-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
proposed rule changes for amateur band
- Thread starter talkers
- Start date
K
KeithE
Guest
It removes the code requirement for all license classes
> It's docket 05-143
>
http:/> /hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-143A1.pdf
(For those who don't want to wade through a 30-page PDF file)
All this 35-year Advanced Class licensee can say is...IT'S ABOUT TIME!
Not that CW is obsolete or is going away anytime soon - it's not. I'd fight it tooth and nail if the FCC was trying to eliminate CW entirely. But the Morse Code requirement for licensing has been obsolete for about 15 years. They did away with it for Technicians at that time. The Amateur service is one of the last, if not the last, servicees that still uses it extensively.
And, for those who think this will turn the ham bands into CB, I say:
(1) Have you listened to the 75 or 20 meter phone bands lately? It ain't pretty in some cases.
(2) It isn't the "dumbing down of Ham Radio." The written exam is still not that easy. It still requires technical knowledge to get a license, as it should.
Amateur radio is a technical hobby/service. The written exam should be tough. In fact, anyone with an Extra Class license should have enough knowledge of electronics to get a job as an electronics technician. But the knowledge of Morse Code, while something worthwhile to know, doesn't mean squat in the world of communications in 2005.
This isn't the end of Amateur Radio by any means. In fact, it may bring some new people into the service. But while the code test may be going away, it's important to keep the standards up by making sure that the written test still requires a good knowledge of electronics theory & practice, as well as the FCC rules.
And, keep using CW if you want to. Nobody's proposing to get rid of it.
73, WW7KE
> It's docket 05-143
>
http:/> /hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-143A1.pdf
(For those who don't want to wade through a 30-page PDF file)
All this 35-year Advanced Class licensee can say is...IT'S ABOUT TIME!
Not that CW is obsolete or is going away anytime soon - it's not. I'd fight it tooth and nail if the FCC was trying to eliminate CW entirely. But the Morse Code requirement for licensing has been obsolete for about 15 years. They did away with it for Technicians at that time. The Amateur service is one of the last, if not the last, servicees that still uses it extensively.
And, for those who think this will turn the ham bands into CB, I say:
(1) Have you listened to the 75 or 20 meter phone bands lately? It ain't pretty in some cases.
(2) It isn't the "dumbing down of Ham Radio." The written exam is still not that easy. It still requires technical knowledge to get a license, as it should.
Amateur radio is a technical hobby/service. The written exam should be tough. In fact, anyone with an Extra Class license should have enough knowledge of electronics to get a job as an electronics technician. But the knowledge of Morse Code, while something worthwhile to know, doesn't mean squat in the world of communications in 2005.
This isn't the end of Amateur Radio by any means. In fact, it may bring some new people into the service. But while the code test may be going away, it's important to keep the standards up by making sure that the written test still requires a good knowledge of electronics theory & practice, as well as the FCC rules.
And, keep using CW if you want to. Nobody's proposing to get rid of it.
73, WW7KE
Re: It removes the code requirement for all license classes
I got my original General and Advanced Class licenses using the old Bash books (a lot of memorization but I do feel I learned something..this was before the Volunteer Examinar era). I don't know inb this day and age if you really need to be able to build a transciever from scratch in order to qualify for a license. CW..it's been a while since I've used it, I have mixed emotions about it being eliminated.<P ID="signature">______________
Soon to set the world record for recieving Nigerian scam and phising e-mails!</P>
I got my original General and Advanced Class licenses using the old Bash books (a lot of memorization but I do feel I learned something..this was before the Volunteer Examinar era). I don't know inb this day and age if you really need to be able to build a transciever from scratch in order to qualify for a license. CW..it's been a while since I've used it, I have mixed emotions about it being eliminated.<P ID="signature">______________
Soon to set the world record for recieving Nigerian scam and phising e-mails!</P>
K
KeithE
Guest
Re: It removes the code requirement for all license classes
> I got my original General and Advanced Class licenses using
> the old Bash books (a lot of memorization but I do feel I
> learned something..this was before the Volunteer Examinar
> era).
The Bash books came years after I got my Novice ticket (1970). All we had was the ARRL License Manual (one book covered all classes) or maybe the guides from some of the manufacturers like Allied Radio, Ameco, and I think Heathkit had some as well. We had novice classes taught by the local club, but after that, you learned by studying and doing.
Real old-timers had to draw schematics and some of the questions were essay, from what I've heard. I think that practice stopped in the '50s.
> I don't know inb this day and age if you really need
> to be able to build a transciever from scratch in order to
> qualify for a license.
Maybe not, but any ham with a Technician ticket or higher should be able to read a schematic and know what each circuit does. It is imperative that a ham have enough technical and regulatory knowledge to operate his/her transmitter legally and properly, even if he/she can't fix it or build one at first.
> CW..it's been a while since I've used it, I have mixed emotions about it being eliminated.
CW is not being eliminated, despite what some "sky-is-falling" folks are saying over at eham.net. Nobody is proposing reallocating the CW/digital bands. The only major change in band segments is the allocation-by-bandwidth proposal that the ARRL supposedly finalized this week. And that hasn't even been sent to the FCC yet! That one is at least 2 years away, if it gets proposed at all.
> I got my original General and Advanced Class licenses using
> the old Bash books (a lot of memorization but I do feel I
> learned something..this was before the Volunteer Examinar
> era).
The Bash books came years after I got my Novice ticket (1970). All we had was the ARRL License Manual (one book covered all classes) or maybe the guides from some of the manufacturers like Allied Radio, Ameco, and I think Heathkit had some as well. We had novice classes taught by the local club, but after that, you learned by studying and doing.
Real old-timers had to draw schematics and some of the questions were essay, from what I've heard. I think that practice stopped in the '50s.
> I don't know inb this day and age if you really need
> to be able to build a transciever from scratch in order to
> qualify for a license.
Maybe not, but any ham with a Technician ticket or higher should be able to read a schematic and know what each circuit does. It is imperative that a ham have enough technical and regulatory knowledge to operate his/her transmitter legally and properly, even if he/she can't fix it or build one at first.
> CW..it's been a while since I've used it, I have mixed emotions about it being eliminated.
CW is not being eliminated, despite what some "sky-is-falling" folks are saying over at eham.net. Nobody is proposing reallocating the CW/digital bands. The only major change in band segments is the allocation-by-bandwidth proposal that the ARRL supposedly finalized this week. And that hasn't even been sent to the FCC yet! That one is at least 2 years away, if it gets proposed at all.
Re: It removes the code requirement for all license classes
> All this 35-year Advanced Class licensee can say is...IT'S
> ABOUT TIME!
> Not that CW is obsolete or is going away anytime soon - it's
> not. I'd fight it tooth and nail if the FCC was trying to
> eliminate CW entirely. But the Morse Code requirement for
> licensing has been obsolete for about 15 years. They did
> away with it for Technicians at that time. The Amateur
> service is one of the last, if not the last, servicees that
> still uses it extensively.
Unless things have changed, I don't see how they can eliminate CW entirely. International law used to require that anyone operating below 30 mHz, CB's excepted, have some knowledge of code. I remember there was talk of giving "no code" Technicians 10 meter voice priviledges about 10 years ago, and the general consensus was that they could not because of international law. I do, however, agree with you that the code requirement for licensing is obsolete.
> All this 35-year Advanced Class licensee can say is...IT'S
> ABOUT TIME!
> Not that CW is obsolete or is going away anytime soon - it's
> not. I'd fight it tooth and nail if the FCC was trying to
> eliminate CW entirely. But the Morse Code requirement for
> licensing has been obsolete for about 15 years. They did
> away with it for Technicians at that time. The Amateur
> service is one of the last, if not the last, servicees that
> still uses it extensively.
Unless things have changed, I don't see how they can eliminate CW entirely. International law used to require that anyone operating below 30 mHz, CB's excepted, have some knowledge of code. I remember there was talk of giving "no code" Technicians 10 meter voice priviledges about 10 years ago, and the general consensus was that they could not because of international law. I do, however, agree with you that the code requirement for licensing is obsolete.
K
KeithE
Guest
Re: It removes the code requirement for all license classes
> Unless things have changed, I don't see how they can
> eliminate CW entirely. International law used to require
> that anyone operating below 30 mHz, CB's excepted, have some
> knowledge of code. I remember there was talk of giving "no
> code" Technicians 10 meter voice priviledges about 10 years
> ago, and the general consensus was that they could not
> because of international law. I do, however, agree with you
> that the code requirement for licensing is obsolete.
The ITU dropped the code requirement 2 years ago. It's now optional but about 8 countries have removed the requirement. Japan is a notable exception.
And, again, they're not proposing to eliminate CW as an operating mode (that'll never happen and it shouldn't), just removing the code requirement for getting a license. In any case, it'll take at least a year for the FCC to issue a Report And Order to implement it.
> Unless things have changed, I don't see how they can
> eliminate CW entirely. International law used to require
> that anyone operating below 30 mHz, CB's excepted, have some
> knowledge of code. I remember there was talk of giving "no
> code" Technicians 10 meter voice priviledges about 10 years
> ago, and the general consensus was that they could not
> because of international law. I do, however, agree with you
> that the code requirement for licensing is obsolete.
The ITU dropped the code requirement 2 years ago. It's now optional but about 8 countries have removed the requirement. Japan is a notable exception.
And, again, they're not proposing to eliminate CW as an operating mode (that'll never happen and it shouldn't), just removing the code requirement for getting a license. In any case, it'll take at least a year for the FCC to issue a Report And Order to implement it.
K
kilowatt
Guest
Re: It removes the code requirement for all license classes
The only thing to save our service will not be the elimination of Code. A conclusion that most 15 year olds will not work on Code.
Now if the ARRL will require IPOD and Computer use we can get more younger enthusiasts.
Getting younger Amateurs interested is what we need.
> > I got my original General and Advanced Class licenses
> using
> > the old Bash books (a lot of memorization but I do feel I
> > learned something..this was before the Volunteer Examinar
> > era).
>
> The Bash books came years after I got my Novice ticket
> (1970). All we had was the ARRL License Manual (one book
> covered all classes) or maybe the guides from some of the
> manufacturers like Allied Radio, Ameco, and I think Heathkit
> had some as well. We had novice classes taught by the local
> club, but after that, you learned by studying and doing.
>
> Real old-timers had to draw schematics and some of the
> questions were essay, from what I've heard. I think that
> practice stopped in the '50s.
>
> > I don't know inb this day and age if you really need
> > to be able to build a transciever from scratch in order to
>
> > qualify for a license.
>
> Maybe not, but any ham with a Technician ticket or higher
> should be able to read a schematic and know what each
> circuit does. It is imperative that a ham have enough
> technical and regulatory knowledge to operate his/her
> transmitter legally and properly, even if he/she can't fix
> it or build one at first.
>
> > CW..it's been a while since I've used it, I have mixed
> emotions about it being eliminated.
>
> CW is not being eliminated, despite what some
> "sky-is-falling" folks are saying over at eham.net. Nobody
> is proposing reallocating the CW/digital bands. The only
> major change in band segments is the allocation-by-bandwidth
> proposal that the ARRL supposedly finalized this week. And
> that hasn't even been sent to the FCC yet! That one is at
> least 2 years away, if it gets proposed at all.
>
The only thing to save our service will not be the elimination of Code. A conclusion that most 15 year olds will not work on Code.
Now if the ARRL will require IPOD and Computer use we can get more younger enthusiasts.
Getting younger Amateurs interested is what we need.
> > I got my original General and Advanced Class licenses
> using
> > the old Bash books (a lot of memorization but I do feel I
> > learned something..this was before the Volunteer Examinar
> > era).
>
> The Bash books came years after I got my Novice ticket
> (1970). All we had was the ARRL License Manual (one book
> covered all classes) or maybe the guides from some of the
> manufacturers like Allied Radio, Ameco, and I think Heathkit
> had some as well. We had novice classes taught by the local
> club, but after that, you learned by studying and doing.
>
> Real old-timers had to draw schematics and some of the
> questions were essay, from what I've heard. I think that
> practice stopped in the '50s.
>
> > I don't know inb this day and age if you really need
> > to be able to build a transciever from scratch in order to
>
> > qualify for a license.
>
> Maybe not, but any ham with a Technician ticket or higher
> should be able to read a schematic and know what each
> circuit does. It is imperative that a ham have enough
> technical and regulatory knowledge to operate his/her
> transmitter legally and properly, even if he/she can't fix
> it or build one at first.
>
> > CW..it's been a while since I've used it, I have mixed
> emotions about it being eliminated.
>
> CW is not being eliminated, despite what some
> "sky-is-falling" folks are saying over at eham.net. Nobody
> is proposing reallocating the CW/digital bands. The only
> major change in band segments is the allocation-by-bandwidth
> proposal that the ARRL supposedly finalized this week. And
> that hasn't even been sent to the FCC yet! That one is at
> least 2 years away, if it gets proposed at all.
>
- Status