Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 22, 6:37*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:05:07 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:

* Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
* "legally" defrauding the US government?

Assuming for a moment that I did, indeed, hold two ship licenses (one of
which was for an ocean-going trawler - lmao) is there a law which states I
cannot hold multiple ship licenses?are you claiming you did or did not



* Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
* here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
* "Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
* licenses at one time...

So? Is there a law that places a limit on the # of callsigns one individual
can be trustee of?no but it is ilgela to comit fraud to obtain even one

obviously you agreed or you would still own the calls

Mark, every extra "deserves" a dozen extra callsigns.
:-)

Every extra also "deserves" to deceive the FCC as
to where their legal residence is. :-)

Every extra "deserves" to be trustee to a dozen
clubs that exist only in name. :-)

Now we get the "I never did anything illegal BS."

This is like O.J. doing an "If I Did It" book. :-)

Jeffrey Herman "confessed" that Mikey D. coerced
him into supplying him with a P.O. Box in Hawaii.
[his own if I remember...]

Mikey D. has never proved to anyone in here that
he really was a Hawaii resident. Nor has he proved
much of anything except he still has that snazzy
KH6 callsign. He got away with it. Others have.
That makes it "right." :-)

Circumventing the law and crawling through loop-
holes is not exactly ethical behavior for a mighty
morphin' amateur commando. It is closer to the
"maturity" of four-year-old-hams of 1998.

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 23, 6:23*pm, John Smith I wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
I have an extensive vocabulary, correct spelling, accurate grammar and
superb punctuation skills.Yeah, you might ... I am willing to grant you that.

But what the heck is that good for, all you spew is HARDCORE BS?

JS

He might be working on a new book manuscript.
Working title: "IF I Did It 2."

Or maybe "Effluvia Floats Again!" or even
"Hornblower Blows His Horn." :-)

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 22, 2:37*pm, "Bob Brock" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in ...
"KC4UAI" wrote:


From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license. *Afterall, that is
what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on he streets and
kill or main others by losing control?

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.

The FCC decides. In the case of the Commercial
Radiotelephone licenses (three classes merged
into one General class) they were made lifetime.
NO renewals needed. Ever. [sometime around
the 1980s? I'd have to look in my licenses folder
elsewhere to get the exact date]

The state of the radio art is constantly changing.
While not very rapidly in US amateur radio, most
of the other radio services have changed drastically.
So many changes that the COLEMs would be hard
pressed to keep up, certainly so the FCC if they
still had to make up the tests. Can the VEC QPC
keep up with slowly-changing amateur radio
technology? That's doubtful since there has been
little change in the written test content for over a
decade.

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 23, 10:15*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote oups..com:

About 1961, FCC decided to "modernize" the license tests. They were
all converted to multiple choice format, with a new answer sheet that
could be machine-graded. This transition did not take place overnight,
though - the field offices first used up their supply of old tests
before going to the new ones.* * * *

I'm a little confused here. My 1956 Guide has Multiple choice for the
General test and Technician test at that time. Were they wrong?

Couple of points:

- Before March 21, 1987, the General and Technician used
exactly the same written test. The only difference in testing
for the two licenses was that General required 13 wpm code
and Technician required 5 wpm code.

- When the Conditional license existed, it too used the same
written test as the General and Technician.

- The questions and answers in the Ameco Guide you
have were not the actual questions used on the test. They
were written by Ameco, and were derived from the essay-
type study guides provided by the FCC.

- The General/Technician exams in the 1950s were not
100% multiple choice. There were a few draw-a-diagram
questions and some show-your-work calculation questions.
But the majority of the questions on those exams *were*
multiple choice, and the Ameco folks may have thought
their Guide to be adequate.

--

It is interesting that the Ameco book doesn't cover the
Extra exam. In those days (1956), the Advanced was
closed to new issues, but folks who held an Advanced
could continue to renew and modify as needed. A few
hams made the jump from General to Extra, but only a
few went for Extra in those years because it gave no
additional operating privileges, and the Extra required
another trip to an FCC examiner. The Conditional was
the by-mail equivalent of the General back then, and
if you lived more than 75 miles from an FCC exam
point you could get a Conditional. But there was no
by-mail option for the Extra. Conditionals made up a
sizable percentage of US amateur radio in the 1950s.
One source I saw said Conditionals accounted for about
25% of 1950s US hams. In that same period Extras
were only about 2%.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On 23 Jan 2007 22:36:44 -0800, "
wrote:



On Jan 22, 2:370m, "Bob Brock" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in ...
"KC4UAI" wrote:


From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license.
fterall, that is
what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on he streets and
kill or main others by losing control?

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.

The FCC decides. In the case of the Commercial
Radiotelephone licenses (three classes merged
into one General class) they were made lifetime.
NO renewals needed. Ever. [sometime around
the 1980s? I'd have to look in my licenses folder
elsewhere to get the exact date]

The state of the radio art is constantly changing.
While not very rapidly in US amateur radio, most
of the other radio services have changed drastically.
So many changes that the COLEMs would be hard
pressed to keep up, certainly so the FCC if they
still had to make up the tests. Can the VEC QPC
keep up with slowly-changing amateur radio
technology? That's doubtful since there has been
little change in the written test content for over a
decade.

LA

I wasn't being serious Len. I didn't read here years ago and would be
surprised if someone seriously suggested periodic retesting. In my
stated, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

Those Old Study Guides
 

wrote:
- When the Conditional license existed, it too used the same
written test as the General and Technician.

I heard that the reason the FCC was so protective of
those exams is that they only had two different versions
of them. Any truth to that?

One source I saw said Conditionals accounted for about
25% of 1950s US hams.

As I remember, Conditionals who moved closer than 75 miles
to an FCC office were supposed to retake the General. I
never did that and, if I remember correctly, I was later
grandfathered to General - can't remember exactly when.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is
not all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look
it up and use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught
dead without my ARRL handbook.

Yes, but what about those who simply word associate the answers and
never bother to learn the underlying theory at all? Are they really a
benefit to the ARS, other than upping the "body count".

Well, there are plenty of people who get through life kinda like
that.


I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I
just don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am,
as some hams do.

I believe the theory examinations should be structured to test people
on basic knowledge and skills -- the building blocks they use to
further their journey in ham radio. I do not feel it is unreasonable
to expect folks who get licensed to actually 'know' these things.


It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this
hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to
test to proficiency in all the aspects of it.

70% isn't necessarily "proficient". I would say 70% is adequate for
passing the test. I would be hard pressed, for instance, to say an
employee who gets 70% of their work correct is proficient at their
job.

Definitely. But the idea to me is that a Ham who scored 70 percent on
the test can still put up an antenna - maybe even correctly, operate a
radio, help out in an emergency, and certainly in some cases do some
fine CW work.

I just think that trying to decide on what exactly makes a "good
test" is so subjective. I wouldn't want to base it on what I know. I
definitely wouldn't want to base it on "genius Hams" level of
knowledge. Others will differ.

I would offer this though. From what I know of EE students, at
least in my environment, is that they are loaded up with classes. They
can't take any of the gut courses. Getting through their courses is a
challenge that a fair number take an extra year to do it.

Most of them who are not Hams already, graduate with just about the
same ability to put a station together as a newly minted General. Who
had a test from a public question pool.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Once you get away from distinct skills such as Morse code acumen,
you get into a grey area. I'm trying to envision a test where one
VE wants only plain english and another one thinks it is cool to
say things such as QSL, QTH, or HI-HI on voice. So much
subjectivity.

You're right. This is why I do not (currently) support any type of
"skills" test. Although I am not opposed to the idea, I cannot think
of a way to implement one fairly. Instead, I feel the focus should be
on "strengthening" (not read: make more difficult) the theory
examinations.

Wouldn't it be cool to have (whenever possible) a small station set
up at exams? Even a FT817 and a miracle whip antenna. Get the successful
testees the chance to get their first QSO as a new Ham. Start the
Elmering process right away. At that point the plain speech ham can give
their opinion on how to talk, and the HIHI ham can do the same, without
affecting the test process.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 23, 9:35*am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:* ...

The problem Len has with you isn't your license, or lack of it. It's
the fact that
you dared to disagree with him, and/or correct one or more of his
mistakes
here. Once someone does either or both of those things, Len's reaction
is
100% predictable. In fact, there's a handy profile that pretty much
sums it all up:

Now that's funny. *The problem with Len is he has pulled some covers
here and pi$$ed off a few. *As to Len being perfect? *Well, maybe, maybe
not--I kinda like him. *As for Len being "predictable", hey look in a
mirror, you are one we are making fun of for that very thing!!!

...
73 de Jim, N2EY

You guys are VERY small MEN. *Len knows that, I know that, the whole
world knows that. *If you attempt to step away from it, you can't. *You
will now be seen for what you truly are. *You know that and it irks you,
don't take that anger out on Len ...

JS

John, you are positively profound on your prophecies! A bow to you
in honor of that gift.

Sister Nun of the Above went in "spanky" mode today doing just what
you described. Truly amazing. And predictable. :-)

I gotta give your prophecies a lot more respect!

Humbly bowing,

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

From: Bob Brock on Wed, Jan 24 2007 9:12 am

On 23 Jan 2007 22:36:44 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:370m, "Bob Brock" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in ...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license.
Afterall, that is what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on the streets and
kill or main others by losing control?

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.

The FCC decides. In the case of the Commercial
Radiotelephone licenses (three classes merged
into one General class) they were made lifetime.
NO renewals needed. Ever. [sometime around
the 1980s? I'd have to look in my licenses folder
elsewhere to get the exact date]

I wasn't being serious Len. I didn't read here years ago and would be
surprised if someone seriously suggested periodic retesting.

My apologies to you, Bob. Sometimes it is hard to
discern who is serious or who is wry in this Din
of Inequity. [as in ham-on-wry... :-) ]

In my
state, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

That's pretty much the case in my state, California...but
somewhat graded. Every five years it was into a DMV
office to take a real shortie of a written test, check
appropriate physical things (corrective eyeware required
in my case), do the fingerprint thing, photos, etc. No
actual vehicle driving test. After ten years I was called
to take the full written. Went to the California state
DMV website and brushed up on new laws. Passed the
written and again, NO actual vehicle driving test. [I had
then been driving every day of those ten years...how did
they think I GOT to the DMV office? :-) ] No, none, zip,
nada moving or stationary violations in ten years.

But, seriously speaking, voice in hushed tone a radio
hobby test isn't even close to a requirement to operate
a vehicle that can KILL others as a result of a minor
lapse of attention. The California DMV driver test (full-
on version) is multiple-choice. The number of questions?
I forgot, but the latest info can be obtained on the 'net.
The nature of operating a heavy vehicle mandates at least
a cursory check of basic physical abilities by officials
whose main task is public safety.

There's NO such need in amateur radio, nor has it been so
for commercial radio licenses for as long as I've been
licensed there (51 years). PERHAPS a periodic review of
new radio regulations? Sort of like what I call the
"shortie" test at the CA DMV. That might be applicable
for the single-Part amateur regs in the USA, but the
commercial radio licenses cover operating in MANY
different radio services covered by as many Parts in
Title 47. Plus, some radio services don't need all
radio operating personnel to have any form of license.

SOME form of licensing is needed for a station, especially
one that can spritz out RF energy all over the globe,
ionosphere permitting. For safety reasons? I don't think
so. Amateurs aren't allowed microwave-cooking kinds of
powers or have they the kilowatts needed to heat-cure
plywood laminations in 32 sq. ft. sheets. Radio amateurs
can kill themselves doing dumb NON-amateur things, so
there isn't a need for yet-another governmental watchdog
on that. I'd say the jury is still out on "RF exposure"
at HF even though it is codified in law (and has questions
on the test)...at least at amateur allowed RF powers.
For technical reasons? Yes, the activity IS technological.
For regulatory reasons, absolutely. Part 97 alone is many
many changes in the last 10 years; I can see that in bound
volumes from the GPO on Title 47 versus today's regs
available at the GPO website.

But, bottom line, the FCC is still the final decider. They
grant the licenses, try to enforce the written (and spirit)
law, can fine miscreants, and yank back the licenses of
offenders.

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

From: on Wed, Jan 24 2007 12:07 pm


On 23 Jan 2007 22:13:37 -0800, " wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:370m, wrote:

Mark, every extra "deserves" a dozen extra callsigns.
:-)

hmm I guess I get to start MY own collection in 30 days

Sunnuvagun! How about that? :-)

Not a good idea even you could still get away with it.


Every extra also "deserves" to deceive the FCC as
to where their legal residence is. :-)

but deciet of stalker that has threaten is forribeen to mere tech

All them old extras are a law unto themselves.


Now we get the "I never did anything illegal BS."

of course hi did nothing wrong that is why he foled at the first brush
with the law

Deignan got away with it because there was NO SPECIFIC
regulation against it...and the records keeping of the
FCC did not flag it down for those doing the club call
processing. He still didn't beat the California ham
who had over 30 "club" calls. :-)

Deignan's actions violated the SPIRIT OF THE LAW. I'm no
attorney but several admitted to the California Bar have
assured me that such is good for court action. They did
differ on the kind of court but that is a trivial matter.
It is still prosecuteable.


This is like O.J. doing an "If I Did It" book. :-)

sorry I am sure the OJ is better writen and better reading

It's beside the point now, nearly all the copies have
been destroyed, unsold. TS for OJ and potential
profits.


Jeffrey Herman "confessed" that Mikey D. coerced
him into supplying him with a P.O. Box in Hawaii.
[his own if I remember...]

oh so the coastie conspired to defraud the feds I guess it it was a
good thing for jeff he never had the motovation to become an officer
he could have been courtmartailed for that

Courts martial for Jeffie? Doubt it. That's getting
a bit far afield from the UCMJ. Defrauding the United
States Postal Service IS a federal crime but the federal
courts can handle that (if there is sufficient proof
to warrant prosecution).

Mikey D. has never proved to anyone in here that
he really was a Hawaii resident. Nor has he proved
much of anything except he still has that snazzy
KH6 callsign. He got away with it. Others have.
That makes it "right." :-)

hmmm other extras have but he must ever vigulant for mere techs daring
to defend themselves

Any class having Vanity Call privileges could have done
it. shrug

Problem is, MOST licensed amateurs are content with just
ONE license or they might be a trustee of ONE club license.
They exist and the club is probably a real club with
membership rolls and all that.

When ONE licensed amateur is trustee of MANY clubs, the
FCC can (and has) rightfully questioned whether or not
those clubs existed by asking for membership, meeting
locations, etc. If those weren't supplied, the FCC can
logically consider the "club" non-existant and yank the
license. Usually they do a letter request for the
pertinent information first, giving an "easy out." The
hoarding individual can then request the FCC to drop the
"club" call in lieu of supplying bogus "club" info.
Least fuss for all that way. However, the STIGMA remains,
onus on the hoarder. Forever. shrug

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 24, 5:56*pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:* ...

* *John, you are positively profound on your prophecies! *A bow to you
* *in honor of that gift.

* *Sister Nun of the Above went in "spanky" mode today doing just what
* *you described. *Truly amazing. *And predictable. *:-)

* *I gotta give your prophecies a lot more respect!

* *Humbly bowing,

* *LALen:

Like with Hemingway, I cannot take the credit for that, you old devil.

He simply has a "hard on" for you which he cannot satisfy, you tease!
chuckling

My read on the Cranky Spanky is twofold: The guy is a control freak
trying to get a "rep" as all-seeing, all-knowing guru; he is trying
to
button-push certain others so that they get "wound up" and say real
nasty things that would allow him to go crying to Google for help to
have the nasties banned forever and ever. :-)

Both of those items above would accomplish what he seeks,
RECOGNITION. A side benefit would be "respect."

Yanno, there is some "respect" for someone who works SO
DOGGEDLY at the "correction" game. Before work, after work,
almost any time free. It's like he got NO other thing in mind. :-)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder. He got, not me. :-)

Some of these poor dumm****s never did the BBS thing in a large
urban area before Internet. They've missed a HEAP of such
compulsive-obsessive disordered minds on the loose, frazzling
the nerves of sysops all over. Was easy to "moderate" them by
just Locking Them Out. :-) I've seen ten kinds of examples of
control-freaks, button-pushers, disordered minds for every one
who has ever been in here. They don't know that they've been
replied-to (sometimes) with the SAME thing they do to others!

Utterly fascinating to see both. :-)

All the best,
LA

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 24, 10:00*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
- When the Conditional license existed, it too used the same
written test as the General and Technician.

I heard that the reason the FCC was so protective of
those exams is that they only had two different versions
of them. Any truth to that?

Hello Cecil,

I don't know if there were only two exams in those days. I do know that
there were not a
lot of different exam versions then - I've seen reports of there being
only three, and others that the number never exceeded five

In any event, there were so few that if a person kept going back to FCC
and retook the written exam, pretty soon they'd have to come across the
exact same exam they'd taken before.

As I understand it, the limited number of different written exams was
also one reason for
the 30-day-wait-before-retesting rule.

One source I saw said Conditionals accounted for about
25% of 1950s US hams.

As I remember, Conditionals who moved closer than 75 miles
to an FCC office were supposed to retake the General. I
never did that and, if I remember correctly, I was later
grandfathered to General - can't remember exactly when.

What happened was this:

Prior to about 1953, all amateur exams were conducted by FCC unless
someone lived more than 125 miles "air-line" from an FCC exam point, or
was a shut-in. This included Novices and Technicians. Also, if a ham
who obtained a license "by-mail" moved to less than 125 miles from an
FCC exam point, they had 90 days to retest or forfeit their license.

On top of all that, the Extra/Advanced/Class A exams were not routinely
available by mail, and if a ham with a by-mail license wanted one of
those licenses, they not only had to travel to FCC, they also had to
retake the General exams first.

The reason the license was called "Conditional" was that it was issued
conditionally, in FCC's view, and when the conditions changed you had
to retest.

Most of those rules changed about 1953-54:

Novice and Technician became by-mail licenses regardless of distance.

The "Conditional distance was reduced from 125 miles to 75 miles
"air-line"

The requirement to retest if you moved closer was eliminated.

And in February 1953, Conditionals and Generals got the same operating
privileges as Advanceds and Extras.

That state of affairs lasted a decade or so, until 1964-65. Then FCC
changed the "Conditional distance" from 75 miles to 175 miles, and
increased the number of exam points. These changes greatly reduced the
places where a person in CONUS could qualify for a new Conditional
license because of distance.

Those 1964-65 changes to the Conditional were one reason for some of
the opposition to the "incentive licensing" changes that came later in
the 1960s.

Finally in the mid-1970s the FCC phased out the Conditional completely.
They simply stopped offering it, and began renewing all Conditionals as
Generals. This was in the era when FCC not only had many scheduled
exams, but would also send out traveling examiners upon request if a
minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed. Ham exam sessions were
being conducted by FCC at hamfests, conventions, and club meetings, and
the perceived need for the Conditional disappeared.

---

Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to the
Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you got the
license, as did the retest rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Well, there are plenty of people who get through life kinda like
that.

There are. If they have a ham license, are they aiding in fulfilling any
portion of 97.1 ?


Definitely. But the idea to me is that a Ham who scored 70 percent
on the test can still put up an antenna - maybe even correctly,
operate a radio, help out in an emergency, and certainly in some
cases do some fine CW work.

Maybe... maybe not. We accept 70% as an arbitrary # that someone 'knows' the
material.

However, as currently structured, that 70% passing grade is "all
encompassing" on the examination. You could miss every single question on
the antenna theory subelement (or regulations subelement, or some other
topic) and still pass the exam and get your ham license.

I proposed in my 1998 NPRM comments that applicants be required to get 70%
or better on each subelement. Thus, you would have to "pass" the subelement
on regulations, "pass" the sub-element on antenna theory, etc.


I just think that trying to decide on what exactly makes a "good
test" is so subjective. I wouldn't want to base it on what I know.
I definitely wouldn't want to base it on "genius Hams" level of
knowledge. Others will differ.

Neither would I. I think the current testing system is okay, with minor
modications to help ensure applicants actually know the material. In no way
do I want to increase the "difficulty" of the exam (although no doubt some
will claim my ideas would make it more difficult for someone to get a
license, although I counter that someone knowing the material would, in
fact, have no difficulty).

73
KH6HZ

Those Old Study Guides
 

wrote:
Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to the
Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you got the
license, as did the retest rules.

Thanks Jim, for the history lesson.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 25, 8:41 am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ...

My read on the Cranky Spanky is twofold: The guy is a control freak
trying to get a "rep" as all-seeing, all-knowing guru; he is trying to
button-push certain others so that they get "wound up" and say real
nasty things that would allow him to go crying to Google for help to
have the nasties banned forever and ever. :-)

...Len:

Like I say, I kinda like it when you disagree with me, gives me a chance
to see a different perspective on things. And, logical analysis is
never discouraged here ...

"Never discouraged?!?" You've GOT to be kidding!

In watching these floundering gods of morse blabber old League
sayings back and forth, the ONLY "logical analysis" ALLOWED
is that of the god-given truths from the bible of the Church of
St. Hiram. All else is heretical, blasphemy. Ptui.

While he is indeed a control freak and would like to bring all others
into agreement with him (wouldn't you just have hated to have been one
of his children!) I think his text relates strongly to his
disappointment and his unwillingness to bring himself into alignment
with reality.

I will agree with that. Yassuh.

Like I have said in past times, a relatively few strong willed
individuals have been in control and at the helm of amateur radios'
destiny. Now the ship has run ground from having such ill fitting
captains. It could have been much more (amateur radio), and composed of
enough individuals to have been able to survive. This never happened,
others constantly warned them along the way. And, they were especially
warned of the danger of keeping amateur radio a "good ole' boys club"
and using morse as a limiting factor in allowing new licensees.

Absolutely. Had Philips "invented" their wearable LED display
shirts years ago, they would have been bought up for all the
olde-tyme morsemen to walk around with them, announcing
they were Gods of Radio. [see latest issue of IEEE Spectrum
for "winners and losers" in electrical-electronic technology with
Philips (of the Netherlands) having a very rare for them loser
product]

So, mankind went on and invented the internet. Now the internet
overflows the world and has become TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT, an example is
this newsgroup right here. And, the internets' appetite is
ever-increasing hungry for bandwidth--something amateur radio just has
laying around.

Ahem...ham radio ain't no "starting point" for any Internet. The
Internet was a logical progression of humans' need to
communicate, much much aided by solid-state technology
and Information Theory and general computer thechnology.

Look at cellular telephony which got a head start on the
Internet. Four years ago the US Census Bureau made a
public statement that one in three Americans had a cell
phone subscription. Little two-way radios tied into the
telephone system. One in three. That's like 100 million
cellphones in the USA alone. Consumer electronics stores
are having a profitable ball selling the things. The electronics
industry trade magazines have been featuring cellphone base
station technology and components. At the same time,
amateur radio "men" could only preserve their testosterone
if they tested for morse code?!?!?

The rest is my psychic prediction--the internet will consume amateur
radios' bandwidth--end of story.

Well, I look at it a bit differently. Unless US amateur radio
GROWS UP to face the new millennium, amateur radio of
the "hold back the dawn" leadership will simply consume
itself. It was already started.

Maybe...just maybe...FCC 06-178 can throw some water on
the dying embers of what was once US amateur radio. It could
rise like the Phoenix from the ashes. Maybe. At least it is
COLD water that might wake a few of these olde-tymers up.
Most will not, though, mumbling through toothless gums
about the Greater Glory of Morsemanship and how it once
saveed the Titanic in 1912.

The rest of mankind's quest for intercommunications goes on.
The Internet is just one facet. Self-amplifying fiber-optic cable
now spans the world's oceans with Gigabit data rates, the
equatorial communication satellites orbit spaces were all
filled years ago, DATA rules the exchange of written words,
and non-radio-civilians can roam supermarket aisles talking
back home about special product prices and asking if they
should get those instead of what they had on the list. GPS
for civilians can almost pinpoint which aisle they are in, a
system that the USN pioneered beginning three decades ago.
TV viewers are beginning to catch up with beautiful video and
wonderful sound through HDTV.

While all that is happening all around, the olde-tymers are
busy ordering all that the only "good" radio man is one that
is expert with morse code and will "always" get an amateur
radio license to "prove his worth and dedication!"

Amateur radio chiefs are still vainly holding back the dawn of
new ages (plural) for all they are worth. It's like some weird
Amish quasi-religious movement limiting all technology fixed
in the standards and practices of the 1930s, forever
worshipping the PAST.

[now watch all the Amatur Standartenfuhrers hitch up their
armbands, march in with their jackboots, and try to pull off
a Krystallnacht on those not loving the olde tymes... :-) ]

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 25, 8:46*am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:* ... * *All them old extras are a law unto themselves.* ...

Len:

Those OTs' lied, deceived and lead-astray new licensees. *Worse, they
brain washed 'em into the good ole boys club.

Now, they sit and watch the whole darn thing falling apart. *Since the
old lies and deception used to work so well in the past, they are slow
to give up the old methods which no longer work. *They are at a loss,
they are helpless, they are attempting to re-group.

Heh. "Re-group?" Like headless chickens in a barrel. :-)

So far all the Reichsfuhrers in here have done is attempting
button-pushing of individuals, emphasizing their "flaws" and
"moral indecencies." :-)

The Gods of Olde-Tyme (amateur) radio not only have clay
feet but clay brains. But, they claim "SUPERIORITY!" :-)

Cordials all around,
LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote:

...
the forces for good could use your help Len on air and you might have
fun doing it
LA
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

You have been subjected to their thought-control, you are falling
victim, wake up man!

LAY DOWN THE OPIUM PIPE AND STEP AWAY! just kidding

Too late, "I dream of Jeanie" has escaped the bottle, the horse has fled
the barn the fat lady has sung ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote:

...

ITs the end of thw rold as we know it and IFEEL FINE
Warmest regards,
JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

Well, due to an old shoulder injury here, it gives me a bit of a problem
from time to time. Blood pressure a bit high--easily controlled by
medication. Few odd aches and pains--suppose being 54 is mostly the
cause of that.

But yeah, feel pretty good here too ...

chuckle
Warmest regards,
JS

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote:

...
a quetion if you would be so kind are you personaly directed afftected
by the R&O as I am?
chuckle
Warmest regards,
JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

Mark, any reference to my license, if indeed I have any, would begin to
erode my anonymity. (but, do have a drivers license) chuckle

Now, if you are asking whether I would upgrade "if" I am a licensee?

Yes, I think I would ... grin

Warmest regards,
JS

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote:

...
was just curious I do wonder around around wether I am truly the only
poster that the issues in fact affects it is an interesting state of
affairs
Warmest regards,
JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

I knew of your call before I came here ... some others too!
look-of-distaste

Hmmm, sounds like you are already picking out a spot for that "EXTRA"
piece of paper?

Regards,
JS

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Wouldn't it be cool to have (whenever possible) a small station set
up at exams? Even a FT817 and a miracle whip antenna. Get the successful
testees the chance to get their first QSO as a new Ham. Start the
Elmering process right away. At that point the plain speech ham can give
their opinion on how to talk, and the HIHI ham can do the same, without
affecting the test process.


You'd need to have a stack of callsigns that could be handed out to the
successful test takers. Like the stack of license plates at the DMV
when you register a car you just bought.

Or a control operator could let the new ham without callsign try his
legs on the air, but it really wouldn't be his first real contact. He'd
use the control op's callsign.

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote:

...
sadly in being winter and Icey I doubt I will much of an HF set up on
the air before spring (which is often late apr round here although I
have a ten metter setup now
Regards,
JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

Well then, perhaps 28.105 one day? Ya never know, ya just never know ...

Regards,
JS

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 25, 11:22*am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:* ... * *Maybe...just maybe...FCC 06-178 can throw some water on
* *the dying embers of what was once US amateur radio. *It could
* *rise like the Phoenix from the ashes. *Maybe. *At least it is
* *COLD water that might wake a few of these olde-tymers up.
* *Most will not, though, mumbling through toothless gums
* *about the Greater Glory of Morsemanship and how it once
* *saveed the Titanic in 1912.* ...

Len:

You do see my vision!

Yes, the phoenix! *Only this will be a much different bird, resurrected
in the image of the interent ...

I just hope it ain't like the bird I flip... :-)

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

From: on Thurs, Jan 25 2007 2:06 pm

On 25 Jan 2007 10:58:25 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:41 am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ...

[now watch all the Amatur Standartenfuhrers hitch up their
armbands, march in with their jackboots, and try to pull off
a Krystallnacht on those not loving the olde tymes... :-) ]

in all seriousness I am concerned about that but in 29 days we will
see

the forces for good could use your help Len on air and you might have
fun doing it

Mark, there are NO "forces for good" nor of "evil" at work
here. This newsgroup is just discussion by individuals.

There have been, as John Smith I explained, LITTLE men
trying to be bigger than they are, attempting to "rule"
over others by overt denigration of their opponents.

Amateur radio is a hobby activity, has always been so, and
will probably always be that way. By the physics of radio
with its propagation of electromagnetic waves never obeying
that of any human laws or proclamations, the emitters of
those waves must be regulated. Part of that regulation is
the licensing process. A license is merely an authorization
by a federal government to follow the regulations set forth
by said federal government.

An amateur radio license was NEVER a certificate of academic
excellence, did not bestow its grant holder with "special
powers" or "majesty" or anything superhuman. However, that
implication has been long held by many in some kind of odd
fantasy within the minds of the fantasy lovers. Most of
those have been desperately looking for something, anything
to "prove" (inconclusively) that they were "better" than
others. However much they expostulate that, it really isn't
so, not even when they possess all sorts of certificates
suitable for framing. But...the largest amateur radio
membership organization has constantly been promoting
class distinction, competitiveness, playing on the "I am
better than you" spirit of so many. Such reinforces the
fantasy beliefs among the core membership who look to the
self-defined "leaders" for guidance. The down-side of that
is that the same organization has not accepted the half of
all amateur licensees, perhaps more than half, that did
not recognize the organizations' definition of itself.

Is there "fun" for all to re-create what was "fun" for long-
ago self-defined masters of the airwaves? No. Is it "fun"
for me to "try" communicating by radio? Hardly. I began
such communicating 54 years ago (exactly so in the first
week of February), first in the military, then much, much
more as a civilian, over many parts of the EM spectrum than
are allocated to amateurs, using modes that aren't allocated
to amateurs. I say that as a matter of fact, not to prove
I am "better" than any amateur. I simply did it. Mostly
for getting the money for food and shelter, but sometimes
just for my own amusement at the way different radio forms
and protocols work. I find the technology of radio and
electronics fascinating, so much so that I long ago changed
my life goals and career. I became a professional FIRST,
THEN thought about becoming an amateur. I've changed my
mind about the latter many times. Has that been a
denigratable moral-ethical offense? :-) To some of the
little men in here, most assuredly! They have branded me
morally deficient (to use more delicate descriptions of
what they've really said). :-) I "had" to do it exactly
as they "instructed" me to do it. Oddly enough, that was
very close to what these "instructors" had done.
Sunnuvagun! :-)

Those little men and their "charges" can be just shined off.
They are not the ultimate judge, have no authority except
what their internal fantasies proclaimed to themselves
inside their heads. It is very difficult to "respect" such
individuals (despite their mighty certificates), half-truths
of "accomplishments" and general inability to get along with
anyone but their own "elite" kind.

Now, in truth, there are thousands of radio amateurs having
their own fun on the amateur radio bands, far far more than
the bigots and control-freaks in here demanding instant
respect and admiration for their (ho-hum) mighty works. I
already know dozens who are licensed radio amateurs, good
people in person despite being in opposition to some of my
personal viewpoints about the hobby. We all have viewpoints
on many things, yet that isn't a barrier to maintaining
real, person-to-person friendships. The little men in here
don't understand that or they do not bother with it in their
quest to denigrate and defame those not of their ilk.

Matters not now. My quest in here has only been to eliminate
the code test for a US radio license. That was accomplished.
What I personally do for myself now is unimportant and should
not be a subject of further talk. The little men, the
denigrators, the control-freaks will find new targets for
their wrath and personal frustration venting. Matters not to
me. They are what they've made themselves to be...smaller
than before.

Regards,
LA

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 25, 9:26*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to the
Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you got the
license, as did the retest rules.

Thanks Jim, for the history lesson.

You're welcome, Cecil. Thanks for reading.

The old Conditional was preceded by the Class C, which was essentially
the same license with a different name. Early 1930s until the 1951
restructuring.

Some folks think that the 1964-65 rules Conditional changes really cut
into the growth of US ham radio. After those changes, a ham who wanted
a renewable license with HF privileges pretty much had to go to an FCC
exam point unless s/he lived *way* out in the boonies. Just getting to
the exam could be a major journey, depending on where you lived.

I was lucky - all I needed was decent shoes and a couple of subway
tokens. Three quarters of a mile to the 69th Street Terminal, the
Market-Frankford Subway-Elevated to 2nd Street, and a block south to
the US Custom House.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

wrote:
Just getting to
the exam could be a major journey, depending on where you lived.

Come to think of it - my parents drove me to the Houston
FCC office for my Novice exam so at that time the distance
limit was still 125 miles. A year later, when my Novice
expired, I was eligible to take the Conditional by mail
because the distance limit had been reduced to 75 miles.
I have lost track of exactly when I got those licenses
but that knowledge should help to bracket the dates.
Thanks again, Jim.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

On Jan 25, 6:36 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Well, there are plenty of people who get through life kinda like
that.

There are. If they have a ham license, are they aiding in fulfilling any
portion of 97.1 ?

Is scarfing up a dozen callsigns fufilling any portion of Part 97?

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 25, 7:52*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Just getting to
the exam could be a major journey, depending on where you lived.

Come to think of it - my parents drove me to the Houston
FCC office for my Novice exam so at that time the distance
limit was still 125 miles. A year later, when my Novice
expired, I was eligible to take the Conditional by mail
because the distance limit had been reduced to 75 miles.
I have lost track of exactly when I got those licenses
but that knowledge should help to bracket the dates.

Here's an exact date, Cecil:

June 10, 1954

On that date, the "Conditional distance" was reduced from 125 miles to
75 miles "air-line" from a quarterly examining point.

Also on that date, FCC stopped giving routine Novice and Technician
exams at FCC exam sessions, and instead gave the job to volunteer
examiners. After that date, Novice and Technician exams wouyld be done
by mail regardless of distance from and FCC exam point.

In those days there were three FCC offices in Texas - Houston, Dallas
and Beaumont. Houston and Dallas gave exams on a weekly schedule, while
Beaumont was a sub-office that.gave exams by appointment. Exams were
also given four times a year in San Antonio.

Of course, in Texas, it's not at all difficult to be more than 75 miles
from all four of those offices.

The reason cited for the changes was that the FCC exam sessions were
overloaded with amateurs taking the exams, and the FCC had almost
overrun its 1953 budget for giving exams. In those days there were no
license fees to defray the cost.

This overload happened even though the FCC had stopped giving the
Advanced exam 18 months earlier (end of 1952) and there were few
applicants for the Extra because that license did not convey any
additional operating privileges. Also, the "retest if you move closer"
rule had been dropped in 1952, yet the FCC exam sessions were brusting
at the seems..

Thanks again, Jim.

You're welcome, Cecil. Hope that helps pin down the date.

---

btw, in those days the FCC did not give credit for license exam
elements previously passed unless they were passed in front of an FCC
examiner. If a Novice who had gotten the license by mail went for the
Technician, s/he had to do the 5 wpm code again. If a by-mail
Technician went for the General or Conditional, s/he had to do the
written exam again even though, back then, all three of those license
classes used the same written test.


73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be happy
to field questions.

Dave K8MN