Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:36:26 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right?

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies.
then give it up along with your hang ups about cb if you please
There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.
granted

now what is WRONG with that?
Any license
requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.
then how do they get the lecnse?
they learn enough to pass clearly not more than that in many case I
grant you

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's
that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes
have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.
why?
Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.
why do you need to know that in order to operate?
to just get on the air..
Understand in the case you mention is NOT required only obeinace
understanding hopefully comes later

different folks come to different levels of understanding about
different subjects at different time

the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned
you convince of the need and I will support you

And no more published answers.
NO can do the court have more or less so, along the long standing body
of the FCC not chaleanceing Bash et all years ago to close the
quiestion pools NOW would more or less require an act of Congress or a
change in ITU treaty lang. It took us No Code what 4 or decades to
acheeve the changes we needd in order to bring off No Code


Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff". Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?
never heard such a complaint ever


It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."
Funny all I heard of Ham radio for many years was the "wizards of 80M"
all code tested hams

I have never heard any realy bad behavoi r from any ham that hasn't had
his license renewed at least twice (which leaves out ALL No code techs
BTW)

indeed I have never heard the sort of Vile lang I have heard from that
bunch on CB perhaps midwestern Cber are just different prehaps you are
just full of it