"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive
toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?
The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with
CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as
if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the
requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

hlink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
v.net...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive

toward

higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?


The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.


So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?
The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with
CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I
think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be
allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it.
2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as

if

it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the

requirements

we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!


So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

one of two answers:

1. It's a goofed up rule

2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code.

Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning
on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all,
and there are plenty of goofed up rules.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

hlink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
v.net...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive

toward

higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?


The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.


So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?
The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with
CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I
think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be
allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it.

Which standard, should there be separate licenses for 3 speed column,
4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, which shift pattern?

Apparently there is insufficient state
concern to worry about passing a license test with automatic and
then getting behind the wheel of a manual gearbox vehicle. It's
been that way for decades now with no ill results.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as

if

it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the

requirements

we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

one of two answers:

1. It's a goofed up rule

2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code.

Why wouldn't it be a good way to get anone on HF to
practice also if there's no code test at all? That's
the point, there is no rational justification for a CW
mode skill test. The FCC has addressed and dismissed
every known pro-code argument...as has the ITU also
since Code is gone now as a mandatory treaty requirment.

Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning
on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all,
and there are plenty of goofed up rules.

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote:
ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about
BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet
out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I'm in rec.radio.cb, Mike. That's pretty much what I'm hearing
about BPL also.

Thanks.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -


A test of BPL was run in Alabama. A engineer friend of mine told me it was
not coming up to what was advertised in Birmingham. Repeaters were needed
way too often, thus jacking up the expense.

Unless the FCC is totally braindead I think BPL, as proposed will die by
itself. However what they want is INCREASE the power of BPL over and above
what is presently allowed under part 15.

They may take that route. We shall see.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , Mike Coslo says...

I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Will it wipe out my 2 meter handheld?

"WA3MOJ" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
says...

I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about
BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet
out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Will it wipe out my 2 meter handheld?


Yes, it will.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive
toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?

Oh, I don't know, Bill…let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just
passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a
nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few
hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the
one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater…right
through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it
on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna…that ought to be good
enough, right?

After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of
having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he
plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to
remove said offensive task…would certainly be concerned and cognizant
of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass
that 35 multiple-guess…er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him
"ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not
CW. ;-)

The analogy is a joke.

Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.)
HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the
above scenario may be playing out as you read these words…and that's
no joke.

There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing.

Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no
problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors
are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously
ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that
would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be
honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance
themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call
them…"slackers.")

BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all
no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one
poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to
bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks
feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation
who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred
Watts mentioned above.

Had there been any relevant safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the
BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!"

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as
if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the
requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands.

That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a
safe environment before venturing onto the highway.

Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

73 de Bert
WA2SI