The FCC does not write the questions in the pool, the NCVEC does. To add a code requirement back, it will require a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which consists of a comment and reply comment period. None of these are taking place. I highly doubt there is any interest in bringing back the code at the FCC. I would suspect heavy ARRL opposition. Remember, the ARRL wants to further water down the incentive licensing system by expanding phone privileges for techs in the HF bands.
Hey! Thanks for commenting and watching. In later videos I have been much more clear about who “actually” makes the exams. I know the NCVEC well because I pull the exam questions into a database when they’re released, and periodically I have to check for redacted questions. I also disagree with watering down the privileges. Technicians should be like a toe in the water. Why let them start swimming before they’ve had their first experience in the water? No, the FCC isn’t bringing back the code requirement, but I wanted to draw attention to the questions about it. There are a lot of new CW ops out there, and the information I’ve provided, though click bait it may be, should be helpful to those either dabbling in CW or studying for the exam. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to write a well explained comment. 73 -Rob
I just had the urge to start looking through the question pools lately after being licensed for a decade. When I tested for general two cycles prior to this one, there was nothing about CW that I recall.
Just guessing, but there are many places shown in the band plan that are CW only. Perhaps amateurs do need to have a passing familiarity with CW. Haven’t some of those questions been in the General Class question pool for quite some time? My guess is code is never going to be a requirement for a license.
Straight key CW is the primary reason I got my ticket back in 1994. At that time it was a required part of most of the amateur radio license levels. Although I prefer CW and never had a problem using it on air or passing the 20 WPM Extra Class CW exam, I never believed it should have been a requirement because it excluded many folks who did not need or want to learn CW from entering the hobby. Nowadays it seems that CW ops are on the rise and I believe that is because of the challenge involved in learning the language of dits and dahs and developing a good fist. With so many digital modes to choose from, some of us enjoy getting back to the basics. CW doesn't rely on sophisticated software and repeaters and transponders and Internet linking and so on. It is a barebones operating mode that will always get through when the high-tech systems go down. I think it would be best to leave CW as it is now, an optional and voluntary operating mode. I do not believe that demonstrating Morse Code copying ability should have any place in an amateur radio exam. However, learning some basic understanding of CW is not a bad thing either. Just don't force it down everyone's throats!
Well said. Thank you for your most excellent comment, and I agree. I always wanted to do CW since getting into Amateur radio, and after many years of practice and failure I was able to work the skill to a reasonable level.
SSB was the gateway drug to CW for me. As far as the increase in CW operators, I suspect SOTA and POTA have something to do with that. I know it did for me. I just completed my 4th POTA activation with CW and I’m hooked. It’s so much easier to find band space to work and I can use my 10 watt radio with the same propagation as my 100 watt radio but without all the accompanying software wrangling of the fiddly digital modes. In any case, if CW had still been a requirement, I would never have upgraded to general and ironically would never have learned CW. I was lured in, not forced, and it worked.
@@KD7QOW-np9gd I agree. I had plenty of time to learn. Now I can't even count the contacts I've made using CW. I enjoy the absolute heck out of it. Congrats on the addiction. You can do just as much with a whole lot less with CW, too. I'm about to post a video of the Pixie II CW transceiver, and I'm going to make an attempt at a POTA activation solely using it very soon using a tiny straight key. I'm just waiting for the sun to stop burping up all over us. 73 -Robbie
Trying to figure out the FCC’s intentions by looking through the question pools is a waste of time. The FCC doesn’t create the question pools; the NCVEC does. If CW is revitalized, it’ll be a result of the good work done by CWOps and the LICW Club. The FCC couldn’t care less at this point.
Yes. I understand the NCVEC is in charge of the question pools, and I also agree that the FCC has basically turned a blind eye to our spectrum, and they are entertaining ideas to sell it off, but I bet most Amateur radio ops either don’t know or have forgotten where the question pool comes from which is why I begged the question with the FCC’s name. I am glad that it is part of the General exam, and I encourage those that I can to at least give CW a try. I started by saying that I’d never be able to do it, but I wanted it so bad that I actually did it. Like I said near the end of the video. Yes, it’s part clickbait, but there is some truth to it. The only issue is that I named the FCC instead of the NCVEC. As far as CW being revitalized, I believe that CWops, SKCC, LICW, and whether anyone likes it or not, POTA has also encouraged many hams to give CW a shot. 73! -Robbie
It only stands to reason that if knowing CW codes were ever to be included in any exam, then I'm sure that we would also be able to send and receive CW as well at a designated speed as they did years ago. The bottom line, this would definately decrese the number of people who would want to take the General exam and also quite possibly discourage anyone wanting to get into Ham Radio.
The FCC only has 1 intention for Amateur radio, as stated at the top of the FCC rules and regs for the service. They want a pool of technically knowledgeable and experienced radio ops in case of war or other national emergency, so they provide the willing with a radio sandbox to play in, and several perks for taking and passing simple tests. It's surprising how few hams actually know why the Amateur radio service exists. I guess it's because the question is not on the license tests.
@@johnwest7993 I think amateur radio faces a problem that I don't know how can be fixed. With all the modern means of communications, it is no longer necessary for emergencies, except when it is. For example, I have heard of hams approaching their local Emergency Services organizations and being told "We don't need you; we have cellphones." And they may be right, up until you get a storm that takes down the cell towers, like they are having in the middle of the US lately. At that point, they *do* need hams, but they don't have a working relationship with them, since they thought they would never need them.
@@lynngrant4343 I discovered through my ignorance that deception seems to be the most effective way to make videos jump out on UA-cam. I don't normally stoop to that level. As I commented earlier in the discussion, I'll take my strike and do better. -Rob
It’s just speculation. They probably won’t ever require it, but what if it’s a frog in water that’s about to be boiled? Again, I explained it was only a half-truth near the end. I’m glad that CW operations are in the General exam. Maybe it will spur interest in the mode. Technicians have the ability to use CW on four HF bands, but I’ve only ran into a couple that have actually done so.
@@w1rcp I understand. At the same time, when I took my extra exams more than 10 years ago, they had similar questions on them. I like CW, but I do think it was an artificial barrier to getting people into the hobby. I think that if the code requirement had stayed, the hobby would’ve died. Maybe not all the way, but it would probably be a fraction of what it is now. In the long run, I think keeping the barriers to entry minimal (about where they are now would be fine) eventually translates into more people getting into CW, digimodes, POTA, ect…
Yeeeeeesssss. Man, I wish I would have thought about the barrier to entry before I finished producing the video!!!! Holy crap you hit the nail on the head there. I agree with that. Ham radio is a vast playground, so why limit entry to the play ground by requiring a prospective participant to be skilled with all the equipment before being admitted? I know that there are many that wish the CW code requirement was brought back, but I politely disagree. Let us find our favorite playground equipment. I am glad that the exam at least touches on many of the different modes and activities that we can participate in, though. At least knowing a little safety about the “playground equipment” is there. analogyComplete(); 73, and I appreciate you coming back and furthering the discussion. -Robbie
@@w1rcp Yeah, the code requirement was a big deal. Pre 1990 you were required to learn and test at 5 wpm just for a novice/technician license. Post 1990 you could get a no-code technician license, but we’re restricted to 50 MHz and up. General required 13 wpm, advanced/extra 20 wpm. I think around the year 2000, the code requirements were eased to five words per minute for technician, and 13 words per minute for general and extra. They dropped the advanced category. Everything went no code in 2006. I have mixed feelings about CW requirements. I got my ticket after 2006, I was almost 40 and had a busy career. I really couldn’t justify the time it took to learn CW. It was a barrier to entry for me. I think I’m a pretty responsible operator otherwise. at the same time, I really wish that I knew CW well enough to use it. The thing is I dip in and out of this hobby over the years, and CW is one of those things that you will definitely lose if you don’t use. One thing that I completely completely agree with is reserving significant band segments for CW only. I never want to see that go away. I also like the idea of the 30 m band being essentially a dedicated CW and digital band. There are a lot of benefits to operating CW, and it certainly is worthwhile to learn for the hobby. In the end, I think CW is a reward unto itself and the people who learn it. It’s kind of special in that regard.
The stupid part is before it was eliminated, people were pissing and moaning about the code test. Now everyone seems to want to do CW. The only thing I can figure is, they didn't like the requirement because it gave you no choice if you wanted to upgrade. Without the requirement, you can take your time to decide if you want to learn and do CW.
Right. I'm glad there's no requirement. I would likely have never earned my license. Busy with a job, kids, school, homework, etc. Of course, I am learning cw because I want to have that skill, but I can take my time. Besides, how many cw operators are doing it with software now?
I took a ham radio class when I was in college and failed the morse code test by a few words. Over the years, I would practice for fun. Then when I was around age 40, a member of the US Power Squadrons boating club told me that they were having a ham radio class. Since I already knew morse code somewhat, I practiced and told them that I wanted to do the code as well. At this time there was no code requirement. They looked at me like I was crazy to do the code but I told them my story of originally failing the test in my college years. So they gave me the test and I passed. Then they gave me a small piece of paper that in handwriting that gave me permission to do code on Novice and Tech bands. Now I read that it is no longer valid; that it is presumed that an operator can do code. I am glad that they got rid of the code requirement, but credit should be given to those that took it.
I love the story. Thank you for sharing. I had a CW QSO with a guy a few years ago and he told me the story of waiting by the mailbox every day for months waiting on his ticket to come in the mail. He told me the whole story about having to leave home and travel to a big city to an FCC office to test. Times do change.
I got my technician license in 1988. I didn't get my general till 2009. I was stuck on VHF/UHF all that time, and just lost interest. I could never get anywhere near 13wpm. I took and passed the general written in 1988. That gave me a year to learn the code. But it was clearly hopeless. Not everybody is capable of learning code, especially at high speed. Once it gets above the speed where you can count the dits and dahs, it just becomes a jumbled up mess.
I can just barely converse at 13wpm. At that speed I can't write any faster, and it turns into a jumbled mess. I've tried head copying, and I still practice it, but conversational CW has never gotten much farther than 10-13wpm. Short exchanges I'm good with at higher speeds, but anything out of the ordinary will mess me right the heck up.
You've been trying to learn CW wrong. I did it that way, too. I had to unlearn it before I could learn it correctly. Fast CW isn't about counting dits and dahs. It's about associating groups of sounds with letters, then with words. When you read you don't read letters. You read groups of shapes that you identify as words. When you listen to speech, you don't listen for the sounds of each letter, then add them up to form a word. You put them all together and hear full words. That's the way fast CW works. I had a friend who sent and received CW between 40 and 60 wpm all day long. He could transcribe code to paper while he was talking to me. His Vibroplex bug was stuck on as fast as it could go, and the touch of the paddles was tuned like a racecar engine. He was a master, now a Silent Key. But he couldn't copy 5 wpm sent by me, because after 40 years he had forgotten what sequence of dots and dashes spelled out which letters. He only recognized CW as the sounds of whole words and phrases, the sound of people talking in CW. There are several free CW programs available as downloads or online that start you with the sounds of letters and numbers, then work their way to the sounds of words. They do NOT teach dots and dashes. They know the right way to learn CW so you don't hit a wall at just a few words per minute.
Counting dits dahs is the wrong way to do it. You have to learn the sound of each letter. Yes you start slow but you stick to just a couple letters at a time and build speed by accretion, essentially. If you are literate, you can learn code. You don't read by spelling the words as you read them. You recognize the letter pattern as a whole. That G4FON training program is great. The "morse mentor " app uses that system. Think of this also, you like already know SOS, but you don't have to count those patterns, you know it right when you hear it. If you play a musical instrument, you already have some aural skill. If you can recognize your favorite songs by hearing the first few chords and melody notes, you can learn to hear code letters as dit/dah patterns.
Requiring knowledge of the mode and operating practices does not mean requiring the ability to send morse. Computer's are getting better at sending & receiving this mode. The voluntary increase in usage of this mode means teaching the basics of the "protocol" is important.
"Requiring knowledge of the mode and operating practices does not mean requiring the ability to send morse." *Absolutely false, from someone who knows nothing about it.* I ragchew at 32 WPM and lemme tell you, this is FALSE. Operating practice and sending are linked together, they are both concurrent skills that must be learned.
Got my first license in 1962. Many of the questions are irrelevant, pure logic (how fast to send CQ) or things you will pick up almost as soon as you get on the air. I am certainly happy that CW and 2m is still around. At least a few things still seem familiar to me after being inactive for 40 years!
I hope the FCC makes it a requirement for everyone to demonstrate how to set up and use a computer and run FT8. Screw the code requirement. Not everyone WANTS to learn code and the hobby is big enough that you can enjoy the hobby in ALL ITS MANY ASPECTS without having to learn ONE particular mode. Signed, an Extra who is NOT in favor of this stupid requirement in the year 2024. Mr. Sulu, set flame shields to max!
It kept me out of the hobby for a couple of years. 5WPM was anything but trivial for me to learn. I think the justification was it was needed for emergency use. It's really not the end-all of that any more. Unless you're talking an apocalypse where you try to scavenge spare parts to make a QRP in a tuna can.
They Are Eventually Going To Ruin Ham Radio For Every One ,And For The People Who Want To Get Into Ham Radio,As long As They Continue To Keeping The Tests More Difficult For People To Try To Under Stand ,For Each,Class,Technician,General,And Extra Class ,Its Bad Enough That MFJ HAS Sold Out,So Keep It Up And Ruin It For Every Body.Then TheyWill Go TO ,GMRS,And ETC.,I,M A Technician Class Since,2007.
@@davidbird7540 I never said anything of the sort. I was joking about the FT8 setup requirement. I learned Morse Code because I wanted to. I'm not implying that the requirement should be brought back. As others have stated, having procedural knowledge is a good thing, but it's less than 2% of the entire question pool, so skipping it probably won't hurt anyone wanting to upgrade to General. GMRS has its place. It's good for families to communicate over relatively short distances without the need for a "test" to show baic knowledge. Ham Radio allows a little more freedom to experiment. GMRS users aren't and are not allowed to build a transmitter in their garage while an Amateur radio operator can if they have the desire. I think the real issue is that today's generation might be where Amateur radio dies. I hope that I'm way off base, but locally it has been impossible to get teenagers to look up from their phone for five minutes. I'll cut this one short, because it could probably turn into a long discussion. :) 73 - Robbie
I'm 76 and a retired EE. I always enthralled by amateur radio. I gave up even bothering with it when I couldn't figure out Morse Code. Maybe that's what the FCC wanted me to do.
Um , well I work the citizens band 26 - 27 MHz , and I’ve been on there for decades . But the citizens band was deregulated when the FCC let the band expand by 17 channels , from 23 - 40 . Plus side band . I still use my old call sign and call letters . Where there are all the CBers today don’t identify at all . No breaks in a conversation to acknowledge another station so they can wait , while the original users clear the frequency . No one follows those old rules anymore . I go by the rules provided by the manufacturer of the radios from august 1976 . I have not heard of any updates since . As a matter of fact , the teeth have been pulled for law enforcement by the FCC , so it’s the wild Wild West on the airwaves . But if someone gets in a jam that I can hear them , I’ll render any assistance I can . I’m jiminy cricket , k y I 6898 , and I’m on the side .
Thanks, Robbie, for the entertaining CW questions video. Regarding zero-beat another station, back in olden days when the separate transmitter VFO was different from the receiver, the VFO had a "spot" function. So after tuning in a signal to one's liking, the transmitter VFO tone was matched to it. So both were heard the same by the receiver BFO.
@@k8byp, check again. Obscurity is forbidden as long as you provide code to public code, it is entirely legal to use, e.g., morse code. You are not allowed to encrypt messages within amateur bands, with the exception of remote steering between satellites and ground command stations, diagnostics data must not be obscured.
I started out using LWCO.net using the Koch method. 20wpm with Farnsworth to learn the sounds. I did about ten minutes a day. If you can stand to go longer it will benefit you so much more. My mind went to mush once I hit the more difficult letters. Let me know how it goes.
It won’t ever be a requirement ever again. If anything they will eventually “dumb down” the tests…or water down. I guess you can choose whichever square you’d like that to be on your ham radio Bingo card lol. Congrats on the upgrade!!!! 73 -Robbie
When I joined the military, some of the oldtimers groused that new recruits didn't have to do bayonet training. FCC dropped CW from the test for the same military dropped the bayonet from a soldier's loadout -- it serves no practical purpose. If people want to learn and use Morse code, that's fine, but they're doing it for fun and bragging rights, not because it's actually useful.
I'm glad it is no longer a requirement, or I may have never entered into the hobby, but I have picked it up, and I really enjoy CW. Like some digital modes, it's not for everyone. What I like about Amateur radio is that there is plenty of stuff to get into. Even when I was first licensed about a dozen years ago, I immediately started tinkering with homebrew QRP CW rigs, but it took me a long time to be proficient enough to brave that first CQ. I'll never forget the high. I was sitting in a hot Jeep Commander with a plastic Ameco straight key hammering out dits and dahs on the center console through a Realistic HTX-100 10m rig with W5ZIT out in Texas. After about 20 minutes my brain turned to mush. It was still many years later before I ever made another CW QSO. Thank you for your comment, and thanks for tuning in. -Robbie W1RCP
That was in the pool when I took my general back in 2008(ish). PSK and packet use Q signals, too. Which is funny. If you follow the ICS standards (as an ARES member should), Q signal and procedural provides aren't part of the standard lexicon. This is so people not familuar with ham,speak can understand messages sent to them. However, ham-to-ham really doesn't matter. It's when you start involving other agencies thar can be a problem.
i would be happy if i could just renew my ham permit. i sent them a check. it came back six months latter unopened. unable to get the website to work for me.
Their website can be a pain to navigate. The FCC ULS system is where you download your license. To pay for license renewals you use the FCC CORES system. You can look these up in your search engine of choice. The hard part is remembering my login info. I hope this helps. The FCC has gone electronic, and like many government websites, you really have to know what to look for and know exactly where it is.
Morse code was never dropped by fcc. It just requires a written test to show understanding of CW operations. The actually test to show sending and coping ability is no longer required. Please Reference FCC website and Radio School Costa Mesa California, and W5YI group publications. FYI the FCC does not determine the question pool. It is the VE's Question pool committee.
"Morse code was never dropped by fcc." FALSE, from someone that wasnt there to see it They DID drop the morse code requirement. No one is required to demonstrate proficiency in morse code Your confusing rules for CW EMISSION. THAT I SNOT MORSE CODE. This is because you know nothing about A.R. and like the rest of the self absorbed experts here, go around pretending to be all knowing You simply look stupid to me, and Ive been doing this longer than your Mother has been alive.
There have always been questions concerning CW procedures. Just like questions about data rates and procedures. Will the FCC start requiring a date test.
I believe Amateur radio is a very low priority for the FCC these days. I doubt these questions indicate any thought by the FCC. More likely, some intern was tasked with making an updated list of exam questions and included these because he had no idea of what they meant. Lowest common denominator, that’s how government agencies work these days.
You’re close. It’s the NCVEC that comes up with the questions. They have a signed agreement with the FCC that they’ll follow whatever protocol is in place in Part 97. I doubt the FCC even takes the time to review the question pools despite what the NCVEC’s website says. I was just excited to see it being covered even if the total number of questions about CW was less than 2% of the entire General exam. I must agree that enforcement and regulation by the FCC is at a minimum.
The ARRL has abandoned actual hams in favor of the corporations that want to sell radios. Without code you can't really build and operate a radio. You need no real knowledge of electronics. You just need money to buy a radio from the corporations. You become just an appliance operator. All they are doing is allowing CBers to buy and use Ham radios without any knowledge at all, other than how to push the button on the mic. This totally kills experimentation and innovation. I could care less if you let techs play around with UHF and VHF, but HF should require code, period!!! AE4YW
It looks to me like it would be more likely for the FCC to channelize and limit HF while opening the channels up like CB. Those frequencies are worth a lot of money and our government spends money like a drunken sailor. No offense meant to drunken sailors.
False statement: "frequencies are worth a lot of money" They are WORTHLESS. Clearly youre just playing games on the internet and know nothing about band conditions. The HF spectrum is next ot useless, no propagation. Hasnt been since before 2015. Heres the problem with you No Code Rejects, you know nothing, but get on line pretending to be experts. You just look stupid.
So there are CW questions on the tests. By your reasoning, they'd be also considering requirements for every other mode that has questions on the test. Short answer- no, they are not considering bringing back the code requirement.
Just checked the link, its the Question Pool Committee that's who is pushing CW, not the FCC. I think it is foolish to include Q code questions, when Morse Code is not a requirement. CW questions will not make new hams engage in the CW challenge.
Careful. Using the word "code" gets us into trouble. Somewhere around here I made sure to spell out the connection between the FCC and NCVEC. I think it's an open marriage.
The answer A at 1:22 (QRS?) is wrong! 'QRS?' is a question (!), not a request to send slower, so it means 'Shall I send slower?' So you should reply with a YES or NO.
QRS = Send more slowly OR QRS 12 = Please slow to 12wpm (or whatever) QRS? = Shall I send more slowly? www.arrl.org/files/file/Get%20on%20the%20Air/Comm%20w%20Other%20Hams-Q%20Signals.pdf
I agree. Most websites I’ve searched on say QRS? Means shall I send slower. But QRS PSE? Would mean will you send slower please? But we’re talking about the General exam, and there are mistakes occasionally. Notify the NCVEC of the mistake and they will probably do one of two things: amend the question or answers, or drop it altogether and then release an errata.
Looking back at the question, it should have been worded differently. Punctuation always goes inside the commas even if it is not part of the quoted material. A better wording would have been ‘What does “QRS” mean when sent by a station?’
I've tried, albeit not that hard, to find older question pools than the current ones to no avail, and when I took my test a decade ago, I don't remember having any CW questions, and I studied every question for every level. That doesn't mean anything though. But yes, I have had an excellent fishing trip thus far.
ARRL VE here, nothing to see here... CW whether manual or digital will always be an amateur mode, and has experienced a renaissance for many new operators. But there are no petitions before the FCC, there is no planning on the FCC's part to introduce Morse competency again, and questions such as this have floated in and out of the elements since 2007. The directions that amateur radio is taking no longer requires learning Morse Code. If any code proficiency is ever required again, it's going to be on the software side...
There is plenty to see here. Someone might need to know the answers when they take their exam. There’s a whole book of comments down below with great discussion though. Check them out.
As a new Ham, I find pretty much dead airwaves and wonder if the time and expense was worth it. I see no logic for the FCC to add MORE barriers to obtaining a license when less are using the bands. If anything they should be reducing some barriers that may currently exist.
Yeah. I realize I should have explained that at the end. There is a short that mentions the NCVEC. There’s also a comment somewhere on this video that gives that whole FCC to NCVEC family tree explanation.
Honestly, I figured I’d get the same 100 views I always get. The comment section has a wonderful amount of conversation, though. I’ve taken my first strike in stride, and near the end I have explained that it was clickbait. Most clickbait I’ve been drawn to watch doesn’t even give the common courtesy to admit it, but there was at least a half truth though very convoluted and certainly begs the question seeing as the FCC probably doesn’t give two of anything for ham radio past part 97. 73 and I appreciate your comment.
I would say that this is an homage to CW, trying to keep people aware.. but the questions were more about Q-codes and things than can be used for digital modes and SSB. I’m studying for my general so this was a helpful video. - 73 KN4FVH
Good point. Even if you don't operate CW, a lot of the CW Q codes and abbreviations are used on SSB and especially digital modes (e.g. RTTY). So, makes sense to know the common ones.
Given it's popularity, maybe this is a good idea. I see some horrible FT8 operating practice. So it may be an idea for all nations Amateur Radio exams to have some questions about good operating practice on popular digital modes?
We dont learn CW from classes. We learn by getting on the air Learning the letters is useless. The procedures and being on noisy, fading miserable sounding bands is where we learn CW. Get on 40 meters about 7050 and learn from the Old Timers who hang out at 15 WPM. Theyll be glad to slow down for you. Also 7120.
It wouldn't change a thing. Extras get just about nothing from the license except a title. Having a tiny slice of a couple of bands where no one is operating really doesn't mean a thing. People get their Extra Class licenses because they want to learn more than they already know, and they like a challenge. In short, they are exactly the people who are already going to learn CW. A requirement won't change that.
On that thought, I could see the FCC making it easier (making the licensing exams too easy) to get into Amateur radio just to make more of those $35 payments. I hope not, but the speculation is there.
@@davidbird7540 the FCC should get rid of ham radio and make it all CB. That way you shitheads would be forced to listen to CB talk all day long if you still want to do radio. Fuck off.
Now if I wonder if they will bring back the receive requirements? It is nice to see the FCC bringing back the questions. I am happy to hear so many young hams using CW. Thanks for the video 73s.
I don’t think the FCC will. The way the tests are made, the FCC has distanced them selves through the VEC program, and I wonder if they even look at the tests anymore. The NCVEC had to enter into an agreement (one that I don’t know how to find to read the requirements) with the FCC to administer question pool creation. Another viewer commented that CW operation has been in the exams prior to the current pool, but I’ve just recently had the notion to brush up on my knowledge to help others. When I read through this section of questions I was excited to see it there. Lots of new hams are diving into CW, and that’s a great thing. I know of a family or two with young and very young children that are licensed and using CW.
I got another idea for a clickbait title and videos. Review old part 97 rules and make up stuff that the FCC might bring back. ie Log book requirements with at least 2 hours of operating time in the past year before renewal?
The code requirement should never have been eliminated from Amateur Radio testing and it should be reinstated. If you don't want to learn the code, that's fine...then you don't get a license!
Fine video Robbie, thanks! The FCC may not be at all concerned regarding CW however it is a foundational skill of the hobby. Perhaps the NCVEC should consider bring back CW as part of the licensing process like it was back when I was first licensed. It would also be a fine idea to have a one year period between upgrades in order that recent licensees/upgrades can learn about the hobby and proper operating techniques. (That may be controversial but there are too many with poor operating habits these days.)
I'm learning Morse now not because I'm forced to but because, after using several other modes for a while & listening on the HF bands, I understand the advantages CW has to offer & I actually *WANT* to learn it. 73 😊
What’s your callsign? I think I will mention this in a future video about those of us that learned CW because we weren’t forced to. Or something like that.
Thanks for viewing. How’d you do on the questions? If you’ll read through the comments (yes, there are a lot) you’ll see the discussion about the obvious clickbait. I’ve taken my strike and crucifixion for that already.
Lol. Congratulations on cracking the YT thumbnail code and brining a small part of 80m to your comments section! Some of these comments are WACK! I love it. Next thumbnail needs some of those ham shack handcuffs in them.
I don’t even know if I’m cut out for that much attention lol. I can’t just throw in handcuffs blatantly either because Easter eggs are Easter eggs. Folks haven’t watched enough to find them all.
Did you watch the whole thing? Near the end I addressed that. I also asked the question. Are they? I left that up to the viewer to make the decision. Of course, we know they’re not. The FCC pawned the testing off on VECs, and the question pool is assembled by VECs and the NCVEC. As noted in earlier comments, this is only my first strike, and it was a technicality.
@@w1rcp Another guy posted the same type of thing fours years ago as an April fools joke - which was just another excuse to get more clicks. Just take the video down as it degrades your overall value to the HAM committee.
Nah. I’ll keep it. I don’t make a habit of posting fake news. I’ll take my strike and be more careful next time. The discourse has been nice despite the assumption that just because it is on a test that it is a sign it might come back as a requirement.
ARRL would have a hemorage if they brought it back. ARRL forced the change. That said, more untrained folks are trying their hand at CW todat. Ergo, you need to know this stuff!
The FCC does not write the questions in the pool, the NCVEC does. To add a code requirement back, it will require a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which consists of a comment and reply comment period. None of these are taking place. I highly doubt there is any interest in bringing back the code at the FCC. I would suspect heavy ARRL opposition. Remember, the ARRL wants to further water down the incentive licensing system by expanding phone privileges for techs in the HF bands.
Hey! Thanks for commenting and watching. In later videos I have been much more clear about who “actually” makes the exams. I know the NCVEC well because I pull the exam questions into a database when they’re released, and periodically I have to check for redacted questions.
I also disagree with watering down the privileges. Technicians should be like a toe in the water. Why let them start swimming before they’ve had their first experience in the water?
No, the FCC isn’t bringing back the code requirement, but I wanted to draw attention to the questions about it. There are a lot of new CW ops out there, and the information I’ve provided, though click bait it may be, should be helpful to those either dabbling in CW or studying for the exam.
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to write a well explained comment. 73 -Rob
I have pinned your comment so others can find it easily.
Those questions have been in previous question pools since the code requirement was eliminated in 2007.
I just had the urge to start looking through the question pools lately after being licensed for a decade. When I tested for general two cycles prior to this one, there was nothing about CW that I recall.
Dont worry it's just click bait
Just guessing, but there are many places shown in the band plan that are CW only. Perhaps amateurs do need to have a passing familiarity with CW.
Haven’t some of those questions been in the General Class question pool for quite some time?
My guess is code is never going to be a requirement for a license.
CW requirement is what was killing hamradio.
And If CW Is Brought Back Its Going To Kill Off Ham Radio Worse ,Cell Phones And Computers Are Taking Every Thing Over Any How.
Straight key CW is the primary reason I got my ticket back in 1994. At that time it was a required part of most of the amateur radio license levels. Although I prefer CW and never had a problem using it on air or passing the 20 WPM Extra Class CW exam, I never believed it should have been a requirement because it excluded many folks who did not need or want to learn CW from entering the hobby.
Nowadays it seems that CW ops are on the rise and I believe that is because of the challenge involved in learning the language of dits and dahs and developing a good fist. With so many digital modes to choose from, some of us enjoy getting back to the basics. CW doesn't rely on sophisticated software and repeaters and transponders and Internet linking and so on. It is a barebones operating mode that will always get through when the high-tech systems go down.
I think it would be best to leave CW as it is now, an optional and voluntary operating mode. I do not believe that demonstrating Morse Code copying ability should have any place in an amateur radio exam. However, learning some basic understanding of CW is not a bad thing either. Just don't force it down everyone's throats!
Well said. Thank you for your most excellent comment, and I agree. I always wanted to do CW since getting into Amateur radio, and after many years of practice and failure I was able to work the skill to a reasonable level.
SSB was the gateway drug to CW for me. As far as the increase in CW operators, I suspect SOTA and POTA have something to do with that. I know it did for me. I just completed my 4th POTA activation with CW and I’m hooked. It’s so much easier to find band space to work and I can use my 10 watt radio with the same propagation as my 100 watt radio but without all the accompanying software wrangling of the fiddly digital modes. In any case, if CW had still been a requirement, I would never have upgraded to general and ironically would never have learned CW. I was lured in, not forced, and it worked.
@@KD7QOW-np9gd I agree. I had plenty of time to learn. Now I can't even count the contacts I've made using CW. I enjoy the absolute heck out of it. Congrats on the addiction. You can do just as much with a whole lot less with CW, too. I'm about to post a video of the Pixie II CW transceiver, and I'm going to make an attempt at a POTA activation solely using it very soon using a tiny straight key. I'm just waiting for the sun to stop burping up all over us. 73 -Robbie
Trying to figure out the FCC’s intentions by looking through the question pools is a waste of time. The FCC doesn’t create the question pools; the NCVEC does.
If CW is revitalized, it’ll be a result of the good work done by CWOps and the LICW Club. The FCC couldn’t care less at this point.
Yes. I understand the NCVEC is in charge of the question pools, and I also agree that the FCC has basically turned a blind eye to our spectrum, and they are entertaining ideas to sell it off, but I bet most Amateur radio ops either don’t know or have forgotten where the question pool comes from which is why I begged the question with the FCC’s name.
I am glad that it is part of the General exam, and I encourage those that I can to at least give CW a try. I started by saying that I’d never be able to do it, but I wanted it so bad that I actually did it.
Like I said near the end of the video. Yes, it’s part clickbait, but there is some truth to it. The only issue is that I named the FCC instead of the NCVEC.
As far as CW being revitalized, I believe that CWops, SKCC, LICW, and whether anyone likes it or not, POTA has also encouraged many hams to give CW a shot.
73! -Robbie
A member of both clubs
It only stands to reason that if knowing CW codes were ever to be included in any exam, then I'm sure that we would also be able to send and receive CW as well at a designated speed as they did years ago. The bottom line, this would definately decrese the number of people who would want to take the General exam and also quite possibly discourage anyone wanting to get into Ham Radio.
The FCC only has 1 intention for Amateur radio, as stated at the top of the FCC rules and regs for the service. They want a pool of technically knowledgeable and experienced radio ops in case of war or other national emergency, so they provide the willing with a radio sandbox to play in, and several perks for taking and passing simple tests. It's surprising how few hams actually know why the Amateur radio service exists. I guess it's because the question is not on the license tests.
@@johnwest7993 I think amateur radio faces a problem that I don't know how can be fixed. With all the modern means of communications, it is no longer necessary for emergencies, except when it is. For example, I have heard of hams approaching their local Emergency Services organizations and being told "We don't need you; we have cellphones." And they may be right, up until you get a storm that takes down the cell towers, like they are having in the middle of the US lately. At that point, they *do* need hams, but they don't have a working relationship with them, since they thought they would never need them.
Betteridge's law of headlines states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
I had to look that one up. Check out my “Will it POTA?” videos. They don’t follow that law. -Robbie
or Clickbait
That certainly applies to far too many UA-cam videos.
@@lynngrant4343 I discovered through my ignorance that deception seems to be the most effective way to make videos jump out on UA-cam. I don't normally stoop to that level. As I commented earlier in the discussion, I'll take my strike and do better. -Rob
No. Its not. Understanding q-codes and proper operation to send and receive CW are not equivalent to a CW requirement.
It’s just speculation. They probably won’t ever require it, but what if it’s a frog in water that’s about to be boiled? Again, I explained it was only a half-truth near the end. I’m glad that CW operations are in the General exam. Maybe it will spur interest in the mode. Technicians have the ability to use CW on four HF bands, but I’ve only ran into a couple that have actually done so.
@@w1rcp I understand. At the same time, when I took my extra exams more than 10 years ago, they had similar questions on them. I like CW, but I do think it was an artificial barrier to getting people into the hobby. I think that if the code requirement had stayed, the hobby would’ve died. Maybe not all the way, but it would probably be a fraction of what it is now. In the long run, I think keeping the barriers to entry minimal (about where they are now would be fine) eventually translates into more people getting into CW, digimodes, POTA, ect…
Yeeeeeesssss. Man, I wish I would have thought about the barrier to entry before I finished producing the video!!!! Holy crap you hit the nail on the head there. I agree with that. Ham radio is a vast playground, so why limit entry to the play ground by requiring a prospective participant to be skilled with all the equipment before being admitted? I know that there are many that wish the CW code requirement was brought back, but I politely disagree. Let us find our favorite playground equipment. I am glad that the exam at least touches on many of the different modes and activities that we can participate in, though. At least knowing a little safety about the “playground equipment” is there. analogyComplete(); 73, and I appreciate you coming back and furthering the discussion. -Robbie
@@w1rcp Yeah, the code requirement was a big deal. Pre 1990 you were required to learn and test at 5 wpm just for a novice/technician license. Post 1990 you could get a no-code technician license, but we’re restricted to 50 MHz and up. General required 13 wpm, advanced/extra 20 wpm. I think around the year 2000, the code requirements were eased to five words per minute for technician, and 13 words per minute for general and extra. They dropped the advanced category. Everything went no code in 2006. I have mixed feelings about CW requirements. I got my ticket after 2006, I was almost 40 and had a busy career. I really couldn’t justify the time it took to learn CW. It was a barrier to entry for me. I think I’m a pretty responsible operator otherwise. at the same time, I really wish that I knew CW well enough to use it. The thing is I dip in and out of this hobby over the years, and CW is one of those things that you will definitely lose if you don’t use. One thing that I completely completely agree with is reserving significant band segments for CW only. I never want to see that go away. I also like the idea of the 30 m band being essentially a dedicated CW and digital band. There are a lot of benefits to operating CW, and it certainly is worthwhile to learn for the hobby. In the end, I think CW is a reward unto itself and the people who learn it. It’s kind of special in that regard.
Ignorance abounding
THERE ARE NO Q CODES. FCC REGS FORBID TRANSMITTING CODES
The Term is Q SIGNAL.
The stupid part is before it was eliminated, people were pissing and moaning about the code test. Now everyone seems to want to do CW. The only thing I can figure is, they didn't like the requirement because it gave you no choice if you wanted to upgrade. Without the requirement, you can take your time to decide if you want to learn and do CW.
Right. I'm glad there's no requirement. I would likely have never earned my license. Busy with a job, kids, school, homework, etc. Of course, I am learning cw because I want to have that skill, but I can take my time. Besides, how many cw operators are doing it with software now?
"Everybody" does not include me.
I took a ham radio class when I was in college and failed the morse code test by a few words. Over the years, I would practice for fun. Then when I was around age 40, a member of the US Power Squadrons boating club told me that they were having a ham radio class. Since I already knew morse code somewhat, I practiced and told them that I wanted to do the code as well. At this time there was no code requirement. They looked at me like I was crazy to do the code but I told them my story of originally failing the test in my college years. So they gave me the test and I passed. Then they gave me a small piece of paper that in handwriting that gave me permission to do code on Novice and Tech bands. Now I read that it is no longer valid; that it is presumed that an operator can do code. I am glad that they got rid of the code requirement, but credit should be given to those that took it.
I love the story. Thank you for sharing. I had a CW QSO with a guy a few years ago and he told me the story of waiting by the mailbox every day for months waiting on his ticket to come in the mail. He told me the whole story about having to leave home and travel to a big city to an FCC office to test. Times do change.
I got my technician license in 1988. I didn't get my general till 2009. I was stuck on VHF/UHF all that time, and just lost interest. I could never get anywhere near 13wpm. I took and passed the general written in 1988. That gave me a year to learn the code. But it was clearly hopeless. Not everybody is capable of learning code, especially at high speed. Once it gets above the speed where you can count the dits and dahs, it just becomes a jumbled up mess.
This!
I can just barely converse at 13wpm. At that speed I can't write any faster, and it turns into a jumbled mess. I've tried head copying, and I still practice it, but conversational CW has never gotten much farther than 10-13wpm. Short exchanges I'm good with at higher speeds, but anything out of the ordinary will mess me right the heck up.
You've been trying to learn CW wrong. I did it that way, too. I had to unlearn it before I could learn it correctly. Fast CW isn't about counting dits and dahs. It's about associating groups of sounds with letters, then with words. When you read you don't read letters. You read groups of shapes that you identify as words. When you listen to speech, you don't listen for the sounds of each letter, then add them up to form a word. You put them all together and hear full words. That's the way fast CW works. I had a friend who sent and received CW between 40 and 60 wpm all day long. He could transcribe code to paper while he was talking to me. His Vibroplex bug was stuck on as fast as it could go, and the touch of the paddles was tuned like a racecar engine. He was a master, now a Silent Key. But he couldn't copy 5 wpm sent by me, because after 40 years he had forgotten what sequence of dots and dashes spelled out which letters. He only recognized CW as the sounds of whole words and phrases, the sound of people talking in CW. There are several free CW programs available as downloads or online that start you with the sounds of letters and numbers, then work their way to the sounds of words. They do NOT teach dots and dashes. They know the right way to learn CW so you don't hit a wall at just a few words per minute.
Counting dits dahs is the wrong way to do it. You have to learn the sound of each letter. Yes you start slow but you stick to just a couple letters at a time and build speed by accretion, essentially. If you are literate, you can learn code. You don't read by spelling the words as you read them. You recognize the letter pattern as a whole. That G4FON training program is great. The "morse mentor " app uses that system. Think of this also, you like already know SOS, but you don't have to count those patterns, you know it right when you hear it. If you play a musical instrument, you already have some aural skill. If you can recognize your favorite songs by hearing the first few chords and melody notes, you can learn to hear code letters as dit/dah patterns.
Requiring knowledge of the mode and operating practices does not mean requiring the ability to send morse. Computer's are getting better at sending & receiving this mode. The voluntary increase in usage of this mode means teaching the basics of the "protocol" is important.
"Requiring knowledge of the mode and operating practices does not mean requiring the ability to send morse."
*Absolutely false, from someone who knows nothing about it.*
I ragchew at 32 WPM and lemme tell you, this is FALSE. Operating practice and sending are linked together, they are both concurrent skills that must be learned.
Got my first license in 1962. Many of the questions are irrelevant, pure logic (how fast to send CQ) or things you will pick up almost as soon as you get on the air. I am certainly happy that CW and 2m is still around. At least a few things still seem familiar to me after being inactive for 40 years!
We still require Morse Code for General Grade license in India. 73 de Jon, VU2JO
Wow. I didn’t know that. Thank you for sharing!
I hope the FCC makes it a requirement for everyone to demonstrate how to set up and use a computer and run FT8.
Screw the code requirement. Not everyone WANTS to learn code and the hobby is big enough that you can enjoy the hobby in ALL ITS MANY ASPECTS without having to learn ONE particular mode.
Signed, an Extra who is NOT in favor of this stupid requirement in the year 2024.
Mr. Sulu, set flame shields to max!
I’m also signing your petition. I love CW because I wasn’t forced to learn it.
It kept me out of the hobby for a couple of years. 5WPM was anything but trivial for me to learn. I think the justification was it was needed for emergency use. It's really not the end-all of that any more. Unless you're talking an apocalypse where you try to scavenge spare parts to make a QRP in a tuna can.
They Are Eventually Going To Ruin Ham Radio For Every One ,And For The People Who Want To Get Into Ham Radio,As long As They Continue To Keeping The Tests More Difficult For People To Try To Under Stand ,For Each,Class,Technician,General,And Extra Class ,Its Bad Enough That MFJ HAS Sold Out,So Keep It Up And Ruin It For Every Body.Then TheyWill Go TO ,GMRS,And ETC.,I,M A Technician Class Since,2007.
@@w1rcp No One Should Be Forced To Take Morse Code,.
@@davidbird7540 I never said anything of the sort. I was joking about the FT8 setup requirement. I learned Morse Code because I wanted to. I'm not implying that the requirement should be brought back. As others have stated, having procedural knowledge is a good thing, but it's less than 2% of the entire question pool, so skipping it probably won't hurt anyone wanting to upgrade to General.
GMRS has its place. It's good for families to communicate over relatively short distances without the need for a "test" to show baic knowledge. Ham Radio allows a little more freedom to experiment. GMRS users aren't and are not allowed to build a transmitter in their garage while an Amateur radio operator can if they have the desire.
I think the real issue is that today's generation might be where Amateur radio dies. I hope that I'm way off base, but locally it has been impossible to get teenagers to look up from their phone for five minutes. I'll cut this one short, because it could probably turn into a long discussion. :) 73 - Robbie
FCC does not pick nor write the questions. So the answer is "no".
I'm 76 and a retired EE. I always enthralled by amateur radio. I gave up even bothering with it when I couldn't figure out Morse Code. Maybe that's what the FCC wanted me to do.
Um , well I work the citizens band 26 - 27 MHz , and I’ve been on there for decades . But the citizens band was deregulated when the FCC let the band expand by 17 channels , from 23 - 40 . Plus side band . I still use my old call sign and call letters . Where there are all the CBers today don’t identify at all . No breaks in a conversation to acknowledge another station so they can wait , while the original users clear the frequency . No one follows those old rules anymore . I go by the rules provided by the manufacturer of the radios from august 1976 . I have not heard of any updates since .
As a matter of fact , the teeth have been pulled for law enforcement by the FCC , so it’s the wild Wild West on the airwaves .
But if someone gets in a jam that I can hear them , I’ll render any assistance I can .
I’m jiminy cricket , k y I 6898 , and I’m on the side .
The FCC ,Should Bring Back Licensing CB Operators,FOR $35.00 Every 10-Years.
@@davidbird7540 Hell no. Screw you!
Thanks, Robbie, for the entertaining CW questions video. Regarding zero-beat another station, back in olden days when the separate transmitter VFO was different from the receiver, the VFO had a "spot" function. So after tuning in a signal to one's liking, the transmitter VFO tone was matched to it. So both were heard the same by the receiver BFO.
Qcodes and aberrations allow you to have QSO with some Chinese guy without knowing Chinese.
There is no such thing as a Q Code
US FCC Regulations FORBID transmitting Codes.
@@k8byp, check again. Obscurity is forbidden as long as you provide code to public code, it is entirely legal to use, e.g., morse code. You are not allowed to encrypt messages within amateur bands, with the exception of remote steering between satellites and ground command stations, diagnostics data must not be obscured.
I already have my AE, so not worried. I would love to explore CW though - the obsession with it is very fascinating.
I started out using LWCO.net using the Koch method. 20wpm with Farnsworth to learn the sounds. I did about ten minutes a day. If you can stand to go longer it will benefit you so much more. My mind went to mush once I hit the more difficult letters. Let me know how it goes.
I just got my general last month (September). There was a few CW questions. But we didn’t have to do any Morse code
It won’t ever be a requirement ever again. If anything they will eventually “dumb down” the tests…or water down. I guess you can choose whichever square you’d like that to be on your ham radio Bingo card lol. Congrats on the upgrade!!!! 73 -Robbie
When I joined the military, some of the oldtimers groused that new recruits didn't have to do bayonet training. FCC dropped CW from the test for the same military dropped the bayonet from a soldier's loadout -- it serves no practical purpose. If people want to learn and use Morse code, that's fine, but they're doing it for fun and bragging rights, not because it's actually useful.
You’re telling me there are “no bayonet” soldiers out there???
I'm ambivalent about CW. I have no objection to it, but it should not re-appear as a compulsory requirement.
I'm glad it is no longer a requirement, or I may have never entered into the hobby, but I have picked it up, and I really enjoy CW. Like some digital modes, it's not for everyone. What I like about Amateur radio is that there is plenty of stuff to get into.
Even when I was first licensed about a dozen years ago, I immediately started tinkering with homebrew QRP CW rigs, but it took me a long time to be proficient enough to brave that first CQ. I'll never forget the high. I was sitting in a hot Jeep Commander with a plastic Ameco straight key hammering out dits and dahs on the center console through a Realistic HTX-100 10m rig with W5ZIT out in Texas. After about 20 minutes my brain turned to mush. It was still many years later before I ever made another CW QSO.
Thank you for your comment, and thanks for tuning in.
-Robbie W1RCP
It Should Be A choice If A Person Wants To Take It Or Not But Dont Make It A Forceable Option ,As In You Will Or, Else????
That was in the pool when I took my general back in 2008(ish). PSK and packet use Q signals, too. Which is funny. If you follow the ICS standards (as an ARES member should), Q signal and procedural provides aren't part of the standard lexicon. This is so people not familuar with ham,speak can understand messages sent to them.
However, ham-to-ham really doesn't matter. It's when you start involving other agencies thar can be a problem.
i would be happy if i could just renew my ham permit.
i sent them a check. it came back six months latter unopened.
unable to get the website to work for me.
Their website can be a pain to navigate. The FCC ULS system is where you download your license. To pay for license renewals you use the FCC CORES system. You can look these up in your search engine of choice. The hard part is remembering my login info. I hope this helps. The FCC has gone electronic, and like many government websites, you really have to know what to look for and know exactly where it is.
Morse code was never dropped by fcc. It just requires a written test to show understanding of CW operations. The actually test to show sending and coping ability is no longer required. Please Reference FCC website and Radio School Costa Mesa California, and W5YI group publications. FYI the FCC does not determine the question pool. It is the VE's Question pool committee.
"Morse code was never dropped by fcc."
FALSE, from someone that wasnt there to see it
They DID drop the morse code requirement. No one is required to demonstrate proficiency in morse code
Your confusing rules for CW EMISSION.
THAT I SNOT MORSE CODE. This is because you know nothing about A.R. and like the rest of the self absorbed experts here, go around pretending to be all knowing
You simply look stupid to me, and Ive been doing this longer than your Mother has been alive.
There have always been questions concerning CW procedures. Just like questions about data rates and procedures. Will the FCC start requiring a date test.
I believe Amateur radio is a very low priority for the FCC these days. I doubt these questions indicate any thought by the FCC. More likely, some intern was tasked with making an updated list of exam questions and included these because he had no idea of what they meant. Lowest common denominator, that’s how government agencies work these days.
You’re close. It’s the NCVEC that comes up with the questions. They have a signed agreement with the FCC that they’ll follow whatever protocol is in place in Part 97. I doubt the FCC even takes the time to review the question pools despite what the NCVEC’s website says. I was just excited to see it being covered even if the total number of questions about CW was less than 2% of the entire General exam. I must agree that enforcement and regulation by the FCC is at a minimum.
The ARRL has abandoned actual hams in favor of the corporations that want to sell radios. Without code you can't really build and operate a radio. You need no real knowledge of electronics. You just need money to buy a radio from the corporations. You become just an appliance operator. All they are doing is allowing CBers to buy and use Ham radios without any knowledge at all, other than how to push the button on the mic. This totally kills experimentation and innovation. I could care less if you let techs play around with UHF and VHF, but HF should require code, period!!! AE4YW
It looks to me like it would be more likely for the FCC to channelize and limit HF while opening the channels up like CB. Those frequencies are worth a lot of money and our government spends money like a drunken sailor. No offense meant to drunken sailors.
False statement:
"frequencies are worth a lot of money"
They are WORTHLESS. Clearly youre just playing games on the internet and know nothing about band conditions.
The HF spectrum is next ot useless, no propagation. Hasnt been since before 2015.
Heres the problem with you No Code Rejects, you know nothing, but get on line pretending to be experts.
You just look stupid.
What a bad idea.
As a Code Extra, I am ashamed to say I didn't know QRL or QRV. I did remember the letter after the T but I don't remember all of them.
So there are CW questions on the tests. By your reasoning, they'd be also considering requirements for every other mode that has questions on the test. Short answer- no, they are not considering bringing back the code requirement.
That’s not how that works. They didn’t have an SSB test or AM test. But the answer is no. They are not.
Just checked the link, its the Question Pool Committee that's who is pushing CW, not the FCC. I think it is foolish to include Q code questions, when Morse Code is not a requirement. CW questions will not make new hams engage in the CW challenge.
Careful. Using the word "code" gets us into trouble. Somewhere around here I made sure to spell out the connection between the FCC and NCVEC. I think it's an open marriage.
The FCC Eliminated Morse Code In,2007.
@@w1rcp I have been away from the hobby for 45 years or so. I forgot the correct terms. Q signals? work CW exclusively, first licensed 1975 to 78.
We don’t need additional government monitoring
exactly. Crazy how many hams actively BEG for more governing of the radio.
The answer A at 1:22 (QRS?) is wrong! 'QRS?' is a question (!), not a request to send slower, so it means 'Shall I send slower?' So you should reply with a YES or NO.
QRS = Send more slowly OR QRS 12 = Please slow to 12wpm (or whatever)
QRS? = Shall I send more slowly?
www.arrl.org/files/file/Get%20on%20the%20Air/Comm%20w%20Other%20Hams-Q%20Signals.pdf
I agree. Most websites I’ve searched on say QRS? Means shall I send slower. But QRS PSE? Would mean will you send slower please? But we’re talking about the General exam, and there are mistakes occasionally. Notify the NCVEC of the mistake and they will probably do one of two things: amend the question or answers, or drop it altogether and then release an errata.
Looking back at the question, it should have been worded differently. Punctuation always goes inside the commas even if it is not part of the quoted material. A better wording would have been ‘What does “QRS” mean when sent by a station?’
I'm going to agree with your last statement. I'm not mad at you and I watched to the end. ❤❤❤
this isn't new to the exams, at all. Including right after CW was eliminated from requirements. Nice fishing, though.
I've tried, albeit not that hard, to find older question pools than the current ones to no avail, and when I took my test a decade ago, I don't remember having any CW questions, and I studied every question for every level. That doesn't mean anything though. But yes, I have had an excellent fishing trip thus far.
THE ,FCC Eliminated The Morse Code In,2007,????
Yep. They sure did.
They need to end the test all together, it's outdated. Best thing that can happen is to remove the test completely.
thanks, would be nice but not holding my breath. Too much money involved, manufacturers want to sell rigs the more hams, the more rigs sold.
No it’s not so don’t start the panic
Who Said I Was,.😂
@@davidbird7540 you know as well as I do there are those who always panic over a nothing burger.
ARRL VE here, nothing to see here...
CW whether manual or digital will always be an amateur mode, and has experienced a renaissance for many new operators. But there are no petitions before the FCC, there is no planning on the FCC's part to introduce Morse competency again, and questions such as this have floated in and out of the elements since 2007.
The directions that amateur radio is taking no longer requires learning Morse Code. If any code proficiency is ever required again, it's going to be on the software side...
There is plenty to see here. Someone might need to know the answers when they take their exam. There’s a whole book of comments down below with great discussion though. Check them out.
The answer is "no". Nothing to see here.
I mean, surely there was something to see. It’s a video about Morse Code. Watch to the end for a half-apology disguised as a statement of hope.
Because it's Amateur radio not Amateur computer.
ABSOLUTELY. I see youve seen my videos!
As a new Ham, I find pretty much dead airwaves and wonder if the time and expense was worth it. I see no logic for the FCC to add MORE barriers to obtaining a license when less are using the bands. If anything they should be reducing some barriers that may currently exist.
Which airwaves are dead? In my area uhf and vhf is rarely used, but 6m and down is busy all the time around the world.
Maybe AI can get decoding to work reliably. I prefer wetware betwixt the ears.
Clickbait. No, the morse code requirement is not coming back AND the FCC does NOT make the test pool.
Yeah. I realize I should have explained that at the end. There is a short that mentions the NCVEC. There’s also a comment somewhere on this video that gives that whole FCC to NCVEC family tree explanation.
Short answer: No. No they are not.
Is this just really tag line to get more views for the video? That's my guess. 73
Honestly, I figured I’d get the same 100 views I always get. The comment section has a wonderful amount of conversation, though. I’ve taken my first strike in stride, and near the end I have explained that it was clickbait. Most clickbait I’ve been drawn to watch doesn’t even give the common courtesy to admit it, but there was at least a half truth though very convoluted and certainly begs the question seeing as the FCC probably doesn’t give two of anything for ham radio past part 97. 73 and I appreciate your comment.
If so too bad..I'm grand fathered into my extra
That’s one way to look at it. Good news, they’ll never bring it back.
I would say that this is an homage to CW, trying to keep people aware.. but the questions were more about Q-codes and things than can be used for digital modes and SSB. I’m studying for my general so this was a helpful video.
- 73 KN4FVH
Join me tonight for trivia. It is questions straight from the General pool. Thursdays at 9pm eastern. Thanks for your encouraging comment. -Robbie
Good point. Even if you don't operate CW, a lot of the CW Q codes and abbreviations are used on SSB and especially digital modes (e.g. RTTY). So, makes sense to know the common ones.
FT8 should be a requirement, not CW.😊
Ear decode only. Lol.
Given it's popularity, maybe this is a good idea. I see some horrible FT8 operating practice. So it may be an idea for all nations Amateur Radio exams to have some questions about good operating practice on popular digital modes?
Yay, I got every answer correctly! Maybe we can start a class on CW soon. Thanks!
We dont learn CW from classes. We learn by getting on the air
Learning the letters is useless. The procedures and being on noisy, fading miserable sounding bands is where we learn CW. Get on 40 meters about 7050 and learn from the Old Timers who hang out at 15 WPM. Theyll be glad to slow down for you. Also 7120.
I have no fear of or objection to a CW requirement, but I think it should be limited to the Extra Class license exam.
It wouldn't change a thing. Extras get just about nothing from the license except a title. Having a tiny slice of a couple of bands where no one is operating really doesn't mean a thing. People get their Extra Class licenses because they want to learn more than they already know, and they like a challenge. In short, they are exactly the people who are already going to learn CW. A requirement won't change that.
It would be nice to bring CW back, it would get rid of the CBer's.
Exactl;y. But that doesnt allow ARRL to steal millions of dollars, de-facto, from the FCC liccensing process.
Grift, Graft Gruft.
On that thought, I could see the FCC making it easier (making the licensing exams too easy) to get into Amateur radio just to make more of those $35 payments. I hope not, but the speculation is there.
Cry about it bozo
The FCC Should Get Rid Of CB Altogether
@@davidbird7540 the FCC should get rid of ham radio and make it all CB. That way you shitheads would be forced to listen to CB talk all day long if you still want to do radio. Fuck off.
It means they are teaching you the Qcodes ..even got them all right ..Gonna give myself a little badge ..lol..keep it up !
Remember, the phrase guys and girls,, Use it or Lose It.
Now if I wonder if they will bring back the receive requirements? It is nice to see the FCC bringing back the questions. I am happy to hear so many young hams using CW. Thanks for the video 73s.
I don’t think the FCC will. The way the tests are made, the FCC has distanced them selves through the VEC program, and I wonder if they even look at the tests anymore. The NCVEC had to enter into an agreement (one that I don’t know how to find to read the requirements) with the FCC to administer question pool creation. Another viewer commented that CW operation has been in the exams prior to the current pool, but I’ve just recently had the notion to brush up on my knowledge to help others. When I read through this section of questions I was excited to see it there.
Lots of new hams are diving into CW, and that’s a great thing. I know of a family or two with young and very young children that are licensed and using CW.
I got another idea for a clickbait title and videos. Review old part 97 rules and make up stuff that the FCC might bring back. ie Log book requirements with at least 2 hours of operating time in the past year before renewal?
You got a copy of that? You know, for research purposes. :)
The code requirement should never have been eliminated from Amateur Radio testing and it should be reinstated.
If you don't want to learn the code, that's fine...then you don't get a license!
Fine video Robbie, thanks! The FCC may not be at all concerned regarding CW however it is a foundational skill of the hobby. Perhaps the NCVEC should consider bring back CW as part of the licensing process like it was back when I was first licensed. It would also be a fine idea to have a one year period between upgrades in order that recent licensees/upgrades can learn about the hobby and proper operating techniques. (That may be controversial but there are too many with poor operating habits these days.)
I'm learning Morse now not because I'm forced to but because, after using several other modes for a while & listening on the HF bands, I understand the advantages CW has to offer & I actually *WANT* to learn it.
73 😊
What’s your callsign? I think I will mention this in a future video about those of us that learned CW because we weren’t forced to. Or something like that.
Have cw with advanced licenses
Who Cares.😂
Clickbait. Strike 1.
@danielmorgan7702 Don't you hate being conned? You know what Strike 1 means, right?
First question before I elaborate. Do you know who makes the questions for the licensing exam?
Clickbait
Thanks for viewing. How’d you do on the questions? If you’ll read through the comments (yes, there are a lot) you’ll see the discussion about the obvious clickbait. I’ve taken my strike and crucifixion for that already.
Lol. Congratulations on cracking the YT thumbnail code and brining a small part of 80m to your comments section! Some of these comments are WACK! I love it. Next thumbnail needs some of those ham shack handcuffs in them.
I don’t even know if I’m cut out for that much attention lol. I can’t just throw in handcuffs blatantly either because Easter eggs are Easter eggs. Folks haven’t watched enough to find them all.
Sure hope they bring it back.....even 5wpm..... but they have already flooded the ranks with easy generals & extras
They will never bring it back, you gonna cry about it?
Put code back !
NO!
click bait
Did you watch the whole thing? Near the end I addressed that. I also asked the question. Are they? I left that up to the viewer to make the decision. Of course, we know they’re not. The FCC pawned the testing off on VECs, and the question pool is assembled by VECs and the NCVEC. As noted in earlier comments, this is only my first strike, and it was a technicality.
@@w1rcp Another guy posted the same type of thing fours years ago as an April fools joke - which was just another excuse to get more clicks. Just take the video down as it degrades your overall value to the HAM committee.
Nah. I’ll keep it. I don’t make a habit of posting fake news. I’ll take my strike and be more careful next time. The discourse has been nice despite the assumption that just because it is on a test that it is a sign it might come back as a requirement.
@@w1rcp Morse Code Was Eliminated From All Tests In ,2007.
ARRL would have a hemorage if they brought it back. ARRL forced the change. That said, more untrained folks are trying their hand at CW todat. Ergo, you need to know this stuff!
👍👍
past time that they brought it back ! removing it ruined amateur radio as was
Screw you, ham radio is better than ever. If you think ham radio is ruined, you're an idiot.