N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
Some snippage
paper is not a group controlled by NCI, they are a completely
different entity.
But they ARE a group calling for some things that I find a little
disturbing.
And this IS something I got my chops busted about earlier with what
seemed to me to be a simple statement of fact. I'll state it again
paraphrased:
The removal of the Morse code test is the removal of knowledge required
to get a ARS license. Thos who believe that less knowledge should be
necessary to get a license can only be heartened by this event. There
will be a move towards further reductions in the knowledge needed for a
license.
lessee he
(from
KL7CC:
One of the primary goals of the new license we are going to propose
is a true entry-level ticket. Limited power, limited frequencies,
but still useful, with enough of the essence of Amateur Radio to
attract beginners and show them what lies ahead when they upgrade.
Simpler exam. WAIT! - - WAIT! - - WHAT WAS THAT??!!
Yes, I said simpler exam. Hopefully 20 questions. Aimed at a young
person aged 12 or more. That means a 6th grade education. Also fits
teens, high schoolers, home schoolers. You know, fresh ideas, new
blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to
put on glasses – what a concept! 20 questions, simple enough to get
someone started in a responsible way, pointed in the right direction,
all that stuff.
Well what do we have here? A proposal for a simpler exam? Certainly
looks like it.
Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really
doing is reinventing the Novice.
I'm still not so hot on the idea.
Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.
I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....
Were you "average" Jim? I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.
Its even more charming that
this new, fresh blood will be able to see their radios without glasses.
I've worn glasses since I was in second grade.
One of the things that bugs me a little about that paper is the little digs it
tosses in - like that one. They're subtle but they convey an undertone of
insult.
I guess the
(authors of the KL7CC paper)
doesn't really want me to be a ham.
Nor me, nor a lot of us.
Next:
Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator” or
simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name
“Communicator”. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.
Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay
for
a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.
Exactly!
That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.
Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?
Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.
But its not that way now.
And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!
hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)
Quick history:
From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.
This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the
paper.
And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:
(more from the
KL7CC paper)
So, there are no “Morse code haters” on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan” from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.
and (I had to put this in again):
You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept!
and:
A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.
I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?
See what I mean about undertone?
I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!
Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are
doing?
Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!
If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?
Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.
Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They
thought I needed "help".
Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)
snippage
And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?
Who, me?
Yeah, you!!
more snippage
I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)
And they've been very clear about that.
That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.
You got my point exactly.
I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he
or she had read and understood part 97. Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!
- Mike KB3EIA -
|