens by xquark · · Score: 3, Funny

    So how will we coordinate our counter attacks when the aliens from independence day come-a-knockin'?
    sms perhaps?

    --
    Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
  6. Hasn't Bruce Perens been pushing this for years? by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is Bruce Perens's thing, isn't it: The World's Most Silly Technology Law

  7. Code requirement by DJTodd242 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being an amateur myself (and have been so for 15+ years) I can picture the screams of horror from all of the 60+ year old operators out there. I'm in my 30s myself, and the code requirement for using the HF bands always seemed rather quaint to me.
    But honestly, it's probably a last ditch attempt to get more people using the amateur bands. The stereotype of the 65 year old retired operator in a motorised chair isn't too far from the truth.
    I forsee the day that usage is low enough that governments can justify clawing back more of the spectrum.

  8. A change which makes sense by wb8wsf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not unhappy to see the requirement go. I've been a ham for
    30 years, and while I have seen useful (very useful) things done
    with code, I was never enamored with the idea of *having* to learn
    it up front. I did, though with struggling and headaches. The
    time came when my elmer gave me the code test and I passed, just
    barely.

          As I see it today, getting people into ham radio is the
    important thing. Having to learn a particular mode before
    being allowed to join just doesn't make sense. And no one
    should think that having to know code was an effective barrier
    for the twits, such that they stayed out. In 1976 I heard
    language on 80M that was a great exercise in George Carlin's
    "7 dirty words"--and most of the speakers were Extra Class
    hams (highest license).

          CW *is* useful though, and I've come to embrace it for
    the VHF/UHF weak signal stuff I've been doing, where at
    time the luxury of a voice just isn't there; things are
    too weak. Also Moonbounce will require me to reall learn
    CW, which I am working towards, equipment wise.

          Yes, its the end of an era. But so what? Technology
    roars along, changing the way we communicate, but it has
    never changed the reasons for the 'why'.

          If you are contemplating becoming a ham, great, please
    do so. If you are a ham and bemoan the lack of CW now,
    get off your duff and start a CW appreciation class!
    Show new hams *why* its cool (and it is, though it took
    me 20+ years to realize that), and get them hooked on it.

    --STeve Andre'
    wb8wsf
    grid sqare EN82

    1. Re:A change which makes sense by snaz555 · · Score: 2, Informative
      CW *is* useful though, and I've come to embrace it for the VHF/UHF weak signal stuff I've been doing, where at time the luxury of a voice just isn't there; things are too weak.


      If you're going to send messages, which is probably what you'll want at low bandwidths, there's got to be better and more efficient encodings and transmission protocols than CW. Off-hand, how about not sending the message in order so transmission errors don't result in consecutive symbols lost, and with CRC/ECC techniques and encapsulation to boost the chances of recovery (and reduce sensitivity to noise/loss). Isn't this the kind of thing that makes experimenting with 'moon bounce' and such fun in the first place? Experimenting with encodings, compressions, recovery methods, heuristics, homing algorithms, etc?

      If I were part of the ham culture I'd be concerned that CW, by providing a predesigned but rather poor encoding and protocol standard, discourages innovation and entrenches mediocrity.

    2. Re:A change which makes sense by W2IRT · · Score: 2, Interesting
      In 1976 I heard language on 80M that was a great exercise in George Carlin's "7 dirty words"--and most of the speakers were Extra Class hams (highest license).

      Sadly, that kind of garbage is still there. Between the plethora of Rush Limbaugh wannabees (with their own gold-plated RE-20s!!), codgers describing their gall bladder surgery and the 4-land "pigfarmers-with-pitchfoks" types displaying all 20 of their IQ points, both 80 and 20m phone bands are painful to listen to more often than not.

      I usually try to catch Riley Hollingsworth's keynote presentation at Dayton, Timonium or some other hamfest every year, and it seems to be a constant - the biggest troublemakers on the HF bands, he claims, are 20-WPM Extras and 13-WPM Advanced-class licensees.

      On the other hand, CW is growing in popularity. Look at the recent big DXpeditions; 5A7A to Libya, 3Y0X to Peter the First Island and others. More QSOs in CW than any other mode, and by a large margin. And 40m CW is always the toughest nut to crack in any DXpedition.

      As for me, I hated CW when I passed my Canadian Advanced license exam in 1981 (15 WPM sending and receiving, 3 minutes solid copy, 100% accuracy required!). I put my key in a drawer after that and didn't touch it again until about 3 years ago. I'm back up to over 15 WPM now, and I'd say 80% of my QSOs today are in Morse. I may not be great at CW, but I sure enjoy using it. I hope the new codeless operators who get into HF will decide to pick up a set of paddles and come down to the bottom of the band and have a go. It really does expand one's horizons. And if you're a DXer, it's impossible to get your totals up without it!

      --
      Cheers, Peter, W2IRT
  9. Refining the point by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are plenty of other narrow-band modes well suited for DX, e.g. PSK31.

    A lot of the world, though, doesn't have computers coming out their ears like the rich countries do. But they can turn transmitters on and off.

    The reason to learn code today is for contacting a wide range of people in a wide range of countries, while conserving bandwidth and allowing operation under more difficult conditions. Automatic decoding of human-sent Morse code has been suprisingly troublesome compared to using a human brain for the purpose.

  10. As a relatively new ham operator... by Mystic+Pixel · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I see this from the other side. I got my Tech license last year, and I've been waiting to take the General test because I've been struggling to learn CW. What with trying to finish my EE degree, I haven't had the time.

    I'd heard about this a while ago, and was aiming to get general before it happened (out of pride, masochism, or maybe a little bit of both.) That's more or less moot now. But when I realize that it's a move to get more new people into the hobby, I can understand and appreciate it.

    I'm a member of the ARA at my college and we've been struggling to attract new members - we've got a great shack and solid equipment but only about 3-4 active members. Getting more people into the hobby is important right now; steps should be taken before it becomes a critical problem.

    KB3NIF

    1. Re:As a relatively new ham operator... by Nate+B. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very interesting. At one time (back in the '30s I believe), it was a requirement that the applicant had to draw the complete schematic of his proposed station as part of the exam. However, to require that hams build all of their equipment would kill the service faster than the naysayers claim dropping the Morse exam will.

      Where would the new ham find the parts to build a radio? Many parts are already difficult to find. You say manufacturers would ramp up production? I doubt it as ham radio has a far smaller user base than Linux and look at the trouble we encounter with manufacturers supporting Linux on their hardware.

      While I think I understand your sentiment, it simply isn't practical. Ham radio today is about emergency communications more than anything else. Hams need reliable and agile equipment to fulfill that role. Nothing discourages hams from building their own gear (or modifying other equipment to work on the ham bands), and many still do either from scratch or by way of a kit. As with Morse Code it should not be a regulatory requirement.

      --

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
  11. Re:As a relatively new ham operator... (followup) by Mystic+Pixel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    (follow-up, since I forgot /. doesn't allow editing)

    I don't think the comparisons to Endless September are really justified. The difference is that to get the higher classes, people still have to pass more complicated tests. If they don't enjoy, understand, and appreciate the hobby, what incentive is there for them to do this?

    Sure, the ham world has it's share of inconsiderate jerks (I've encountered some of them on 2 meters myself) but ham radio is different than the internet in a number of important ways. First and foremost, commercial transactions are strictly forbidden.

    Endless September resulted from the commercialization of the Internet: the root cause was that net access was being marketed to the general public. Computers were becoming cheaper and the average person was being told that they *needed* one of these machines. No such thing is happening here. Ham radio still requires a fair amount of technical expertise, and the motivation for getting a license has to come from within. The equipment is still expensive, and violation of the rules still carries FCC penalties. (Which is a good counter-argument, I just realized: AOLers and idiots on the internet aren't subject to FCC fines.)

    Plus, without the commercialization, most people don't really appreciate ham radio enough to get into it themselves. Those that do (by and large) understand the rules and the reasons behind them, and if they don't, their day will come.

    KB3NIF

  12. A change that makes me sad by Cauchy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am a ham who has held a Technician license for 9 years now. Technician gives all privs at the higher frequencies, and it does NOT require code. I never got a higher license because I never found time to learn code so this requirement was in fact holding me back. With that said, it makes me profoundly sad to see them drop this requirement as code is extremely useful for many applications, and I think it will significantly reduce the number of people who bother to learn code. I guess I'm just a sucker for nostalgia. It isn't like you needed code to get a license---you could work any and all ham uhf and vhf frequencies with a license that does not require code. With that said, I'll certainly be upgrading my license, sooner rather than later now. :)

  13. Back in the days... by Snarfiorix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having learned Morse code while in the Royal Dutch Navy and a love to tinker with electronic, I created a text- to Morse - to text application on my Sinclair ZX Spectrum K back in 1983 and hooked it up to an old AN PRC 10-A. I had lots of fun sharing the app and testing how fast we could push it (we got it to transmit and receive at 400 words per minute). Then we had the idea to transmit lists of basic code to each other so we could share apps for the old Sinclair... Of course it would end up having to retransmit because interference or some joker cutting in on the frequency.

    We kept tweaking the app until 1989 where we had a IM type of functionality, encryption (!) and we could "attach" binaries or act as a automated relay station. The old Sinclair was an ideal micro to grab your solder iron and make it interface with all sorts of electronics. I remember having much more fun with morsecode and that old Spectrum then when I got my first PC with DOS on it.

    Heck, I think I will head up the shed and dig up the Sinclair and the AN PRC 10-A.

    --
    Supporting MS products doesn't mean you have to like them.
    1. Re:Back in the days... by denttford · · Score: 2, Informative

      Careful with the encryption feature. Using it is an FCC violation.

      Lots of people dislike the FCC content regulations, like this ham, for example.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    2. Re:Back in the days... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Section 97.117 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.117, stipulates that amateur station transmissions to a different country, where permitted, shall be in plain language and shall be limited to messages of a technical nature relating to tests, and to remarks of a personal character for which, by reason of their unimportance, recourse to the public telecommunications service is not justified.

      Jeez... is it just me or does that read like "The Telcos bought and paid for this rule to protect thier income streams?"

  14. Its the old story by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "_I_ had to learn it, so everybody else for all eternaty will have to learn it, too!".

    Plus the fact that you can create an aweful lot of baseless elitism by practicing a worthless and unneeded skill.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  15. Re:I might become one. by Mystic+Pixel · · Score: 2, Informative
  16. learning Morse is like riding a bike by rohar · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In 1988 I took Marine Radio Operating and obtained a Canadian RGMC which required error free 20 wpm Morse Code send/receive and all of the electronics theory and regulations to be a commercial marine radio operator. The holder of a RGMC also was granted a HAM license from the DOT. I ended up in IT and never did work as a Radio Op., or even use my HAM license, but after a year of training, I never forgot Morse Code. I would imagine I would have to practise for a while to send/receive at 5 wpm (never mind 20wpm) now, but it's one of those learned skills that seems to stick. but if I am ever lost at sea...

    D dddd d Ddd d d DdD ddDd dD DdDd D DDD dDd dd ddd dddd ddD Ddd d
    The had to be in characters because apparently ./ considers any amount of .- as 'junk' and won't allow the post.

    I want a cwtext message interface for my cell phone, at least for sending. Has anyone heard of a phone that does that?

  17. double edged sword by p51d007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This new rule, is an attempt to bolster the number of people who use amateur radio frequencies. If amateur radio numbers continue to decline, the frequencies available for their use will be returned to the FCC, which will sell the "space" to the highest bidder. Some of the bands are extremely under used, and there are a bunch of companies who would pay top dollar for their own use. Pulling the morse code requirement will enable some who otherwise would not be able to achieve their license. I have mixed feelings. At least the theory requirements are still in place. Unlike when the FCC dropped the "license" requirements on the citizens band (11meter)radios, which caused the band to collapse under the weight of idiots, keeping the written exam will help weed out the noobs. 73's KB0GNK, licensed since 1990

  18. Re:I might become one. by stewbee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The ARRL has plenty of books on how to study for the FCC exams. I recently just received my technicians license, which is the most basic license. There are books there that will teach you all of the requirements that you need to learn to pass the FCC exam. However, if you want to learn about electronics, then any Ham will tell you to pick up a copy of the ARRL Handbook.

    I own the Handbook and am an electrical engineer by trade. The Handbook is certainly a book that will give you examples of how to build radios yourself without bogging the explanations down with a lot of math. If you like explanations with more mathematical rigor, then you will have to go elsewhere. However, the book does an effective job of explaining circuits with some very creative examples.

    The ARRL web site also has a directory of local clubs and events. Usually there is a point of contact associated with the club and they can give you a hand.

  19. Thank God by proxy318 · · Score: 2, Funny

    That was the one thing holding me back from getting my radio license.

    --
    Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
  20. Survivors Will Need Morse by SkyDude · · Score: 3, Funny

    After the nuclear holocaust, when we emerge from the caves, Morse code will be a necessary skill. So will knowledge of MS-DOS, hand cranking a Model T, using a buggy whip and reading an analog clock. The FCC is being very short-sighted.

    Apparently, so is Slashdot. In an attempt to be humourous, I couldn't post a series of Morse words. It kept rejecting the posting with the reason "Please use fewer junk characters." Huh.

    Damn nerds, what do they know.

    --
    == First cross river, then insult alligator.
  21. Some thoughts from a volunteer examiner by Nate+B. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been involved with administering amateur radio license exams since 1992 and have overseen two separate exam teams since 1999. So, I have seen us transition from a rather complicated licensing structure to one that is a bit more sane.

    I hear comments that amateur radio is being "dumbed down" to match the output of the government schools. The truth be told, I have witnessed people from many walks of life be thoroughly confused by the old licensing structure. So, there it little doubt in my mind that changes needed to be made. As an examiner, the recent (2000 and now 2006) changes will make my life a bit easier. They also lessen the burden on the FCC's administration of the Amateur Radio Service which is a key factor behind the recent changes.

    As for the Morse Code requirement. When I started my self study of Morse in 1981, I truly believed that I would never be able to pass any test higher than 5 WPM. A few years later I did pass the 13 WPM (1985) and then in 1992 I passed the 20 WPM exam to obtain my Amateur Extra class license. I have used the code at various times throughout my ham radio career, but haven't ever gotten proficient enough at it to carry on a casual conversation with it. I have done well enough to enjoy some radio contests using the mode.

    While I should probably be in the camp that says "I had to do it, all newcomers should too", I am not. In the early '90s the FCC, in response to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, made an administrative rule allowing anyone to obtain a doctor's statement claiming a disability that granted a waiver of the 13 and 20 WPM exams. As examiners we were required to accept the statement and grant the waiver. We could not question it any way. I personally saw several abuses of that rule and there was nothing I could do. The FCC was very specific in its mandate that only it had the authority to question the validity of any such statement.

    The upshot of this is that due to the medical waivers, the 13 and 20 WPM Morse Code exams had almost become a farce by the time Restructuring (the action that reduced the license classes from six to three and reduced the Morse exam to 5 WPM) was enacted in April 2000. Anyone wanting to operate on HF still had to pass 5 WPM as the FCC deemed that speed not a significant hardship and the USA needed to comply with its treaty obligations which required a knowledge of Morse Code for operators licensed to operate below 30 MHz.

    There are many reasons for hams to learn Morse Code in the future and a lot of them have already been stated here and elsewhere. The debate about whether it should be required knowledge is now moot so it's time for the amateur radio community to work toward the future. Morse Code (or CW) is one mode among many available for the Radio Amateur's use. As such, it can stand on its own and attract those interested in using it. I predict that the use of Morse Code on the amateur radio bands will continue for many years into the future by those that appreciate it.

    Preparing for an exam session will now mean that I just have to prepare the written exams for the three license classes. No longer do I need to drag various pieces of electronic equipment along to conduct a Morse Code exam. This relieves the exam teams of a significant burden and will speed exam sessions up considerably. It will also make exam sessions more consistent as the Morse Code exam was an area where many teams free-lanced and some even prided themselves on administering an exam that was very difficult to pass.

    Based on the elitism that I've seen demonstrated by too many hams over the years regarding the knowledge of Morse Code, I am not one bit sorry to see the exam requirement for it eliminated.

    --

    "Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
    1. Re:Some thoughts from a volunteer examiner by bromoseltzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have been involved with administering amateur radio license exams since 1992 and have overseen two separate exam teams since 1999. So, I have seen us transition from a rather complicated licensing structure to one that is a bit more sane.

      I hear comments that amateur radio is being "dumbed down" to match the output of the government schools. The truth be told, I have witnessed people from many walks of life be thoroughly confused by the old licensing structure. So, there it little doubt in my mind that changes needed to be made. Some questions come to mind about ham radio licensing -

      Why do we have licensing for ham radio? We license ham operators and auto drivers, but not CB/FMRS or Internet users. What's up with that? The idea is that if you're going to "drive" a kilowatt radio transmitter with widely variable frequency and potentially large antenna systems and worldwide propagation, you need to be qualified - to understand the damage you can do to other users and to the public if you don't observe minimum standards, etc. The risks involved with Citizens Band or the Internet are judged to be minor. (debatable, though!)

      Historically (like > 40 years ago), it really did take quite a lot of work and study to get yourself on the air, and the license exams were only part of it.

      Morse Code? Historically (again > 30 or 40 years ago), Morse Code (aka CW = continuous wave) was the only practical way for new hams to get on the air. If you are building your own equipment, this is still true! Minimum knowledge of Morse was a practical necessity, and it demonstrated earnestness. Exactly why it became part of the international convention (1934), I can't tell you.

      Why do we have a volunteer examiner system? Apparently the government, in its wisdom, still thinks licensing is necessary (and a treaty obligation under 30 MHz, perhaps), but it is not willing to allocate the resources to manage the examination program. The VEC exams seem to be a compromise -- not as "serious" as the old FCC administered exams (let me tell you!), but cheap and still a meaningful hurdle to pass.

      Are the license requirements relevant? This is the real question. In olden days, you had to be able to draw or recognize a misdrawn circuit diagram of a Hartley or Colpitts oscillator and know a fair amount of other practical electronics. You had to send and receive Morse at 5, 13, or 20 wpm, depending on license class. Today, other skills are more relevant - digital modulation and signal processing, computer interfacing, Internet services. Few people build their own equipment. The role of Morse/CW is much less central to ham radio, though still very popular for some of us. Reluctantly, I'd say it should have been eliminated years ago as a license requirement. Some of us will always work CW, just as some homebrew their gear and some do their own DSP coding. But it won't be a barrier for everyone else.

      73 de AA6E, "20 wpm Extra Class" ham
      --
      Fiat Lux.
  22. Huh? by zeke-o · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't know where you get your information, but I've been an amateur radio operator since the mid-60's and I've never heard of any 'official emergency crew' using CW.

  23. That's a shame since by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Interesting
  24. another article by zogger · · Score: 2, Informative

    He posted an update on this last night at Technocrat

    http://technocrat.net/d/2006/12/15/12273

  25. Re:HAM radio license requirements by kefoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not that you have to know enough to build a radio. On the electronics front it's mainly knowledge about how basic circuits work, like oscillators and amplifiers. Much of the exam is on FCC rules and is simple memorization. Probably the most complicated thing you'd have to do is calculate the resonant frequency of a simple oscillator circuit or the proper length of an antenna for use on a given band, although I'm guessing a little here, since it's been fifteen years since I got my license. The license manuals teach you everything you need to know to pass the exam.

    Look here for an amateur radio association in your area. The members are usually happy to help someone get their license. It's been said that every ham is responsible for bringing someone else into the hobby.

  26. Re:No Morse Code requirement?!? by n3umh · · Score: 2

    All the present no code technicians will automatically get privileges on HF when this thing goes through, and almost all those allocations will be Morse-only! I think it's really clever. You can easily upgrade to General or higher by taking more written tests, but current Tech licensees are going to get an instant upgrade when the new rules go into effect. Good incentive to learn the code anyway.

    Morse communication by on-off keyed CW is hardly going to die. It requires only the most basic equipment and allows a very high signal-to-noise ratio while still being decodable by the human ear. Its narrow bandwidth makes very good use of transmitted RF power when what you're interested in is passing a small amount of information reliably under adverse conditions.

    There are good narrowband digital modes being developed that can give Morse over CW a run for its money as far as getting through in low signal-to-noise situations, but some of them still fall apart in certain propagation situations. A couple of nights ago, I heard Indiana and Maine on 144 MHz from here near Washington DC. The signals were propagated by scatter off of ionospheric ionization related to the strong auroral activity that was going on at the time. This mode of radio scatter causes any radio signal to break up into a severely buzzy, doppler-broadened hash of its former self. Morse can still be copied easily under these conditions; I'm not sure much else can. As far as morons getting their licenses, listen to the entire range of 3600-4000kHz sometime before this rule goes through and ask yourself if the Morse exams are really keeping morons from getting their licenses.

    73,
    Dan
    N3OX, formerly N3UMH

  27. Re:Damn! by n3umh · · Score: 2

    WCB, just get on the air when the rule change goes through.

    You're automatically going to have general-level CW privileges on 80,40,15, and 10m as soon as the rule change happens, with no tests. Make the most of it, and make your "exam" your first HF CW QSO instead!

    Trust me, it will be scarier and more challenging than the test.

    Dan, N3OX

  28. A recent technician's licencee's perspective by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2

    I recently got my codeless technician's license. I have yet to make my first contact. Here are among my interests in amateur radio:

    1) the lack of centralized infrastructure, hams own the infrastructure, it is decentralized and therefore it can operate when other infrastructures are down (telephone, power, cell towers, provided the ham has his own power source, be it generator or solar or wind). This is primary reason why ham radio becomes important in time of natural disasters.

    2) the ability to communicate over long distances, sorta like having international (and national) pen pals. Sure I could write letters (which are dependent on a working mail service) or send email(again, dependent on infrastructure beyond my control) or make a telephone call (again, dependent on, well, you get the point).

    3) it is non-commercial, so I'm not having to pay fees to communicate, as I own the infrastructure (providing power may or may not have to rely on someone else's infrastructure) Talk minutes, ha, they are meaningless on amateur radio.

    As far as dropping the morse code requirement, I'm all for it, mostly so I can get international contacts, which is hard to do on 50mhz and above. I still may use CW (morse) but I would be doing it through a computer, as I believe I can type faster than I could code, plus I don't have a huge interest in learning code. What I'm saying is, one can take advantage of CW these days, without actually learning to do the code yourself, you can use a computer to do the interpretation. I'm also interested in packet radio, and other forms of amateur radio which take advantage of the merging of computers, radio and now the internet. The lower frequencies enable international communication, in areas which might not have infrastructure, and I feel it is slightly insulting that I have to learn an arcane code just to take advantage of the HF bands. I have a good technical background, I will now persure the upper license priviliges, which I would have done even if I did have to learn code, now I have a much easier time doing it (in my case). Amateur radio covers a huge spectrum of communication modes. Currently, I only have a 2 meter rig, it appears to be pretty quiet in my neck of the woods. I'd love to have other technical friends of mine get into the hobby such that I can play around with it.

    I think the most important rule in amateur radio is to not be an asshole or a prick and intentionally interfere with others, and to play nice with other operators.

    Also in light of our (the US) government's meddling with our civil liberties, I believe that the number of proficient ham radio operators should increase. I believe that if the government starts to really crack down on free speach, amateur radio can provide a morally correct outlet of free speech and communications to concerned citizens. I understand the ease of locating active transmitters, but I also believe that a group of technically proficient operators could really make secure communication possible in times of national crisis. I know that amateur radio is, in our currently fuctioning society, supposed to be in plaintext (or speech) and that encryption is not allowed (generally, I do believe their are some special exemptions), but in times of crisis, sometimes the rules have to get thrown out the window. I'm not advocating any amateur operator engage in rule breaking, but I merely mention it because I feel it is a real possibility that "underground" secure communication might one day be a necessity. Owning the infrastruture is vital to this end. I also believe this is why wifi can play an important role, as it provides networking and communication independant of infrastructure.