In article , Leo
writes:
On 14 Feb 2004 00:05:49 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:
In article , Leo
writes:
What about the input from nonhams? Or is commentary limited to those
already
licensed?
As above, the post-WRC 03 changes would affect only those currently
engaged in the hobby - I believe that no non-ham input has been
requested at this time.
The code test requirements very much affect the "non-hams." Those
that do not care for any morse code test or those that cannot do any
sufficient morse would be affected in that they would not bother
trying to get a license grant.
Good point. I was thinking more of the impact of removing code (per
the WRC-03 decision) not having a (negative) impact. You are correct,
there would be an impact on non-hams should IC choose to retain code,
even though no longer required...I missed that possibility!
I should have written "non-hams considering getting a license."
There are a couple of newsgroupies in here who demand adoration
and dedication to the 'service' which they equate to 'interest.' :-)
Few radio amateurs consider the whole of amateur radio. Their
activity is intensely personal, one-on-one with their radio. If using
morse then they are devoid of normal human clues to the other
contact's whole personality...no visuals, no voice tone, no clues to
gender, no real sense of emotion of the other. Voice mode is better
with normal voice clues to the other party. During all contacts on
the radio they remain in a relatively isolated spectral bandwidth even
if netted with several others. There is sufficiently long time for the
mind to imagine many things about the 'service,' to expand far from
its reality into realms of fantasy greatness.
The major identification with the entirety of any national radio activity
is publications of a special-interest nature. To a rather large extent
in the USA, the ARRL uses their text to build upon the imagination of
its readers, to identify with it. That lends reinforcement of the imaginary
grouping, provides a "sense of belonging" otherwise not happening in
radio use or even in a home workshop by themselves building something.
As a result of this insular activity having little in the way of regular
human interaction with others, the individual amateur will use their own
experiences in the hobby as a basis of what others are expected to do.
The self-identification of personal desire with what should be (in their
minds) for others does not make a reasonable consideration of future
regulations that affect many, many others, including those not yet
licensed in amateur radio.
What adds to the unreasonableness is the ignorance of what other
radio services are doing and there being a great number of different
radio 'service' people using, maintaining, designing non-amateur radios.
The idea that non-amateurs "not understanding" amateur radio is false
and little more than an attempt at rationalization of their own ignorance.
All radios work by the same laws of physics. Human made legislation
does not change the way a 'service's' radio works or that a non-amateur
entering amateur radio be considered a "beginner." [I am certain there
are Canadians as unreasonable as our esteamed robustness, Heil]
There is another factor which is common to those amateurs not engaged
in a radio-specific occupation...that the state of the art of everything in
amateur remain rooted in the familiar they know. That's almost
impossible since radio is only 107 years old and the technology involved
has been advancing in large plateau jumps all the while. That is true of
all electronics-related fields of work. They want the state of the art to
be fixed so they can enjoy what they found emotionally satisfying long
ago when they reached their personal best in the hobby. Others of
the modern day are little interested in meeting antiquated standards of
entering amateur radio.
Radio amateurs who have already achieved the top "upgrade" license
class in their country would NOT be affected in their privileges. Their
only "affect" is a psychological disturbance due to newcomers not
having to do exactly as they did many years ago.
True as well. Those who achieved their license under a more rigorous
testing scheme will naturally see any reduction in testing
requirements as an erosion of standards, and will be offended by it.
That is simple human nature. Most affected by this are the folks at
the top level of licensing. Which makes sense - they put in the
greatest effort under the old system.
Add to that the uncertainty of understanding modern radio, other than
the emotionally-loaded advertisements for amateur radio equipment
and to use that to be one up on their fellows.
That "simple human nature" aspect can alienate them in the eyes of
others. Some of those do not profess to care citing their long tenure
and alleged self-worthiness. Those are just trying to put "greatness"
in the hobby activity by using themselves as top-level role models.
I don't know that much about Industry Canada's charter in Canadian
law but the FCC is NOT required to provide psychological sustenance
to already-licensed radio amateurs.
Exactly the same in this regard. They regulate, not placate....
Placation is for the membership organizations. In the USA the ARRL
tries to pose as a second-level "government." They are not but decades
of propaganda have created a large following of Believers. It works very
well for the ARRL; the propaganda is self-serving survival activity but
Believers in the league will not believe they have been brainwashed. :-)
At present, the majority expressed opinions of radio amateurs both
in here and elsewhere treat the hobby activity of amateur radio as a
glorified fraternal order insofar as requirements in law are concerned.
The FCC is not chartered as a fraternal order, is merely a radio
regulating agency.
Amateur radio is not a vital need or concern for any nation's security
or safety or well-being, regardless of the emotional spins turning
around from existing amateur fraternal orders. It is a fun hobby,
a relaxing (to most) avocation involving radio activity. Some poor
souls cannot be satisfied with anything but a fantasy mindset of ham
radio as an entire raison d'etre, a reason for existance. Those
mentalities will never be satisfied, cannot compromise in anything
unless all test for and be granted licenses exactly as they had to
endure once upon a time. They are outraged, fed up, cannot take it
anymore the minute anyone puts forth a change in regulations they
do not like.
Yup - there is clearly a notion that everyone who is not subjected to
the same rigorous testing as they were years ago is somehow getting a
free ride. What isn't being adequately taken in to account are the
underlying reasons for simplification, elimination or change of the
various test elements.
Much of that resentment is strictly personal, about themselves. Such
clouds judgement on what might be good for all, especially those not
yet licensed.
What has been stable, or relatively so over the years is known,
familiar. Such stability can be comforting. Change, newness is to be
avoided since an unknown condition can cause much anxiety. Then
too, personal rank, status, title might lessen if regulations change to
remove some of that.
I believe that IC was simply giving the amateur community first chance
to voice their opinion - not from the perspective of a closed shop per
se, but because they wanted to hear the opinions of those currently
involved in the hobby before they decided what to do next. I'm no
expert in the inner workings of the government here, but I believe
that NPRM is the next step, and public comment is requested at that
stage.
I see little wrong with that to get an INITIAL opinion by any regulator.
I see lots wrong with it if the regulators do not hear from others prior
to decisions.
Remember, with no incentive licensing scheme here, the perception of a
'class structure' of a hierarchical nature is not nearly as prevalent.
Most of the folks I have talked to welcome the elimination of code
testing - after all, it isn;t code that is being eliminated, just the
mandatory practical test - which only survived as far as 2003 because
of the ITU requirements. In the poll submitted from the amateur
community to IC, almost two thirds of the lecensed amateurs here want
code testing dropped from our requirements! Approximately the opposite
of the ARRL numbers bandied about here....
The decades of propaganda by the ARRL is showing up in the un-
swerving Belief that the old ways are still supposed to be best. Part of
that (on the part of ARRL) has been the catering to the insularity of
amateurs, of keeping the status as much quo as possible so as not
to upset the old-time amateur membership.
BTW, a question - does the FCC operate based entirely upon democratic
principles?
Fairly well. Everything they receive in text is put on public view, even
the "sunshine" commentary on NOI 03-104, the FCC thing on BPL.
"Sunshine" things are for public viewing but are not supposed to be
used by FCC on regulatory matters. [I have no idea how the name came
to be] On the BPL NOI, of 5,199 documents, 8 are in the "sunshine"
category. One of those 8 is from a Canadian. :-)
The FCC openly invites the public to communicate...and they get a LOT
of communications about all of USA civil radio. That includes letters and
other communications from federal elected officers who are forwarding
complaints from their constituents to the FCC. It is all out in the open
except for a very few legal matters, almost all legal action documentation
which does not concern regulatory legislation.
By the way, it is quite possible that the FCC was all for BPL from the
first. The NOI or Notice of Inquiry was NOT about whether or not the
service should exist...the Notice Of Inquiry was for the purposes of
determining what the standards of RFI should be. Almost none of the
5,199 documents submitted any such standards or levels. :-) All were
caught up in a wildfire confligration of opinion saying "BPL is BAD!"
The FCC has had an intenal program to improve rural America's tie to
the Internet. BPL would fit right in with that noble goal. Connection to
the Internet over existing power lines involves very, very little additional
cost to anyone. Almost no one has bothered to think of that side of the
equation.
From what I'm hearing on the group, specifically WRT
incentive licensing several years ago, they seemed to ignore the will
of the majority and come up with something on their own.....which
seems to have annoyed everyone. Oh well, at least they got everyone
to agree on something!
Sigh. More human nature. Since certain sides didn't get their way,
they quaff the juice of fermented spoiled grapes...they whine before
the time. :-)
Many demand that the "majority" of anything do as they do or that
what they do IS what the "majority" does. They are absolutely,
poselutely for-sure knowing such, cannot be considered otherwise.
The caste system of the "IL" or Incentive Licensing definitely exists
in USA amateur radio and continues today. It fits to a T the notion of
(or desire of) some who NEED some way to show they are "better
than others" through some sort of federal whatsis. Now that Internet
has robbed much of the ARRL's monopoly on communications direct
with the FCC, the FCC might be seeing a different picture of what
the feelings are in USA amateur radio.
ARRL still doesn't have more than a quarter of all USA licensees as
members. They were always a minority group but had sufficent income
from publication profits to afford legal counsel and a lobbying company
in Washington, DC. At one time back the FCC just rubber-stamped
what the ARRL wanted. Not so anymore.
LHA / WMD