In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

On 30 Sep 2003 15:12:12 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

by that logic, most of the General and Extra written exams are also
"government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism" and/or
"a welfare program".

You've been dangling the above for a few days now.

A few years, actually.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

I didn't expect you to. But it's still true.

One of the principles that makes up the Basis And Purpose of the
ARS is "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."

That's right. Does passing the General or Extra written exam make someone an
electronics expert?

Do you know any hams who, upon passing the General and/or Extra exams, suddenly
decided to start building their equipment instead of buying it?

The design of modern communications equipment is based on digital
electronics.

Partly. There's also a lot of analog stuff in there.

Learning about digital electronics, therefore, is in
keeping with the Basis And Purpose.

Of course.

But why *must* hams be tested on digital electronics beyond the level of the
Tech exam? Is the digital electronics used in HF/MF amateur radio equipment
somehow different from the digital electronics used in VHF/UHF amateur radio
equipment?

Why must all that theory stuff be forced down prospective HF hams' throats
whether they are interested in it or not?

There's nothing in the Basis And Purpose about telegraphy.

Sure there is - it's under "trained operators".

There's nothing in the "Basis And Purpose about digital electronics, either.

FCC has already allowed that "because the amateur service is
fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code
proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis
and purpose of the service."

(Both quotes above are from FCC's report & order on the last round of
restructuring in the ARS)

This is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea, remember. And the same FCC
that will probably take 2 years to drop Element 1.

And the same FCC that radically reduced the written tests in that same
restructuring.

Here's proof of my argument about the content of the writtens:

A newcomer can get a Tech license by passing the current 35 question Element 2.
That license permits the new ham to use any authorized mode on any authorized
amateur frequency above 30 MHz. Every amateur HF/MF mode is also allowed on
VHF/UHF, and the power limits are the same. So FCC obviously thinks that the 35
question Tech test is a valid indicator of what a ham needs to know to
design/build/repair/align and operate any amateur station on VHF/UHF.

But even after the code test is passed, a new ham has to pass more written
tests to get more than 'Novice' privileges on HF/MF. Of course the General and
Extra writtens contain some "necessary" propagation, regulatory and safety
stuff that is not in the Tech test. But the rest is stuff that is not
absolutely necessary to design/build/repair/align and operate any amateur
station on HF/MF.

Add to this the fact that the only difference in operating privileges between a
General class ham and an Extra is a few bits of spectrum on 4 of the 9 HF/MF
bands, and it becomes very clear that most of the General and Extra written
exams are also "government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism"
and/or "a welfare program".

The situation is made even clearer by the emergence of rigs that cover both HF
and VHF/UHF. A Tech can buy, repair, align, and operate, say, an FT-897. Why is
said Tech qualified to use its full capabilities on 2 meters but not on 20
meters?

Now you might say that the tests "encourage" hams to become more "technical".
Have you ever observed that effect on hams who were not inclined to be
"technical" before they took the General and Extra class writtens?

Which activity is more prevalent in amateur radio today: Hams operating CW, or
hams designing and building their own radio equipment from scratch?

Why must there be a test for all that stuff if it's not necessary to the safe
and legal operation of an amateur radio station? How many doctors, lawyers, and
other people who would be great hams are we keeping out because they are not
interested in all that technical stuff? (We could sure use more hams who are
lawyers to help fight CC&Rs and BPL!)

Except for some extremely basic stuff on regulations and safety, *everything*
in the tests is the result of somebody's opinion.

An oft-repeated argument against the code test is that code operation is no
longer absolutely necessary for any operation, so there's no absolute need to
test for it. Apply the same logic to the writtens, and a lot of what's in them
has to go as well. It's an inescapable logical conclusion.

Clint has subsequently elaborated on his comment, citing government
subsidizing of the agricultural industry as one example, demonstrating
that this is in fact what he had in mind as well.

What major industry in this country is *not* subsidized in some way?

Um, well, there's the porn industry, I suppose..

Good point!

.but other than that,
you're right, there's a lot of subsidizing going on. However, that
doesn't mean that I, or anyone else for that matter, wants the
government to select my recreational activities for me on my behalf.
I'll make my own choices, thank you.

Your recreational choices are being subsidized and chosen for you as well.

If you like hiking and camping as recreational activities, there's a whole
system of parks, forests and wilderness areas, set aside by the government, for
those activities. But if you want to be a lumberjack for a recreational
activity, you cannot cut down trees in those areas. You have to go elsewhere,
almost always to private property.

Now, then...once the government has stopped subsidizing the
manufacture and testing of CW operators by eliminating the code test,
how do you think we should reallocate the Novice subbands?

Reallocate them as special digital experimental subband. Allow any
documented digital mode that will fit in the subbands to be used
there. Including digital voice, image, and yes, Morse Code/CW. No
arbitrary limits on occupied bandwidth or symbol rate as long as the
signal fits inside.

If somebody wants to run "PSK-3100" and they can document it for FCC,
fine, let 'em have at it.

I don't agree with unlimited signal bandwidths on HF - that means one
guy trying out some ultrawide digital mode wipes out the whole subband
and nobody else can experiment until he's through playing around.

That's why we have the subbands.

Not
just locally, but if the band is open, the subband's wiped out over a
significant portion of the planet.

The same is true in part for any mode.

But if it really bothers you that much, then perhaps the rule could be "any
mode less than X kHz wide" where X is, say, 5 or 10 kHz rather than the entire
subband.

I could agree with this on the microwave bands, though, where the
signals don't travel as far and there are far fewer users in line to
use the spectrum that is available.

DSSS near-far problem comes to mind.

Meanwhile, give the Novices and Tech Pluses more HF space than those
four little slots.

I definitely agree with that.

I'd say they should have at least half of the General CW/data subbands.