RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 27th 05, 04:02 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

Amateur radio might be operating weak signal UHF SSB with a multi-mode,
multi-band rig. It might be operating 2m FM through a local repeater.
It might be ragchewing on 40m CW. One constant is that you aren't involved.

I don't do any RF transmission in amateur bands, with the
exception of those bands which are shared with other radio
services.

That's a very good thing!

Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without
an amateur radio license or using morse code!

But not by direct radio contact.

And 24/7
without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-)

Telephone and internet. We can all do that, Len.

Why do you live in the past?

Tsk, I don't.

You sure talk about it a lot, though.

Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always
bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history
that happened before his time.

Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of
history that happened before *your* time. Are you the
only one allowed to do that?

I'm not dismissing a great big hobby area involving all of electronics.
I'm stating quite accurately that you aren't involved in amateur radio.

So, in your mind electronics does NOT equate with "radio?"

The two are not the same.

It does not equate with "amateur radio?"

No, they don't.

"Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering.

"Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not
identical, and one is not a subset of the other.

Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY?

And much more.

Yep, when something is simple enough, many folks will opt for it rather
than attempting that which is more difficult. Many never go beyond the
easiest license despite the limited privileges it offers.

Such as long-time amateur radiotelegraphers who've never
ventured behind the front panels of their radios in order
to understand how they worked. :-)

Who would they be, Len?

Your clause doesn't address limited privileges. :-)

I didn't have any "clause." I asked a question. Pay attention.

What question?

Yes, I am familiar
with those. Their "radio skill" never goes beyond their
key, their ears, or the "official" jargon they've picked
up from older days, those used by older "radio experts."

Do you know any radio telephonists who've never ventured beyond the
front panels of their equipment? Does their skill extend beyond their
microphones? Have they picked up any "official" jargon from older days?
Perhaps your rant was intended only as a slam against anyone who is both
a telegrapher and a radio amateur.

I was addressing - specifically - who I addressed, not
"radio telephonists." You are attempting to misdirect.
The word you should have used is 'radiotelephony.'

Yet you know they exist.

NPRM 05-143 is singularly about the telegraphy test. [that's
what this "english teacher" of the thread title was commenting
on] That NPRM has NOTHING to do with radiotelephony, radiodata,
teletypewriter over radio, slow or fast-scan television,
facsimile over radio. The amateur radio license tests have
NO test elements for physically OPERATING any radio, are not
required to have radio equipment AT a license exam site.

So? Why is that significant?

The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

And that's a good thing.

The written test elements are prepared, both questions and
multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC.

And approved by the FCC

Those
cover "radio theory" (actually electronics in general since
there are no exclusive-to-amateur-radio circuits) and
Commission regulations. While some questions pertain to
"radio operating," there is no actual, hands-on, demonstratable
ability to OPERATE any radio, let alone amateur radio. Some in
here as well as in commentary on the NPRM misuse "operating"
to refer almost exclusively to RADIOTELEGRAPHY.

Who would they be, Len?

Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about
radio theory? ABSOLUTELY.

Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not
exactly unbiased in your opinions.

Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than
you, Len.

I charge that based on MY life
experience in answering, as politely as possible, questions
of rather elementary level on radio theory.

Your politeness isn't exactly legendary, Len.

I was answering
questions, giving CORRECT answers, as a NON-amateur but also
as a very professional radio-knowledgeable person. All too
many of those questions from radio amateurs chronologically
older than I was were so simplistic, so indicative of a basic
understanding of radio and propagation principles that I
would lump them as less than Novice class amateurs.

By what standard?

How did they pass their written tests if they're so ignorant? Did
they get a look at a 1957 Extra test?

I could
care less that they might be able to do 40 WPM radiotelegraphy
with "perfect copy" any time. I could care less if they had
earned every possible "radiosport" contest as amateurs. They
were still deficient in a basic understanding of radio theory,
deficient at an elementary level. In a radio activity that
grants BOTH an operator and station license, it showed me
that they couldn't possibly meet the technical regulations
of amateur radio to match their lofty rank-status-privileges
they were granted.

Yet FCC disagrees with you, Len.

You see, amateur radio is mainly about operating radios. Sure, some
technical knowledge is needed, and some of us do things like design
and build our own amateur radio stations (something you've never
done, btw.) But the license isn't for building - it's for operating.

Operating is what amateur radio is really all about. All types of
operating, with all sorts of modes and equipment. Technical stuff
is just a means to that end.

You just don't seem to understand that.

Then again, you aren't likely to know. You aren't a ham and you aren't
an ARRL member.

I'm FAR LESS likely to be an ARRL/NAAR member than a licensed
radio amateur...unless they do some drastic changes to their
public policy.

It's very unlikely you'll ever be either, Len.

The "National Association for Amateur Radio" (nee' ARRL) is
the "club." Even so, their membership is only one of every
five U.S. amateur radio licensees. Why aren't there more?

Some disagree with League policies
Some think membership costs too much.
Some are inactive
Some don't understand why a national organization is needed.

The percentages of membership have never become greater than
a quarter of all licensees.

Not true, Len.

btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs
even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires.

Your blatant problem is some weird self-righteous elitism
wherein you claim that no one licensed can "know" anything
about amateur radio.

Where is that claimed?

And? What percentage of radio amateurs filed? What percentage of the
general public filed?

Ask Joe Speroni. Rightsell calls him the "unofficial
statistician of amateur radio." What did Speroni do about
that "English department" filing wherein the English
teacher stated outright she had NO activity in amateur
radio and was NOT going to get an amateur license. Speroni
counted her for "support" of his "statistics."

That's because she was in support of continued Morse Code testing.

You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst
almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement.

What of all
those law students filing, 18 in all. None of them are
licensees and none say they are going to get a license.

You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

You love Rightsell, don't you? You get on my case because
I filed a Reply to Comments of his "two-year-olds" filing.

Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len.

You aren't wrapped very tight.

True, I am (at time of writing) sitting in shirtsleeves,
the office window open, temperature gauge at the corner
of the radio clock displaying 71.3 degrees F.

"Profiles" work two ways, indeed in many ways. Yours
can, and has been done (in part) several times.

Was that the one you plagiarized from Jim's work?

PARODY is perfectly acceptible.

You're spelling isn't.

Tsk, tsk, you DO! See little gems of an accusatory nature
such as I should have obtained an amateur radio license
before accepting professional radio employment!

Who wrote that?

Morse code is alive but unwell...

Actually it's quite well.

See, this is what I mean when I say that you make frequent factual
errors. I invite you to tune your Icom receiver to the low ends of the
bands 160-10m this coming weekend.

Why? I have no personal interest in morse code and no interest
in amateur radio contesting. Invitation denied.

Afraid you'll be proven wrong?

One can listen OUTSIDE the amateur radio bands and NOT hear
much radiotelegraphy.

An amateur license permits the licensee to operate INSIDE the
amateur bands, not OUTSIDE.

Hardly a beep to be heard...still lots
of SSB and AM voice, data (TORs mostly), international
broadcasting, standard time signals. Not much morse code.

Why is that important to what happens inside the amateur bands?