RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

December 8th 05, 02:42 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps. While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really. If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

On top of all that, the radio users cited above may not be
FCC licensed, but they are trained, tested and often certified in
proper radio procedures for the radios they use. For
example, licenses to pilot aircraft with radios require that
the licensee know and demonstrate proper aircraft radio
procedures. The pilot's license cannot be obtained without
such radio procedure knowledge.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?

It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? All the military radios I've seen that are/were
meant to be used by "line outfits" were made as simple to operate
as possible. That paradigm goes all the way back to the WW2
BC-611 "walkie talkie".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. Most
radio amateurs are essentially self-taught, in their spare
time, using their own resources. What they could learn
in a week or two of intense formal training might take a
month to a year of part-time self-study.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.