In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:
The ham bands have *not*
"become sounding like CB over the last 17 years" -
Not the CW/digital subbands, anyway. The 'phone bands are another story...
I haven't seen it ... and you know I don't choose to operate CW.
So you really don't know, then.
YMMV ... but I doubt it's the broad reality.
Why? If you don't operate CW, what facts drive that doubt?
Could it be that you don't want to say *anything* about the
mode's advantages over other modes, for fear that doing so could
somehow justify a test?
there have always
been a few bad apples - MANY of them OTs who passed the 20 wpm
Morse test and believe they are some sort of gods.
SOME of them, anyway.
But ALL of them passed the written tests, too.
So?
So one of the main purposes of the written tests is to insure knowledge of the
rules
and regs.
I think it's a given that NO test filters out lids ...
I disagree!
No test filters out *all* violators. But well designed testing can help reduce
violations. Otherwise, what's the point of testing, if it doesn't reduce
violations?
no way to fix that.
Bad behavior is an enforcement issue, not something that can be dealt
with "up front" through licensing requirements.
Faulty premise!
While no test can be a perfect "filter", well designed testing
can reduce violations by making sure that those tested know the rules and what
constitutes a violation, and by requiring an "investment" of themselves to join
the amateur community.
Of course enforcement is needed. But even with very low levels of enforcement,
most amateurs follow the rules. Yet in another service (cb), the level of rules
compliance has been historically much lower, even with much higher levels of
enforcement.
Or, to put it simply: If tests don't have an effect on rules compliance, why
have tests at all? The "21st Century" paper(NOT the ARRL proposal!)
proposes that the entry-level license test have few or no "radio law"
questions!
[snip]
So tell us what you think of the ARRL proposal, Carl. We already know
about the code test, so let's just skip that part.
What do you think of:
My *personal* views, NOT necessarily "NCI policy" ...
1) the "NewNovice" idea? (easy entry-level exam, limited power, more HF
modes and spectrum, less VHF/UHF)
Good idea ... we need to give newcomers a better taste of all of ham radio.
Power restrictions make sense, and I don't see a big enforcement issue - the
Novice license had power restrictions and I don't believe that ever presented
a
real problem.
Exactly - in fact, a whole series of manufactured, kit and homebrew rigs were
developed to meet that power limit.
2) closing Tech to new issues?
OK by me, given a more sensible beginner class license as proposed.
3) free upgrades for Techs and Tech Pluses to General?
I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional
written element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's
excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham,
and find that
they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to
make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything.
Link, please? See also other post in this thread.
Nobody loses anything if Tech, Tech Plus and Advanced stay just as they are,
or maybe Techs and Tech Pluses get the sum of their existing privs and those of
the "NewNovice", rather than a free upgrade to General.
Consider the practical ramifications of this free upgrade stuff.
Suppose FCC sez yes to the ARRL proposal just as written except for the 5 wpm
Extra test. From what you write, it sounds like you'd support that.
And suppose they announced that effective June 1, the new rules would go into
effect. This would give time to formulate a new question pool for the
NewNovice,
etc. (Or pick some other date if you don't like June 1).
Anyone interested in getting a ham license, or any existing Novices, would
have a big incentive to get a Tech between now and May 31, because on June 1
they'd get a freebie upgrade.
And anyone who already has a Tech, Tech Plus or Advanced would have a
*disincentive* to upgrade, because they'd be getting a free ride come June 1
anyway.
The first group totals maybe 50,000 people, tops, and probably a lot less. The
second group totals over 322,000.
4) free upgrades for Advanceds to Extra?
As #3 above ... Ed's argument are pretty persuasive if you think them
through with an open mind.
Let the readers be the judge of that, please. Perhaps a stronger case can be
made for Advanced because it's been closed off for almost 4 years now.
The tests between Tech/General and
Advanced/Extra are *really* not ALL that different ...
Then you are arguing that they're not needed. You may not see it that way, but
others will. Remember how you wanted me to be quiet on this subject some time
back? Now you're unintentionally promoting it!
If someone can get a Tech on May 31 and then get a free upgrade to General on
June 1, doesn't that *prove* there's nothing essential in the General test? Why
not just dump the General test and use the existing Tech test for General, if
someone who only passed Tech can get a free upgrade?
5) widening of some of the 'phone image subbands?
While I've stated many times that I would not support wholesale
proliferation of SSB/SSTV to the detriment of CW/digital modes,
the "refarming" of the (largely unused) "Novice bands" as proposed,
If you choose not to use CW, how do you know they're largely unused?
is modest and I can tolerate it ... if it doesn't happen, the proposal
can be tweaked a bit to allow for the increased access to HF for
the "new Novices".
Part of the whole NewNovice concept is lots more HF access.
The problem with widening the US phone bands is more than just the obvious
reduction of CW/digital space. Foreign 'phones tend to hang out below the US
'phone subbands to avoid high power US 'phone QRM (as you know, most countries
don't allow as much power as the USA). So widening the US phone bands will push
the DX 'phones further into the CW/digital subbands.
I say 1) and 2) are good ideas. The rest are bad ideas.
What say you?
As I said above. Note again, these are my *personal* views after
considering Ed's excellent and persuasive explaination of why he
supports the proposal (of course, Ed knows that I will NOT support
keeping code testing for Extra).
Well, I'm sure we;d all like to see that "excellent and persuasive
explanation".
Because I sure can't see what the downside is of simply keeping the Advanced as
it is, and letting Techs and Tech Pluses have their exisitng privs plus
whatever "NewNovices" get.
73 de Jim, N2EY
73 de Jim, N2EY
|