RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

December 10th 05, 11:48 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message
Well now, I just don't think ANY multiple classes
should exist. ONE license. How about that?

It's not as good as if there are multiple license classes.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

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

One can't go into an HRO, plunk down plastic, walk out
with a working two-way radio? :-)

Can't be *used* (legally) for amateur radio without the appropriate
license.
Or don't you think amateur radio should have licenses?

What would be easier?

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

Removing the artificiality of all that class distinction
with carrot-stick "privileges" would erase all of that.

Instead, new hams would just have to pass all the exams
at once just to get started. Unless you want to lower the
*written* test requirements even more.

Face it, Jimmie, all those classes GREW in order to
satisfy some POLITICAL reasons within the amateur
community.

Such as? Back up your claim - if you can.

In the beginning there was only ONE license.

The time of one-amateur-radio-license-class ended
more than 70 years ago, Len. Why do you
live in the past?

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them.

"Earn them?" :-)

Yes. Amateur radio licenses are earned by passing the
required tests. You haven't earned one, therefore you
are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an
amateur radio station.

If there were NO classes, just ONE license, wouldn't the
applicants have "earned" those?

Sure. But you haven't earned any amateur radio license, Len....

In the beginning there was only ONE license.

The time of one-amateur-radio-license-class ended
more than 70 years ago, Len. Why do you
live in the past?

In fact, in the beginning there were no radio licenses at all.
That didn't work out so well.

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

As far as the federal government is concerned, it is a NON-PAYING
radio activity that is expressly forbidden to broadcast or engage
in common-carrier communications.

That's true.

That boils down to a HOBBY.

Not *just* a hobby.

It's also done for public service.

Jimmie, grow up. You are NOT the ARRL trying to do a snow job on
the public, trying to get more membership.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

Hobbies, ALL hobbies, can be made into a "service" for SOME of the
public.

How did stamp collecting help with hurricane relief?

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

But that's not all it is, Len. Grow up and accept that shouting the
same old tired lines doesn't convince anyone.

Individuals engaged in that HOBBY are licensed because the FCC,
the federal agency regulating all civil radio, think that
licensing is a tool of regulation.

That's partly true. Licenses are also required because the USA has
entered into treaty agreements with other countries regarding radio
regulation - including amateur radio regulation.

Do you think amateur radio should not require licenses at all?

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same.

"Recognition?" Tsk, now you are back to CLASS DISTINCTION
again!

Is achievement a bad thing?

Level of achievement with a no-class, one-license
system: Have a license or not have a license.

You don't have an amateur radio license, Len. No achievement there!

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.

Crap. It isn't anywhere close to rocket science.

Nobody says it is.

The complexity of the task of operating a radio
transmitter is directly related to the transmitter. Some are
designed to be very easy to operate, others are more
complex.

If very ordinary young men can operate multi-control
vacuum tube transmitters of high power output with
success and rapidity with only a few days of on-the-
job instruction, then your "lot of skill and
knowledge" is crap squared.

No, it isn't.

You're taking the experience of a few people and a few transmitters
and demanding that it apply to everyone and all transmitters. That's
just nonsense.

Besides, you've already contradicted yourself. The "very ordinary young
men"
all had some form of technical training, and had been selected for the
task.
The transmitters they adjusted were already set up, operating, and the
procedures to use them completely worked out. Those "very ordinary
young men"
all had more-experienced supervision to teach them the tasks and make
sure they
did it right.

And yet it took *days* of on-the-job instruction before they could be
left to
do the job on their own! Even then, the more-experienced supervision
was
always on-call if a problem arose.

And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

Anyone, with or without a license can operate a
RECEIVER. Crap-cubed, Jimmie.

Len, you don't seem to be able to understand the concept of "amateur
radio station", let alone "operating".

UNLICENSED people by the thousands every day in the
USA are OPERATING TRANSCEIVERS.

Not operating in the amateur radio sense. Using.

You mean cell phones? FRS/GMRS radios? CB sets? Sure,
they are - and those sets are specifically designed to require
little or no training, skill or technical knowledge to use. Their
functioning is almost totally automated, channelized, and
centrally organized.

Crap to the fourth power, Jimmie.

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.

Crap to the fifth power, Jimmie.

Don't try that "you ain't good enough to be in the same
universe as you morsemen."

Show the posting where I wrote that, Len. I don't think you
can.

"Morse code operation in amateur radio" does NOT
involve ALL "skilled operators."

Yes, it does. Those operators have skills that you do not
have, and I think that bothers the heck out of you.

Is 5 WPM rate
something that is "skilled?"

Yes! It's a very basic level of skill - entry level - but
a skill nonetheless. The person who can do Morse Code
at 5 wpm has skills that others do not.

Geez, Jimmie, you've
written that "20 WPM CW [code] isn't high rate."

And that's true - 20 wpm Morse Code isn't really that
fast compared to what really good Morse Code
operators do.

You elevated yourself to being better than most
with morse

How?

It seems to really bother you that I'm better than you
at Morse Code.

and you deride thousands of old extras
who passed a 20 WPM test. Tsk, tsk.

Deride? How? I'm one of those "old extras". You're not.

The license test element 1 doesn't involve full-day
shifts of relaying messages on some net, doesn't
involve emergency messaging from ships or people in
danger, doesn't involve anything but a very simple
test of cognition.

So? It's a test of Morse Code skill at a very basic level. Entry-
level, nothing more. It nevertheless requires that the operator
have the skills.

VECs can delete sending tests at their option.

Not delete - waive.

If you've looked at the ARRL home page lately you
would have seen a little Quiz box. 45.6 percent of
those who took that Quiz said they NEVER used
radiotelegraphy!

Look again. And tell the whole story:

Percent of operating time spent using Morse Code:

76-100% 26.5 % (1149)
51-75% 7.2 % (313)
26-50% 6.3 % (274)
Less than 25% 15.8 % (684)
I do not operate CW at all 44.1 % (1911)
Total votes: 4331

So 44.1% don't use Morse Code at all, while:

55.9% *do* use it, at least some of the time,
40.1% use it for more than 25% of their operating,
33.7% use it for more than half of their operating

Etc.

Of course the poll itself notes that it is not scientific. Anyone can
vote in it, including those who do not or cannot operate an amateur
radio station at all. Plus it does not specify "HF" operating.

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.

The radios they USE are either owned by their employers
(businesses, public safety agences as examples) or
themselves (private boat or aircraft owners as an
example). Some of those radios DO require a licensed
person to oversee their operation and technical details,
but some do NOT. Depends on the particular radio service.

In amateur radio, a licensed amateur radio operator is required.

They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments.

An amateur radio license is ALSO a radio station license.
That is the difference.

Finally! Something sensible from you!

Amateurs ARE allowed to build
their own transmitters (within limits of regulations) but
all other radio services (some exceptions in Part 15
devices) require type-acceptance of RF emitters.

That's what I've been telling you all along.

Being allowed to home-build does NOT impact USE, Jimmie.

Yes, it does. Because those homebuilt stations are then legal for
amateur radio USE.

Amateur USE is the same whether home-built or ready-
built.

That's nonsense.

"Adjustment" to meet the technical requirements
of Part 97 is NOT USE.

It's operating, Len.

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.

You forgot the Push-To-Talk "adjustment." :-)

In case you are wondering about some boat or aircraft
owners, take a look at a popular seller of private
marine radios, SGC in Belleview, WA. Their SGC 2020
model is for both marine and amateur HF bands, the
chief difference being in frequency control ranges. The
front panel controls are the same and not as simple as
you describe. [there's plenty of other examples,
especially in small-boat radar]

Radar isn't for communications. And the SGC2020 is dirt simple
compared to most amateur radio HF transceivers - even the Southgate
series are much more complex to operate.

In general aviation
craft, the civil communications band transceiver IS
simple. It should be since a pilot has to give their
attention to FLYING, not playing ham. Add to that the
civil navigation band receiver with OBS for VOR, the
crossed needles for LOC and GS, the Marker Beacon
lights, is NOT "simple."

Sure it is.

Toss in the transponder and
its operation (not complex, but woe if you squawk the
wrong code these days!).

My point exactly.

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

Crap to the sixth power, Jimmie. The REGULATIONS were
SIMPLIFIED to streamline them by removing old, antiquated
regulations that no longer benefitted anyone. The
governments (worldwide) did that.

The regulations were changed so that radios which did not require
technical adjustment would be used, and so the need for radio
licenses could be included in the pilot's license. Simple.

This isn't 1920 and some ship's radio room with a single
"skilled" radio operator the only one "qualified" to
operate a spark transmitter and crystal set receiver.
Times have changed.

Ships still required radio operators into the 1990s, Len.
And even they weren't allowed to home-brew their equipment...

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.

"Certified?" They get neat little certificates (suitable
for framing)? Wow!

Yes - did you ever see an FAA pilot's license?

Each and every radio service has their own set of jargon
and lingo, plus communications procedures. shrug So?
They generall use the same lingo and jargon when using
wired telephones. It is JOB-SPECIFIC.

And the same is true for amateur radio. For example, in
amateur radio the station transmitting always gives their
own callsign last.

"K4YZ, this is N2EY" is correct.
"N2EY to K4YZ" is not.

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.

By the Federal AVIATION Administration, NOT the FCC.

The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs.

The FAA makes the regulations for flying/piloting, Jimmie.

Amateur radio is completely different.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

But not *just* a hobby.

Pilots don't go
chasing DX or engaging in contact contests or sending QSLs.
Ignore a ham transceiver and all you do is miss a contact
or two, maybe offend the person at the other end. Ignore
an airplane's attitude or instruments and it crashes and
the pilot is DEAD, perhaps with many more on the ground.

Those instruments aren't radios, Len.

And so the requirements are different.

Completely different. I agree.

Well, there you have it.

A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station.

Tsk, the vast majority have NO means except a contact at
the other end of the radio circuit, NO way of insuring
that their RF emitters meet the prescribed technical
characteristics given in Part 97.

Is that a problem?

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.

Yeah, they pay by plastic, perhaps follow the maker's
instructions and fumble around until things sound right.

Is there something wrong with using a credit/debit card?

Or following manufacturer's instructions?

Besides - it's something *you* haven't done.

There are more than a few of us radio amateurs who design
and build our own amateur stations. You haven't done any
of that, Len, yet you pass judgement on us as if you are
somehow superior.

So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Crap to the seventh order, Jimmie.

"Modern" amateur band transceivers, transmitters, receivers, etc.
are ready-to-play right out of the box. Those are aligned,
tested, calibrated, ready-to-go. Sort of like the SGC 2020
private marine version SSB transceiver. :-)

The modern amateur radio transceivers I use didn't come that way.

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.

Oh, back to lower-order CRAP, Jimmie. After an hour's
instruction (maybe less) I was QSYing a BC-339 1 KW HF
transmitter.

Six months of microwave school, a transmitter that was all set up
and ready to go, an experienced instructor, and it still took you
an *hour* of instruction?

It had MORE "technical adjustments and
controls" than the average amateur transmitter of
comparable power. Wanna see what those looke like? He

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/
My3Years.pdf

So what? You didn't buy it, build it, or install it. You just
followed the instructions passed to you by the experienced
people in charge.

Some might say your behavior was closer to "monkey-see, monkey-do"...

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF.

Except the "60m band."

Except for all those VHF and UHF repeaters which have
been frequency-coordinated.

And that's about it. All of the other 9 MF/HF bands - all the
nonrepeater
operation on amateur VHF/UHF....

snip of squealing to the chorus

Would you have just one class of license?

Yes. NO class, ONE license.

One license is one class by definition.

If you need gold stars or pretty certificates, get those at
Office Depot.

You sound jealous, Len.

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

Reducto ad absurdum "questions" don't win you anything.

Sounds like you *would* like that chaos.

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of determining the
validity of a logical process.

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.

What do you mean "occasionally operate?"

It means that the intent of the original license was that the licensees
would operate to check out and develop new technologies and
methods, rather than ragchewing, DX chasing, contesting, etc.

And just what is
YOUR experience at ham bands of 220 MHz and up?

More than yours, Len!

Especially right after WW2.

More than yours, Len!

Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

Funny thing about your sneer, Jimmie, it almost makes you smile,
but not quite.

Who is sneering? Not me. The Technician failed in its original purpose.
That's a fact.

Right now the combined numbers of no-code-Technician and Technician
Plus classes make up a bit more that 48% of ALL U.S. amateur radio
licenses granted. Almost HALF, Jimmie.

48.1% - 318,462 out of 661,800 as of December 9.

But that percentage is *down* from what it was 5 years ago, right after
the
rules changes.

Newcomers to amateur radio are entering through the no-code-test
Technician class level

Most of them, anyway. Every month FCC issues a few dozen new licenses
to Generals and Extras "right out of the box".

And for more than 5-1/2 years, the only choice new hams have had for
their first license class is the Technician, General, or Extra.

...because it has NO code test.

How do you know that is the reason, Len?

The Technician also has the easiest and simplest written test - just 35
multiple choice questions.

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

In 1951 I would have accepted that "Novice" grading...as a teen-
ager. Maybe in early 1953 at age 20 when learning to operate
high-power HF transmitters. NOT by late 1954 as an E-5 and
supervisor of an operating team.

Sure as hell NOT by early
1956 after being a supervisor of microwave radio relay
equipment vital to the linkage of all parts of a military
radio station.

So you let a *name* - a single *word* - stop you from getting
an Amateur Radio license.

Gee, who's all hung up title and rank?

You call me a "beginner" in radio now you will get laughed at
and become a target for rotten tomatoes.

You're not even a beginner in amateur radio, Len. You haven't
even begun there....

Get the picture?

I'd like to see you try to throw rotten tomatoes at me in real
life, Len. You're really brave in the cyber-world, a continent
away.

"history" lesson omitted from one who wasn't there then

You clip out facts rather than deal with them.

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.

More crap of no particular order.

You are stuck in an endless loop of repeating past regulatory
standards AS IF time and attitudes have not changed.

You mean like somebody who thinks the zoning ideas of
1960 should still apply 30-40-45 years later?

For
example of blindness to actual fact:

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.

Just ordinary crap.

Why?

The Novice class started before "repeaters"
were numerous in major urban areas.

The Novice started in 1951. Amateur radio repeaters became common
in "major urban areas" in the 1970s.

After 1990, newcomers were shunning "Novice" and going for the
NO-CODE-TEST Technician class license.

That was long *after* amateur radio repeaters were common. Almost
two decades after!

Sure, it was straight-
jacketed to VHF and above but it was fun for most in urban
areas and the equipment makers had equipment on the shelves
for them to buy.

Yet you never got one!

There was plenty of equipment for Novices as well.

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long.

Remarkable! You've made a DISCOVERY!

Ah, but you've talked only about their physicality. Mentally
some NEVER outgrow their childhood...keeping the kiddie thoughts
and pretending to be grown-ups long into their old age.

Talking about yourself again, I see....

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

The MAJORITY of my contemporaries in electronics got into it
WITHOUT first getting an amateur radio license.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you?

Wasn't required then. Even literacy wasn't a requirement!
There were special classes to teach English then but that
required an extension of the service time to compensate.

But you all were high school graduates, right?

All had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

No. The ONLY aptitude test given in regards to radio was
a morse code cognition test given to all recruits.

Ah - and you didn't make the grade on that one, eh?
Explains a lot.

Steering
of recruits in the military then was DEMAND-driven. One
goes where one is told to go.

You all went to microwave school, right?

No. Some went to Field Radio School, some went to tele-
typewriter school, a few went to inside-plant telephone
school.

So you all had various electrical/electronic training from
the US Army. None of you were 100% self-taught in the
area of radio/electricity/electronics.

We had a separate group for outside-plant telephone
people...the "pole cats" who put up the poles for wire
antennas and strung the wire.

So you didn't have to do that sort of thing. Ever climbed
a wooden pole with hooks and belt, Len?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch.

Tsk. Try NOT to TELL ME what I or any contemporaries were
doing, Jimmie. You don't know dink about it.

IOW, I have stated exactly how it was. You and the others had
significant "radio-electronics" background before you got
to Japan, and did not have to start from scratch.

Some DID start with no previous experience other than turning
on a broadcast receiver. One was a chemist in his 3rd year
of college (not quite old enough to escape the draft and too
young to escape drafting by the Wehrmacht!). One was a farmer
from Iowa. Others were from different occupations having
nothing to do with radio or electronics.

But all had various training *in the army* before they ever got to
Japan. Some went to microwave school, some went to Field Radio
School, some went to tele-typewriter school, a few went to
inside-plant telephone school.

While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

One did, in fact, transfer out...didn't like all that
electronics snit at Monmouth and asked to go into Infantry.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right.

That's normal in the military. :-)

Exactly! Amateur radio is totally different.

They didn't hold any hands or coddle lower ranks if that's
what you mean...guffaw!

Not at all. I mean that you were not on your own.

You weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

Not entirely true. If ANY situation arose that required
handling, it was handled as best as one could. That is ALSO
true in ANY aspect of military experience.

Yet there were always experienced people around if really
needed. You were part of a team, not all on your own.

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

Not entirely true. With experience, learning, paying
attention, lower rankings become higher rankings and are
thus considered "trained and experienced." :-)

But when you started, you didn't have to work anything out
on your own.

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

Not entirely true. But, it is useless to try to explain it
to you since you have NO similar experience and NONE in that
time frame.

IOW, you had everything you needed. That's a good thing!

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.

What, to QSY a BC-339? A BC-340? An LD-T2? Simple task.
The PW-15 was a bit more difficult due to the large double-
shorting links for the final tank (15 KW conservative RF
output, looked like it was built for three times that).
Piece of cake to anyone with a normal memory.

Or a notebook. And after being shown how to do it several
times.

Memorizing new jargon was more "difficult", memorizing
new procedures on the order-wire teletypewriter were more
"difficult," some with bad pitch would set up the Shift on
the RTTY exciters to 425 cycles instead of the 850 cycles
standard.

Too bad..

Jimmie, I WAS THERE, YOU WERE NOT.

And yet I have a very good understanding of what went on.

When it comes to operating an amateur radio station as
a teenager, *I* was there, Len, and *you* were not.

There are plenty of things you've done that I haven't, Len.
And plenty of things I've done that you haven't.

Get over it.

We all learned and did our tasks

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

What "incentives" did we have? Name them.

Promotion - more pay - more interesting work - better
duty....

Also the negative incentives - somebody who didn't
do the job right could wind up in the infantry...

Do one's job well enough and one does NOT get demoted,
does NOT get Company Punishment ("Captain's Mast" in
the Navy), does NOT get **** details...although some
military tasks ARE **** details for all.

Such as?

Promotion in rank an "incentive?" IF there is an
opening (not guaranteed) in the TO&E and one is
evaluated to be a responsible type, MAYBE a
promotion. Of course, such an "incentive" also
requires an additional responsibility and, with that,
a whole new set of "gradings" on performance.

Guess what? Civilians have a similar situation - except
civilians can usually quit at any time.

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?

Describe YOUR "EME" station, Jimmie.

I don't have one, Len. Neither do you. But I know what it
would take to build and operate one as a radio amateur.

Military life is NOT a hobby, Jimmie. You don't understand
that and it is useless to explain it to you.

Whoever said it was a hobby? Not me.

My whole point is that amateur radio is a completely different
environment, and your military radio experiences don't
necessarily prove anything about amateur radio.

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

We've all heard that before in here...yawn.

We've heard yours over and over and over, Len.

It sounds JUST like some cute human-interest stories
published now and then in amateur radio publications.

It's what happened. I think you're jealous, Len.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

Yes. Big difference. I never considered myself "superior"
to anyone except of lower rank (superiority was already
pre-defined).

Now you consider yourself superior to almost everyone!
Certainly to anyone who disagrees with you.

While all what I've described was going on,
WE (the soldiers) ALSO had to undergo periodic training
to keep up our warfighting skills. NONE of that was a
HOBBY, Jimmie.

Who said it was, Len?

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".

"Handie-talkie," Jimmie. The "walkie-talkie" was the SCR-300
(R/T being BC-1000). Both designed by MOTOROLA.

Tell us YOUR experiences WITH "line" outfits.

I've worked in a line gang. Have you? I think not!

How good can
you do morse keying while rattling around IN a moving tank?

I dunno - never tried. Better than you can, I bet!

Why do you think that military radios SHOULD have lots of
complicated controls with lots of time available for operators
to play with knobs, dials, and switches?

I don't! The point is they're intentionally simplified - that's good!

Ever "wear" an AN/PRC-9? [or its cousins PRC-8, PRC-10?).
How about carrying an AN/PRC-25 or a PRC-77? How about an
AN/PRC-104 or the SINCGARS AN/PRC-119? Ever enter the
"hopset" on a 119? I have. As a civilian.

So what? Do you think that somehow qualifies you to operate
an *amateur* radio station? It doesn't.

If you want knobs, dials, switches to play with, try the old
post-WW2 USMC HF transmitter T-195 designed by Collins Radio.
First Jeep-mounted Autotune critter, first one with an
automatic antenna tuner...and enormously INEFFICIENT in terms
of DC power drain on the Jeep versus its RF power output.

Did the job, though. I prefer the T-368 myself....

I can rattle off dozens more but you won't accept any of
those that haven't appeared in the Military Ring of the
boatanchors afficionados.

You can rattle off whatever you want, Len, but it doesn't
prove any point for you.

The environments are completely different, Len.

NO KIDDING?!? Amateur radio is a HOBBY.

Not just a hobby, though.

Military is all
about WARFIGHTING, Jimmie.

Really? What about deterrence?

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.

WTF is this "intense" formal training?

The microwave school you went to, Len. How many hours
a day/week? For how many months? All paid for by the
taxpayers, right?

YOU tell ME EXACTLY how much compensation I got for keeping
up with the state-of-the-art in electronics (and radio, if
you insist on making those two indestinguishable fields
"separate")...and how many "intense instruction classes"
I got during my civilian career? I can tell you exactly
to both: ZERO.

It's not my problem if you picked your employers poorly, Len.
Good employers see the value in training their people.

And the compensation you did get was continued employment.
That's the way it works!

Anyone who tries to apply themselves in anything MUST do a
whole helluvalot of SELF-STUDY...for their work OR for their
hobby. SELF-STUDY on one's own free time...at nights, during
lunch, anywhere keeping their eyes open and being receptive
to new things. If that means taking the trouble to go to
seminars, take extension classes without credit on one's
own wallet payments, then one does it...if they really,
really want to know more...in a hobby OR in a career.

Gosh, Len, you just figure that out? I was onto that 33 years ago.

I went to college mostly on my own money, Len. Earned an
academic scholarship and kept it for four years. Got an
educational loan and paid it all back on time with interest.
Paid for the rest out of earnings at various jobs I held all
through undergraduate school.

Try working 35-38 hours a week, taking 5 engineering
courses (one of them at the graduate level) per term,
and getting everywhere without a car (home, job and
work were all separated by several miles).

Then there was grad school, after I'd been out of college
for a decade. Full time plus work, school at night, etc.
At least I had a car....

--

Now about your one-class-of-license idea:

Suppose FCC actually went for that one. (They've
turned down the idea and others like it more than
once, but put that aside for a moment).

How would your one-license system work?
What would be the written test requirements?

Most of all, what would happen to the existing
license classes? Would everyone just get full
privileges?