Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
: If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect, they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter. So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves. As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you renew your license. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: : If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect, they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter. So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media consolidation. Its important for informed Americans to get their news from as few, controllable sources as possible. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves. Some in Amateurland have always done that. As long as they congregate in PCTA groups and invoke the PCTA double standard, they can insulate themselves from reality. As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you renew your license. I think the written exam material IS "harder," but the format lends itself to less than stellar results in retained knowledge. bb |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect, they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter. That's what the R&O said in 2000, and it was reaffirmed in their dismissal of the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration. So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll just axe Element 1, The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first. and leave restructuring the written tests to whomever is in charge after 2004. Possibly. Or they will simply wait for the ARS to come up with a restructuring proposal. Michael Powell is rather busy these days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves. I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone what the issues are. That's his staff's job. As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular. Learning enough code to pass the test is about as hard as learning to recognize about 40 words in a foreign language. I think the written tests should be harder, That's easily arranged. All you have to do is write up some "harder" questions and answers in multiple-choice format, and submit them to the QPC. There were a bunch of structural changes for the written tests suggested to the FCC back in '99 as part of the restructuring, but they ignored all of them and instead reduced written testing. and I think you should re-test when you renew your license. Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE? Because requiring retest upon renewal would just about triple the tresting workload of the VECs. Retesting would be a very tough sell because you would have to convince FCC that there is some sort of serious problem caused by lack of it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote things. They're marked like this: N2EY
KF6TPT (me) wrote things in a prior post. They're marked like this: TPT N2EY The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first. I keep hearing this getting thrown around, and certainly, my civics teacher told me this. However, I can't seem to find any mention in the congressional record of the ratification after WRC-2000. Can someone point me at it? TPT Michael Powell is rather busy these TPT days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media TPT consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food TPT chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in TPT Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves. N2EY I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone N2EY what the issues are. That's his staff's job. That's exactly my point. Chairman Powell (and other high-ranking FCC staff) doesn't need to know or care about the ARS. It makes absolutely no difference to those in charge of the FCC, whether we have a code requirement or not. In this current incarnation of the FCC, I think it's reasonable to say that if code testing doesn't provide a benefit to the FCC, then the FCC will be eliminating it as quickly as they reasonably can. TPT As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. N2EY Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular. I would even just say "Hams use code". But hams use AM, and RTTY, and PSK, and FSK and yes, even phone. Some of us like satellites. Should you have to prove that you're capable of tracking and hearing UO-14 before being granted a license to transmit on 145.975 MHz? Or that you know all 26 phonetics and how to locate your grid square (a useful item for a VHF+ operator to know) CW is the only mode that is -required-. Sure, even hams who never use RTTY had to answer written questions about it... but the difference is, you don't have to get all written questions correct. A person can become at least a General, if not an Extra, without ever answering a question about RTTY... just skip them, and make sure you know the rest of the material. The end of code testing does not mean the end of CW, nor should it. But as far as I'm concerned, CW is just another mode, albeit one with a certain history and artistry to it. With regards to testing, it should have about as much importance as the rest of the modes (i.e. a handful of questions in the pool, and perhaps a reference in the questions on frequency allocations, nothing more, nothing less) N2EY Learning enough code to pass the test is about as hard as N2EY learning to recognize about 40 words in a foreign language. That's not the point. The fact that just about anyone can learn it given enough time and practice really just means that all that is really being tested is a potential ham's level of dedication (and how much free time he's had in the last few months) There are plenty of people out there who will say that testing someone's dedication is a _good_ thing for our hobby. They're the ones that want to keep the "riff-raff" out. Or at least, that's how it seems. I just don't see that. The enforcement actions taken by the FCC don't reflect that either. Many of the people cited for illegal operating practices have taken 13 and 20wpm code tests. What I see is a generation of people to whom technology is second nature. I see hardware engineers and electrical engineers building amazing commercial applications up in the SHF frequencies. Most of these people aren't hams. I don't see them knocking down the doors to come join our ranks, but I don't see us reaching out to them and giving them a reason to join us, either. We're doing just the opposite, not entirely with the code test, but with the attitude that goes with it. I'd love for some of the current high-tech talent to bring their knowledge into the Amateur HF arena. We've seen what happens when we bring them into VHF (I'm thinking about APRS, WSJT/JT44, lots of software DSP stuff). But to do that, we need to change. By telling a 22 year old engineer with a 10-hour a day job and a girlfriend that he needs to spend "just an hour a day" sitting and listening to code on headphones for the next month, we are essentially telling him to get lost. He won't have that kind of free time until he's retired. Plus he's got other methods of global communication, so the overall gee-whiz factor of HF is definitely not as much of a draw as it was years ago. But show the same engineer a PSK31 pileup and his eyes light up. Perhaps he's thinking of a better way to discriminate between the colliding warbles and pull yet another call sign out of the morass. Maybe he's a software engineer. Maybe a DSP guru. Whatever he is, he could be an asset to the ARS, and play a part in enhancing the radio art. But he's probably not very interested in CW. Perhaps he will grow to work CW, perhaps not. But he definitely won't learn it until he has been exposed to other modes of HF. So, under today's rules, he moves on to other things... and we'll never know whether his DSP ideas would work. There was a time when children were frequently exposed to ham radio, but those days are past. Not every EE graduate has a dipole in his attic anymore. The fact is, if the kids and the geeks aren't joining us... something's wrong, and maybe we should fix it. I think that it's time for us to grow up, evolve with the times, welcome newcomers into our ranks, and continue furthering the radio art. -Jeff PS. TPT and I think you should re-test when you renew your license. N2EY Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE? Yes. I'd be happy to be a VE. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Using a Pool Cage As an Antenna? | Antenna | |||
Use a Pool Cage As An Antenna? | Antenna | |||
From the Extra question pool: The dipole | General | |||
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment | |||
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment |