|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Sohl" writes: So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed? approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules. Works for me. I believe that Bill's comment was tongue in cheek ... it won't fly, because the FCC has a mandate and cannot abdicate its responsibilities. Besides, if you think Congress suffers "gridlock" on contentious issues, imagine how bad a body of hams would be ... worse than partisan politics, for sure :-( Carl - wk3c |
|
Bert Craig wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in message .com... Carl, I'm going to do something that some might not expect me to do, agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care. I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose Please stop right there. What's the hang-up with this "regulatory purpose" stuff. I don't believe it's ALL about regulatory, it's has something to do with a rich tradition wrt a mode that is still widely used today. Tradition really does count for something and requiring folks to learn the very basic level in order to pass a 5-wpm hardly constitutes a "barrier." This is very likely how many will get their only taste of Morse. You would think so, but its too hard! Neither CW or it's proponents will sell it on it's own merits. Sad to say, but many of today's generation just don't understand why they "have to" learn all that stuff they'll never use. Dude! It's like such a waste of time, yaknow? I'll never be interested, and like "Americon Idol" is on tonight! The recent Regents fiasco is a grim reminder. Only 12 students passed the test that was really no harder than many folks had taken in years past. The first reaction..."the test's too hard," from both the parents and the kids. Of course! how is little Buffy and Adrian going to get into a good college if they don't have the grades? S make those tests easier. Rather than take the heat, the DOE is going to give them an easier test. Behold the result of second generation underachievement. I strongly disagree, Carl. I think it's a "spot-on" analogy. It'd almost be amusing if it weren't so sad. Carl thinks we make dum analogies. any more (other than complying with requirements in the ITU Radio Regs that require(d) Morse tests for folks whose licenses granted privs in the bands below 30 MHz ... a requirement that has ceased to exist as of July 05, 2003 ...) (Read the quotes from their R&O again ... it's quite clear.) No need, the words of those who are seeking less administrative work are hardly meaningful. Hmmm, avoiding work...some commonality. Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element 1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important part of AR tradition, "Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly impossible. Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees. If by "mode-specific aptitude," you mean sitting ones you-know-what down for 20 mins./day for a mo. and trying some good old-fashioned study/practice, you'd have a point. Takes longer in some cases. Took me six months of hard work. but so what? I'll go out on a limb, and say that a person that does not have the time to learn the material does not have the time for the hobby. Written or Morse. That is really what my whole argument is. I don't give a hoot if a person uses or doesn't use Morse. I really don't. I suck at it. I've got some physical attributes that make morse code unenjoyable for me. But I don't like lazy people one little bit. Sorry, but I don't. And behind all the rhetoric and bluff and bluster, in almost all cases it boils down to laziness. I really wish that folks would stop trying to lean on "tradition" ... maintaining "tradition" is NOT a legitimate regulatory goal that should drive the requirements for licensing, plain and simple. I wish folks would stop leaning on "regulatory" as if it's ok just because big brother says so. Especially at the 5-wpm level, puh-lease. Wouldn't it be great if all the PCTA people would just go away? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... Great post Bert, ya sed it all, I wish I'd written it. Your Regents analogy was masterful. They don't have the gumption to achieve so dumb the exams to "their" achievement level and their "problem" goes away. w3rv No the problem won't go away as the next generation of people will have even lower achievement and will demand that the tests be made simpler yet. I couldn't agree more Dee. But these are the times of politically correct dumb downs, they're too short-sighted to see beyond today. They want. Right now. No matter what. Dee D. Flint, N8uZE w3rv |
Dave Heil wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: I would have been a much more valuable asset to the amateur community if I'd had access to HF those years I didn't simply because of Morse ... I share your pain, Carl. I've often thought of my wasted years, not being in the House of Representatives. I just cannot grasp how otherwise (presumably at least reasonably) intelligent people can cling to insistence on the acquisition of such a mechanical skill in such a quasi-religious fashion. I understand your inability to grasp the situation...in a quasi-sarcastic way. This whole thing is making me quasi-queasy! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Next time you talk about folks "putting forth effort to achieve a goal" think about that one. Maintaining a population of Morse users is/seems to be YOUR goal ... it's not my job, nor the FCC's. Not my goal! Then bitch about it to the folks who you think DO favor phone band expansion and leave me (and NCI) out of that one ... it's not our agenda. So Carl, does that mean that after they drop the Morse test here in the Us of A, that you'll be done with the group as far as NCI goes? Your agenda is achieved here. ;^) Not exactly ... NCI's goal is GLOBAL ... NCI's work is not over as soon as the US drops Morse testing ... there are a LOT of other countries. I know that, but this is primarily a US newsgroup, with a few others thrown in. I doubt too many people here will be interested in the remaining countries Morse/No Morse material. (Though it's beginning to look like the US will, because of process, be one of the slower ones to act on the changes adopted by WRC-03 ... the Swiss hams have already received their letters giving them HF privs ... the UK will reportedly act before the end of the month ... and others are lining up ...) It will be very interesting to watch the dominoes fall ... Congratulations. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Wouldn't it be great if all the PCTA people would just go away? - Mike KB3EIA - Nah ... the ridiculous arguments you folks make for keeping a Morse test requirement just make NCI's job easier :-) (read the MO&O where the FCC blew away all of the petitions for reconsideration of dropping the 13 and 20 wpm tests ... :-) Carl - wk3c |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I just cannot grasp how otherwise (presumably at least reasonably) intelligent people can cling to insistence on the acquisition of such a mechanical skill in such a quasi-religious fashion. Maybe we're just not that smart, Carl. And you're arguing with us! Face it, you're enjoying all this, and having a good time rubbing our nose in it. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, Its really NOT my intention to "rub noses in it" ... honest ... if it comes across that way, I apologize. What I *am* trying to do is counter the illogical with some logic and the political/regulatory/technical realities. Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message om... Alun Palmer wrote in message . .. Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would be sufficient Seeing as how the USA has more hams than any other country in Region 2, why not have those other countries get their phone subbands in line with the USA? Because they are soverign nations with the right to regulate the use of the radio spectrum within their jurisdictions as they see fit and according to their needs, as long as they are not in violation of the ITU Radio Regulations. Because most of the rest of the world does it the same way they do and the US is virtually alone in its sub-band by mode regulations. Jim ... I realize that your question above was *probably* (at least partly) tongue in cheek, but it does sort of smack of American arrogance ... and to some of the other countries in region 2, perhaps something approaching "Yankee imperialism." Wrong. The fact that the FCC does not allow us to run phone as far down the bands as the DX does shelters the DX from the U.S. hordes. That's about as "anti Yankee Imperialism" as it gets in ham radio. Carl - wk3c w3rv |
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message om... Seeing as how the USA has more hams than any other country in Region 2, why not have those other countries get their phone subbands in line with the USA? Because they are soverign nations with the right to regulate the use of the radio spectrum within their jurisdictions as they see fit and according to their needs, as long as they are not in violation of the ITU Radio Regulations. Because most of the rest of the world does it the same way they do and the US is virtually alone in its sub-band by mode regulations. Jim ... I realize that your question above was *probably* (at least partly) tongue in cheek, but it does sort of smack of American arrogance ... and to some of the other countries in region 2, perhaps something approaching "Yankee imperialism." Wrong. The fact that the FCC does not allow us to run phone as far down the bands as the DX does shelters the DX from the U.S. hordes. That's about as "anti Yankee Imperialism" as it gets in ham radio. Brian, How many heads of Latin American radio regulatory agencies do you know personally? (If the answer is "None." how can you presume to know their likely reaction to the US trying to tell them how to do things in their own country?) Again, I *presume* that Jim's question was tongue in cheek. I do know those folks and meet with them several times a year ... they wouldn't take kindy to being ordered around in the way that Jim jokes about above ... Carl - wk3c |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I just cannot grasp how otherwise (presumably at least reasonably) intelligent people can cling to insistence on the acquisition of such a mechanical skill in such a quasi-religious fashion. Maybe we're just not that smart, Carl. And you're arguing with us! Face it, you're enjoying all this, and having a good time rubbing our nose in it. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, Its really NOT my intention to "rub noses in it" ... honest ... if it comes across that way, I apologize. You do. What I *am* trying to do is counter the illogical with some logic and the political/regulatory/technical realities. You are doomed to failure, because trying to apply logic to this is not possible. I look at this and I see lazy people trying to avoid an entry test that I can't find any good reason to get rid of. Why? I can't stand lazy people! Is that logical? Depends on how you look at it, but probably not logical at all. After all, is it not logical to increase ones worth (education, toys, wealth, honors, etc.) with a minimum amount of effort? This of course can be carried to an absurd level if we wish, but let's not go there for the purposes of this discussion. Now that does not mean that the other end of the argument is blessed with logic either. Removal of a perfectly good requirement so that those who do not wish to take it don't have to, is not logical either. Morse code harms no one, and is arguably quite useful. The extra effort it takes to learn it is of no consequence for anyone but an unfortunate few who have difficulties picking it up So what do we have? We have some people who don't like Morse code, and we have some people who do. No logic applies here. You will fail trying to force fit logic into this situation. All of the PCTA people here are intelligent individuals who just happen to enjoy Morse Code. The NCTA's are also intelligent individuals, most of whom hate Morse code. But they don't use logic in making that assessment, no matter how hard they try to convince themselves that they are. We can make as many logical statements as we like, but if the initial premise is not logical, then it doesn't matter. And as for political/regulatory/technical realities, we know them. Nobody thinks that the test will be retained. They are going away. Nothing more real than that. You win. Your illogic beat our illogic. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: What I *am* trying to do is counter the illogical with some logic and the political/regulatory/technical realities. You are doomed to failure, because trying to apply logic to this is not possible. I look at this and I see lazy people trying to avoid an entry test that I can't find any good reason to get rid of. Why? I can't stand lazy people! I don't like *genuinely* lazy people either ... it galls me that some of my hard-earned salary goes to welfare programs that support the congenitally lazy. (I have NO problem with aid to those who are genuinely, through no fault of their own, having hard times, but for a limited period of time, not as a "career.") But the characterization of all (even most) of the folks who aren't interested in "jumping through the Morse hoop" is inaccurate and unfair. No logic applies here. You will fail trying to force fit logic into this situation. All of the PCTA people here are intelligent individuals who just happen to enjoy Morse Code. For the most part, yes, but how do you explain Bruce? The NCTA's are also intelligent individuals, most of whom hate Morse code. It's not really that I "hate Morse" ...what I *hate* is the fact that (because) I ... and others ... have NO interest in EVER using it again, let alone in becoming proficient at 20 wpm or more, folks tell me ... and others ... that I am/we are an inferior ham(s) and will NEVER amount to anything because of that simple reality (ignoring any and all other skills, knowledge, or attributes I ... or others ... may have that *could* make me ... or others ... valuable contributors to the amateur community. THAT's what I hate and what really gripes my ass. But they don't use logic in making that assessment, no matter how hard they try to convince themselves that they are. We can make as many logical statements as we like, but if the initial premise is not logical, then it doesn't matter. I don't understand how you can assert that it is not logical for someone to resist an unnecessary, unjusitifiable requirement that is imposed on them to gain privileges that have nothing to do with the requirement. And to resist/resent being treated as a lesser ham/person for it ... I do, however, understand that it is NOT logical for folks to presume that they can insist on forcing such a requirement on the folks refered to in the previous paragraph and not expect them to complain and resist. At least for US hams, this is America ... where everyone is supposed to be free to do as they please as long as they don't harm others or infringe upon their rights in some way ... the fact that *I* don't want to do Morse doesn't infringe on your right to *do* Morse ... And as for political/regulatory/technical realities, we know them. Nobody thinks that the test will be retained. They are going away. Nothing more real than that. You win. Your illogic beat our illogic. No, our logic beat your illogic ... no gloating ... we worked hard for it ... our arguments won out in the LOGICAL, well-considered evaluations of the governments of the world. Carl - wk3c |
|
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message om... Nope. I've worked AC6XG at least twice, both times on CW. Once was on Field Day (20 CW) and the other on the rrap net on 7037 kHz. The rrap net on 7030 kHz??? Is that where you PCTAs send "secret messages," safe from the prying eyes/ears of the no-coders??? :-) Sheesh ... Carl - wk3c Carl, about 3 years ago the PCTA coerced Cecil to come out and play with them on CW. Maybe he thought it would smooth over some of the animosity they had for him. I don't know. It was reported that "A good time was had by all," but the honeymoon lasted only a short while, then they treated him as crappily as ever. More recently, the PCTA have again tried to coerce their enemies to the amateur bands using, of all things, phone. I'm not sure how that one turned out, but I took a lot of grief for refusing to do so. I think their peace pipe was loaded with date rape drugs. Even more recently, RV Kelley challenged another poster to meet him on the bands "anywhere, any time." I asked if that's how 14.313 got started. No good can come from meeting these guys on the air. No point in screwing up another frequency like 3950. 73, bb |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Wouldn't it be great if all the PCTA people would just go away? - Mike KB3EIA - Nah ... the ridiculous arguments you folks make for keeping a Morse test requirement just make NCI's job easier :-) (read the MO&O where the FCC blew away all of the petitions for reconsideration of dropping the 13 and 20 wpm tests ... :-) Carl - wk3c Carl, go easy on them - it's all they had. Logic just wasn't on their side. What would make the transition nicer is to lose all the sour grapes. Not only haven't these boys learned logic, but good sportsmanship is lost on them as well. Reminds me of the time the Republicans reformed welfare. 73, Brian |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important, that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse as important in terms of licensing requirements. Carl: The above statement can be objectively evaluated only in the context of future ARRL initiatives and FCC actions regarding amateur HF sub-band mode authorizations. Once code testing is finally abolished in the US amateur licensing process, it will be much easier to re-allocate more spectrum to phone modes, to the detriment of CW -- and I rather suspect that's precisely what will happen. I will be there beside you (figuratively), opposing expansion of the phone bands ... with ONE *possible* exception. With the realignment of 40m and broadcasting, we will have 7000-7200 exclusive in all 3 regions. It would seem equitable, given the structure of the other bands, where the CW/data segments and the phone segments are pretty equal, to shift the phone band lower limit from 7150 (Extra) down to 7100 ...since the upper 100 kHz from 7200-7300 will still be trashed by SW broadcast. This is the ONLY *possible* situation that I can envision where I would consider supporting an expansion of HF phone bands. This is my *personal* comment and NOT "NCI policy" ... Carl - wk3c Had Larry included "digital" with his cry to preserve CW spectrum, I would figuratively stand with the both of you as well. As it stands, all spectrum except the new 5MHz channels are CW capable. Is it really necessary to keep that much of it CW exclusive? Personally, I think the amateur bands should be aligned worlwide, with respect to not only frequency, but also mode. If the DX doesn't want to come out and play with Americans or anyone else, I'm sure some other jet-setting hams, dept of state, or UN experts will be happy to fill in the voids for a couple of IRCs or greenstamps. ditto personal opinion deniability 73, Brian |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Sohl" writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... (But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the future of ham radio.) The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future of ham radio. Then who is? The hams are the most qualified to judge what is good for the future of ham radio. So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed? approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules. Works for me. But we both know the concept is bogus. However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs of hams. It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler. So you are then saying the FCC should NOT make any rules regarding operation within ham bands that don't have any interfernece issues related to them...such as band segments for phone vs data, etc. morse test requirements, etc.? Nope. Not at all. The point is that the mere fact that FCC enacts a rule does not mean it's a good idea, or in the best interest of amateur radio. All it means is that FCC enacted the rule. The original point made was a claim that the FCC doesn't make rules at all that might be judged as being favorable or unfavorable for ham radio. Clearly a specific rule may be detrimental...but that doesn't mean the FCC didn't or wouldn't weigh its need or benefit in light of what it does for ham radio. Was the 55 mph national speed limit a good idea, in the best interests of the motoring public? The "expert agency" recommended that rule, and it stayed on the books for decades. Actually, the 55 was the brainchild (I'd call it a nightmare) of a NJ reprentative who is now deceased. The problem was the 55 limit had no "sunshine" aspect and that resulted in congress getting tied up as being anti-safety by the insurance industry who wanted the 55 limit. The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body. Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio services so that they can coexist. That's only part of their purpose. What's the rest? Others include need for the service, use, benefit of the service to the public good, etc. IF ham radio users truly began to dwindle, do you doubt that the FCC would consider dropping ham radio as a service even though there was no coexistence problem? Read up on the history of the FCC. They were established to regulate the various services so all could operate with minimal interference. If there had been no conflicts among the various users of the radio spectrum, there would have been no FCC (see the book "200 Meters and Down"). That is so patently obvious...it does not, however, prove or make any suggestion that the FCC today does not consider rules as being beneficial or not to ham radio service. The point is that while they consider the beneficial aspect, they are not all powerful, nor necessarily even that friendly to what is best for amateur radio. IOW they're stuck with us and we're stuck with them. I never said otherwise. My comment was directed at the concept that the FCC "only" makes decisions based on interference based issues. You agree that the FCC can and does consider the beneficial aspect to a service...even if that decision may be detrimental. There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide what is good for it. I would argue that these are also part of FCC goals for ham radio or any other service. Those goals are not necessarily what's best for amateur radio. Was the re-imposition of "incentive licensing" in 1968 what was best for amateur radio? FCC (NOT hams!) insisted on it because they said amateur radio of those days was not meeting the goals FCC thought it should. Again, I never claimed every decision was or had to be judged by the FCC as being beneficial. As stated above read up on the early years of radio and the establishment of the FCC. And its predecessors, the FRC, DOC and Navy Department. Not pretty. The initial purpose of the FCC derived from interference mitigation. Not just that - also deciding how to best apportion the spectrum, license requirements, allowable uses of the spectrum, monitoring and enforcement. Indeed, FCC defines what the various services are for! F'rinstance, once upon a time, hams broadcasting music was not illegal. The charter of the FCC does not, however, forclose consideration of what is or isn't beneficial for any individual service. No, it doesn't. Doesn't mean that the FCC always does what's best for hams. Doesn't mean FCC always makes the best choice or compromise, either. We are in violent agreement on that :-) We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was only by intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in there. All of which happened about 80+ years ago. Not all. Look at the changes of 1929 - less than 75 years ago. Pickey, pickey...so I was off by 5 years or so. Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding. Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding. Which makes all this discussion rather academic. Not at all. Hopefully, FCC decisions can be influenced for a better future for amateur radio. The ability to influence those decisions is the same today as it was in the past. that's what the public input process is all about. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Brian" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... The point is that the mere fact that FCC enacts a rule does not mean it's a good idea, or in the best interest of amateur radio. All it means is that FCC enacted the rule. Was the 55 mph national speed limit a good idea, in the best interests of the motoring public? The "expert agency" recommended that rule, and it stayed on the books for decades. Beats going to war for oil every 10 years or so. It was a dumb rule. Between raising the speed limit and dropping the EPA fleet mileage requirements, I'd say we worked ourselved into a corner. My Chevy silverado get the same gas mileage today as my 64 Chevy convertible did...about 17mpg. My truck probably weighs 150% of what the 64 chevy did. Frankly, "I can't drive 55." Hey, that'd be a great song title :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK "Would you like to biggie size that?" |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: Carl: The above statement can be objectively evaluated only in the context of future ARRL initiatives and FCC actions regarding amateur HF sub-band mode authorizations. Once code testing is finally abolished in the US amateur licensing process, it will be much easier to re-allocate more spectrum to phone modes, to the detriment of CW -- and I rather suspect that's precisely what will happen. I will be there beside you (figuratively), opposing expansion of the phone bands ... with ONE *possible* exception. With the realignment of 40m and broadcasting, we will have 7000-7200 exclusive in all 3 regions. It would seem equitable, given the structure of the other bands, where the CW/data segments and the phone segments are pretty equal, to shift the phone band lower limit from 7150 (Extra) down to 7100 ...since the upper 100 kHz from 7200-7300 will still be trashed by SW broadcast. This is the ONLY *possible* situation that I can envision where I would consider supporting an expansion of HF phone bands. This is my *personal* comment and NOT "NCI policy" ... Carl - wk3c Carl: I agree. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message ...provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal, only to have it disappear. Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself. John, though 6M is worth mentioning, it isn't HF and these guys don't care. Its all about using fast CW on HF (to them). Brian How do you manage to be wrong so often, Brian? I worked about forty Europeans on 6m this past week. About half of those QSOs were made on CW. About half of the CW QSOs were made using relatively slow speeds. Those contacts were not made using Aurora. Had they been, all of the QSOs would have been made using slow CW. Were any of them French? Look it up in my online logs after you've finished eating your words on 6m, Brian. Dave K8MN Oh, my! Another guy who can't answer a simple question. You didn't bother to respond to my corrections of your erroneous 6m comments and yet you want me to respond to mere blather? Dave K8MN |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... Jim ... I realize that your question above was *probably* (at least partly) tongue in cheek, but it does sort of smack of American arrogance ... and to some of the other countries in region 2, perhaps something approaching "Yankee imperialism." Wrong. The fact that the FCC does not allow us to run phone as far down the bands as the DX does shelters the DX from the U.S. hordes. That's about as "anti Yankee Imperialism" as it gets in ham radio. Brian, How many heads of Latin American radio regulatory agencies do you know personally? (If the answer is "None." how can you presume to know their likely reaction to the US trying to tell them how to do things in their own country?) I don't think I need to know them to come to the obvious answer. Again, I *presume* that Jim's question was tongue in cheek. I do know those folks and meet with them several times a year ... they wouldn't take kindy to being ordered around in the way that Jim jokes about above ... I guess. Something maybe. Maybe not. Moving along here my personal bottom line without knowing a soul below the border except those I've met on the air: I strongly (VERY strongly) support retention of the existing xx.150 lower phone band limits particularly on 20 & 40 primarily because (1) I for one am sick of the Gringo/Ugly American crappola we've managed to take to the level of a fine art, the buck needs to stop here at least in ham radio (2) Downward expansion of the U.S. phone bands would immediately shove the DX phone ops farther down the band (which they can do with a flick of the wrist) to get away from U.S. QRM and into the space traditionally used for CW and digital operations globally. Net gain for the U.S. phonies comes up zip as far as being able to force (OhYeah, that's the real agenda) the DX to hear them and the CW and digital types get screwed (also globally) with orders of magnitudes more DX SSB QRM than we have now. Carl - wk3c w3rv #!^%#!(*)fuggemall^^3 |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
You didn't bother to respond to my corrections of your erroneous 6m comments and yet you want me to respond to mere blather? Dave K8MN Dave, respond only if it gives purpose and meaning to your life. bb |
|
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes: So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed? approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules. Works for me. But we both know the concept is bogus. Not entirely. FCC has turned over testing and test development to hams, yet retains supervisory control. Or look at repeater coordination - hams determine the coordination, and FCC enforces their decisions! However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs of hams. It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler. So you are then saying the FCC should NOT make any rules regarding operation within ham bands that don't have any interfernece issues related to them...such as band segments for phone vs data, etc. morse test requirements, etc.? Nope. Not at all. The point is that the mere fact that FCC enacts a rule does not mean it's a good idea, or in the best interest of amateur radio. All it means is that FCC enacted the rule. The original point made was a claim that the FCC doesn't make rules at all that might be judged as being favorable or unfavorable for ham radio. Clearly a specific rule may be detrimental...but that doesn't mean the FCC didn't or wouldn't weigh its need or benefit in light of what it does for ham radio. That much I agree with. But it's also true that just because FCC does something is no guarantee that the something is good for the ARS. Was the 55 mph national speed limit a good idea, in the best interests of the motoring public? The "expert agency" recommended that rule, and it stayed on the books for decades. Actually, the 55 was the brainchild (I'd call it a nightmare) of a NJ reprentative who is now deceased. The problem was the 55 limit had no "sunshine" aspect and that resulted in congress getting tied up as being anti-safety by the insurance industry who wanted the 55 limit. Doesn't matter - the point is that the "expert agency" enacted it for one reason and kept it for another, even though many if not most of those affected thought it was a bad idea. The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body. Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio services so that they can coexist. That's only part of their purpose. What's the rest? Others include need for the service, use, benefit of the service to the public good, etc. IF ham radio users truly began to dwindle, do you doubt that the FCC would consider dropping ham radio as a service even though there was no coexistence problem? It would take a lot of dwindling. And that's not happening - amateur radio in the USA is not only growing, but it's growing faster than the population. We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was only by intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in there. All of which happened about 80+ years ago. Not all. Look at the changes of 1929 - less than 75 years ago. Pickey, pickey...so I was off by 5 years or so. The point is that the threats are more recent. Lookit BPL - that's today. Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding. Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding. Which makes all this discussion rather academic. Not at all. Hopefully, FCC decisions can be influenced for a better future for amateur radio. The ability to influence those decisions is the same today as it was in the past. that's what the public input process is all about. 'zactly. But all too few hams take a part in it. Look at the restructuring NPRM - 675,000 hams, less than 2300 comments. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:
Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained radio operators" Dee. The vagueness of that can create some issues, such as what type of training??? Being able to handle message traffic, would be an extremely important detail in training IMHO. How many people can formulate a formal message gram?? Even though I am one of those low-life code free techs, I still can. Since our purpose is clear, I don't see that vagueness. For example, one primary purpose is to provide emergency communications. Skills are obviously needed to do that. However, the served agency establishes which skills, not the FCC (one reason the FCC does not require specific training in emergency communications). For example, if a person volunteers to work with the Red Cross, the person needs to know or learn the skills that agency is seeking. If that agency does not handle message traffic or formulate message-grams, those skills are entirely worthless. Therefore, it would be a waste to train all operator in those skills (again, one reason the FCC does not require such training). If you look at each purpose in the same manner, very little vagueness really exists. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: I would propose that "200 Meters and Down" be required reading and have a few questions on the tests! While "200" is very good, it stops in 1936. I would recommend the following: - "Calling CQ" by Clinton B. Desoto, W1CBD, available for free download as a PDF file. May be around as a printed book. Stories of 1920s and 1930s amateur radio. - "The Wayback Machine" by Bill Continelli, W2XOY, available for free download or for viewing on a website. Multichapter history of amateur radio from the earliest days to the present. As entertaining depicitions of the history of ham radio, these may be GREAT works. Have you read any of them? As "models for the future," I think we need to look more forward than backward. Sure. But we need to know the background to knwo how we got where we are, and how to avoid mistakes made in the past. While I admit that history can be valuable in terms of learning from past mistakes, so as to avoid similar mistakes in the future, I think leaning on past events/conditions/etc. too heavily and trying to "keep things as they were in 'the good old days' " is a BIG mistake ... a mistake that too many of us are inclined to make. I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep certain values. Like old-fashioned manners, courtesy and respect on the air. But there's no good test for that! -- And while we're on the subject of the future - what's YOUR vision for the future? Besides getting rid of the code test? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message .com... Alun Palmer wrote in message ... Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would be sufficient Seeing as how the USA has more hams than any other country in Region 2, why not have those other countries get their phone subbands in line with the USA? Because they are soverign nations with the right to regulate the use of the radio spectrum within their jurisdictions as they see fit and according to their needs, as long as they are not in violation of the ITU Radio Regulations. That's not a reason, just a fact. Because most of the rest of the world does it the same way they do and the US is virtually alone in its sub-band by mode regulations. We were talking about Region 2. Jim ... I realize that your question above was *probably* (at least partly) tongue in cheek, but it does sort of smack of American arrogance ... and to some of the other countries in region 2, perhaps something approaching "Yankee imperialism." What about anti-American arrogance? I think you completely misread what I was saying. Wasn't tongue in cheek at all, just an opposing idea. Nowhere do I suggest that any sort of coercion be applied to other countries - why do you read that into my words? As I recall, the person suggesting that we align ourselves to the rest of the world's standards was from another country. When Jim retorted, he was accused of American arrogance. Ohhhhkkkkay, then what was the first suggestion? Logic? Something that wasn't arrogance, suggested by someone else, but arrogance if an American suggests it? Simply Wrong, Carl! The fact of the matter is that the reason we have limited 'phone bands here in the USA is twofold: One, to give the DX a place to operate 'phone without having to deal with Yankee pileups every time they try to operate when the band is open, and two, to give US hams an incentive to use modes other than 'phone. Both are good ideas. Very good ideas, and if the rest of the world would want to adopt something like this, it could be cool (not even a suggestion, just a "hey folks, look what we do") - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Sohl" writes: So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed? approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules. Works for me. But we both know the concept is bogus. Not entirely. FCC has turned over testing and test development to hams, yet retains supervisory control. Or look at repeater coordination - hams determine the coordination, and FCC enforces their decisions! But the FCC still sets the regulations. However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs of hams. It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler. So you are then saying the FCC should NOT make any rules regarding operation within ham bands that don't have any interfernece issues related to them...such as band segments for phone vs data, etc. morse test requirements, etc.? Nope. Not at all. The point is that the mere fact that FCC enacts a rule does not mean it's a good idea, or in the best interest of amateur radio. All it means is that FCC enacted the rule. The original point made was a claim that the FCC doesn't make rules at all that might be judged as being favorable or unfavorable for ham radio. Clearly a specific rule may be detrimental...but that doesn't mean the FCC didn't or wouldn't weigh its need or benefit in light of what it does for ham radio. That much I agree with. But it's also true that just because FCC does something is no guarantee that the something is good for the ARS. Agreed. Was the 55 mph national speed limit a good idea, in the best interests of the motoring public? The "expert agency" recommended that rule, and it stayed on the books for decades. Actually, the 55 was the brainchild (I'd call it a nightmare) of a NJ reprentative who is now deceased. The problem was the 55 limit had no "sunshine" aspect and that resulted in congress getting tied up as being anti-safety by the insurance industry who wanted the 55 limit. Doesn't matter - the point is that the "expert agency" enacted it for one reason and kept it for another, even though many if not most of those affected thought it was a bad idea. There was NO expert agecy involved at all. The NJ rep was a memeber of congress (house of representatives). I would certainly NOT call the house an "expert agency."... would you? The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body. Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio services so that they can coexist. That's only part of their purpose. What's the rest? Others include need for the service, use, benefit of the service to the public good, etc. IF ham radio users truly began to dwindle, do you doubt that the FCC would consider dropping ham radio as a service even though there was no coexistence problem? It would take a lot of dwindling. And that's not happening - amateur radio in the USA is not only growing, but it's growing faster than the population. I agree...my hypothetical was just a discussion point. We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was only by intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in there. All of which happened about 80+ years ago. Not all. Look at the changes of 1929 - less than 75 years ago. Pickey, pickey...so I was off by 5 years or so. The point is that the threats are more recent. Lookit BPL - that's today. BPL isn't however, a desire for another service to get rid of hams. I agree BPL is a major threat to all of us, but for different reasons. Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding. Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding. Which makes all this discussion rather academic. Not at all. Hopefully, FCC decisions can be influenced for a better future for amateur radio. The ability to influence those decisions is the same today as it was in the past. that's what the public input process is all about. 'zactly. But all too few hams take a part in it. Look at the restructuring NPRM - 675,000 hams, less than 2300 comments. But not filling comments doesn't mean all hams haven't looked at a proposed rule and simpy said to themselves....OK by me for this one and not filed a comment at all. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote:
(snip) I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep certain values. Like old-fashioned manners, courtesy and respect on the air. But there's no good test for that! I absolutely agree, Jim. Things are not necessarily bad simply because they're old-fashioned. There are many old-fashioned ideals that could clearly help this country be much better place to live if continued today. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
... "N2EY" wrote: (snip) I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep certain values. Like old-fashioned manners, courtesy and respect on the air. But there's no good test for that! I absolutely agree, Jim. Things are not necessarily bad simply because they're old-fashioned. There are many old-fashioned ideals that could clearly help this country be much better place to live if continued today. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Actually, the good test for good manners and courtesy and respect on the air, is the acid test. Every person I have witnessed being in the class the majority calls an "idiot" operator, has soon disappeared from the FM side of ham radio. They get tired of "being encouraged" to talk right, operate right, etc., or they get tired of being ignored. Guess where some have disappeared to? You got it: HF. They can have a lot more anonymity there, and they have less chance of running into the same people over and over again. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Kim,
I don't think that you mentioned the only practical use for CW, today. In an emergency operation one can use CW almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom possess "investigative skills", were to attempt their intercepts by a scanner, then they would simply have no comprehension. At a EMA ARES training session, the one of the ARES officials told us that CW should be considered for passing of vital information solely to keep the opsec tight. Opsec happens to mean Operation Security. I guess that everyone loves Delta Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D. At the Boston Marathon I was given a code key for authentication purposes. Bill KB1IUB |
"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61... Kim, I don't think that you mentioned the only practical use for CW, today. In an emergency operation one can use CW almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom possess "investigative skills", were to attempt their intercepts by a scanner, then they would simply have no comprehension. With all due respect, William (or is it Bill), seems that deliberately coding/encrypting on the amateur bands is contrary to the R&R, if ya know what I mean. And, it also seems to me that any reporter with really good investigative skills would be well aware of your scenario, above. However, CW is definitely a practical skill, and a needed one, in EmCom. I've never, ever disputed that. And, I encouraged openings and training for CW whenever I have been in a position of leadership in the EmCom world. I've also encouraged and trained with openings to HF, etc. The only thing we never were able to accommodate is SSTV and ATV. We had every other check-in. We would call from FM (2M *AND* 70cm) to the net participants we knew had HF points. They would call to all net participants on all bands we could cover at any particular training net; then those individuals would relay to CW for any CW net participants. Then it would all be relayed back into the 2M/70cm nets. What would have happened "in an actual emergency" (GRIN), was all FM operations would have then become tactical with local Emergency Services; and we--as amateur radio operators--would "set up" the rest of the operations, as needed, for net operations. The goal was to have all H&W set up and operating via relay (on different freqs than the local operation freqs) from FM to HF/CW capability. We also had PSK ops in that arena. For "relief" portions of the net (those ops that would be looking for food and refreshment, extra batteries, more equipment, more cars, chainsaws...what-have-you) was relayed from FM to FM capable hams that also had FRS/GMRS, etc. They would relay those ops needs out to non-hams (we called it the auxilliary service) and that included, by the way, anyone who needed babysitters, animals fed, home needs. It was our desire to have as much of the community/families involved as we could--regardless of their amateur radio license status. At a EMA ARES training session, the one of the ARES officials told us that CW should be considered for passing of vital information solely to keep the opsec tight. I understand the concept, and I know that in an emergency the R&R may very well go out the window--as you know, all that is debatable. BUT, that given, there are ways to handle sensitive information by using other means than CW; although CW is a fine choice also! Opsec happens to mean Operation Security. I guess that everyone loves Delta Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D. We were "aware" of any lingo that might be used by our served agencies (that was also done and learned by actually visiting the served agencies and seeing/learning how they operate). However, on the support ops part of the net--we didn't get into using all that fancy stuff, we pretty much used plain language. At the Boston Marathon I was given a code key for authentication purposes. Bill KB1IUB Uh, you mean strictly to "please" some public service official, or because you actually used it? Honest question. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message .61... Kim, I don't think that you mentioned the only practical use for CW, today. In an emergency operation one can use CW almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom possess "investigative skills", were to attempt their intercepts by a scanner, then they would simply have no comprehension. With all due respect, William (or is it Bill), seems that deliberately coding/encrypting on the amateur bands is contrary to the R&R, if ya know what I mean. And, it also seems to me that any reporter with really good investigative skills would be well aware of your scenario, above. Now Ive heard everything. CW is now a method of encryption. Oh good grief. That is a first. I never thought Id live so long as to see so much idiocy about the Morse Code. Unbelievable Dan/W4NTI |
"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message . 3.61...
Kim, I don't think that you mentioned the only practical use for CW, today. In an emergency operation one can use CW almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom possess "investigative skills", were to attempt their intercepts by a scanner, then they would simply have no comprehension. At a EMA ARES training session, the one of the ARES officials told us that CW should be considered for passing of vital information solely to keep the opsec tight. Opsec happens to mean Operation Security. I guess that everyone loves Delta Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D. At the Boston Marathon I was given a code key for authentication purposes. Bill KB1IUB Bill, then there's COMSEC and MILSPEC. ;^) Brian |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... NOdoudaboudit! Oh, hey, Dick! I still missed the intelligent response you were going to post...or that I thought you were capable of posting, anyway. Did you post it yet? Kim W5TIT Kim, you are forever the optimist. I've been reading his posts since about '95, and he hasn't come up with one yet. I'm not so sure if he's incapable, or if he's worried that he'll taint that "Stubborn Missouri Mule" image that he's developed over the years and tears. In any case, he just ain't right. Brian |
In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Actually the biggest problem is lack of activity by the current hams. Agreed! If we take the figure of 600,000+ hams and calculate the number of QSOs per day if each one had one QSO per YEAR (assume it takes two hams for a qso), thats 300,000 exchanges per year or nearly 1000 per day. That would keep the bands pretty busy. Whoa, hold on a sec, Dee. Let's look at that 1000 QSOs/day. Say a QSO lasts a half-hour on average - that's 500 QSO-hours per day. Or, to put it another way, there would be about 21 QSOs going on at any one time. Now if we just consider the bands 160 through 70 cm., we have 13 bands. Might work out to one QSO on each HF/MF band and three QSOs each on 6, 2, 222 and 70 cm. Hardly enough to keep the bands pretty busy! If you meant to say "one QSO per DAY", then things are much different. But instead we hear the same people over and over on the VHF and HF frequencies. We have 150 members or so in our club and I only hear about a dozen on the repeater regularly. It's the same dozen that do VHF simplex and SSB. We need to get those already licensed more involved. Agreed! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
There is a little bit over 50Mhz of frequencies they could do alot with
there, and I almost would accept the loss of those bands if and only if we had a guarantee that the rest of our bands will never be altered again. What the hell, we sure aren't doing much with those bands as a hobby as a whole. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: 220Mhz, 902Mhz, and 1.2Ghz bands are desolate, at least around here. I wouldn't be surprised if we lost the 220 and 902 bands. Ryan: I wouldn't be surprised if you're right! The "commercial interests" obviously have little or no use for HF, otherwise we'd have never even heard of BPL. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote:
Opsec happens to mean Operation Security. I guess that everyone loves Delta Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D. The acronym "OPSEC" has been around for many decades - long before Delta Force or whatever. I first heard it from my father when I was just a young child. And I've seen the acronym in very old books about WWII. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com