RadioBanter - View Single Post - What makes a Pro code test Amateur a Troglodyte?

October 17th 03, 12:10 AM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

Sorry, that cannot "be asserted with equal logic."

Sure it can. I just did. The claim applies to all required subjects,
not just Morse code.

First of all, that analogy is reduced to the absurd.

Not absurd at all. NCVEC is making the same arguments. Did you read
their position paper?

Amateur radio IS involved with electronics technology and ALL
radio amateurs are responsible for their amateur stations'
technical requirements.

Of course. But that doesn't mean all amateurs like learning radio
subjects in which they have no interest, any more than all radio
amateurs like learning Morse code.

It's a plain and simple fact.

Ergo, the regulatory tool of licensing
MUST concern itself with radio-electronics technical knowledge
to prove competency and responsibility to the Commission.

It's clear that some level of testing is required, of course. The
regulations, safety and basic theory must be known in order to stay
legal.

FCC, the 'expert agency' on the subject of regulation and testing
requirements, is convinced that the 35 question Technician test is
adequate proof of technical competency and responsibility for a radio
amateur to design, build, repair, modify, align and operate an amateur
station using any authorized mode, frequency and power level above 30
MHz.

So why is more written testing on electronic theory needed to do the
same thing below 30 MHz?

Radio-electronics technical cognizance is NOT on any trial.

Yes, it is. All license test requirements must be justified. That's a
primary part of the argument against the code test. And it applies to
all required test.

What IS on trial is a test for one MODE of transmission, on-off
keying morse code.

Have you read the NCVEC paper?

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Irrelevant as to the subject of retention or elimination of the code
test for an amateur radio license.

And totally relevant to the retention or elimination of the written
tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

Try stating your position instead of raising a number of questions
which do not take any side.

Try answering the questions.

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

1953 to 1968 was 50 to 35 years ago. Approximately 2 generations.

So? Does old mean bad?

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

It was quite obvious to all that "incentive licensing" was really all
about gaining status, rank, privileges in an avocational, recreative
activity.

There is nothing about status or rank in Part 97, nor in the FCC
decisions that led to incentive licensing and whihc have kept it
around all these years.

THAT part of "incentive licensing" DID happen. It also
boosted the already-growing class distinction artificiality in U. S.
amateur radio.

Would you support a one-class license structure?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

Incomplete summation or example.

Quoted out of context.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Did it or didn't it? Are you making a speech or are you posing as
a lecturer at some seminar involving avocations?

I'm asking opinion questions. You don't want to answer them, for some
reason. That's odd, because you're usually bubbling over with opinions
here.

Nothing in current or past FCC regulations REQUIRES "building
radios." The Commission allows the OPTION of doing so while
nearly all other radio services require type-accepted radio
transmitters.

Exactly! So why is it necessary to have all kinds of theory testing?
More hams use Morse code than build their equipment. The same logic of
"it's optional and therefore should not be tested" applies in both
cases.

The Commission is NOT REQUIRED to be supportive or booster
of any particular past or present-day specific activity or mode.

Then why require so much theory testing beyond what is needed to
understand the regulations?

The Commission's ONLY lawful actions are to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio and interstate electronic communications as well as to
mitigate interference matters.

If that's your opinion, you must logically conclude that most of the
General and Extra class written exams is superfluous. That is, if you
use logic at all ;-)

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

If Hans kohb's proposal/petition is before the Commission, then ALL
are free to comment on it THERE.

And here, too. Unless you are telling us that we should not discuss
amateur radio policy issues in this newsgroup, which is called
"rec.radio.amateur.policy".

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If you wish "looney tunes" entertainment, then try to read RM-10808
seriously. It is proposed by none other than AH0A.

"Beginning to make noises" is a subjective observation of yours.

If you wish to have a written amateur test element set with more
difficulty, you are absolutely free to submit your proposal to the
Commission, have them issue an RM, and then cry in public
newsgroups later because your proposal does not meet enough
acceptance.

What's your point?

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

Just say NO...and with some supporting evidence.

What evidence would you suggest, Len?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

The same as above.

What evidence would you suggest, Len?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

What IS your problem, senior?

Why do you call me "senior" when you are the oldest one here?

Do you NEED rank, status, privilege in a hobby activity to "prove"
yourself to the rest of the world?

I've had all amateur privileges for the past 33 years. You've never
had any. It's not me who needs to prove himself.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process.

Theory is not for everyone.

Exactly.

People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

Define "excellent hams" in terms other than your own standards
OR the emotionally-laden phraseology from Newington.

Those who would follow the rules and make positive contributions (such
as public service) to society and the amateur radio service.

Amateur radio is an avocation, a recreational activity involving radio not
done for pecuniary reasons. There are NO federal regulations specifying
particular mindsets, imaginary group patriotism, or oaths of fealty to
certain organizations.

What does that have to do with testing for a license?

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

Why do you ask? Get to the point, senior.

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests.

Unproven subjective supposition.

No, an inescapable conclusion.

Radio transmission IS a technological activity. The Commission does
NOT require any sort of high level of theoretical knowledge...and they
do NOT require a large number of questions on theory on any written
test. In fact, the Commission DOES NOT SPECIFY THE NUMBER
OF SPECIFIC QUESTION SUBJECTS on the written test.

Why are you shouting things we all know?

Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Irrelevant and illogical. There is NO periodic "re-testing" for any
amateur radio license class. Pass it ONCE and it does not have
to be taken unless the decade-long renewal period has past.

You have NOT proved any "close interrelationships" since that is
not a subject, is not currently done, nor is it anything from "noises."

You just proved my point.

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?

Try answering some of the questions.