Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #341   Report Post  
Old July 17th 03, 11:24 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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. 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.

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.


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").


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.


As stated above read up on the early years of radio and the establishment of
the FCC. 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.


Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.


Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #342   Report Post  
Old July 17th 03, 11:29 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message

gy.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. 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. There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or

decide
what is good for it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


You sound like Queen Latifa; F The Cops.


That's a totally illogical non-sequitur. I believe in following all the
regulations. That's why the FCC exists: to regulate so that all the services
can coexist. I've never said that we should ignore it. However we hams
have a responsibility to actively lobby (either personally or by supporting
organizations like the ARRL) for the good of ham radio. Our voice needs to
be heard along with all the other parties interested in the radio spectrum.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #343   Report Post  
Old July 17th 03, 11:30 PM
Bert Craig
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

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. 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.
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. 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.

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.

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.

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.


A 5-wpm test where you have to peg 25 in a row....with numbers,
puctuation marks, and prosigns count double...and you get lotsa time
to fill in the blanks at the end...the "be all and end all" of ham
radio?! ROTFL Like I said, Carl, it'd almost be amusing... :'-(

Those who believe that Morse testing should remain a requirement
forever will, for the most part, probably never change their minds,
but they are increasingly becoming a minority.


That's funny. Sure isn't the sentiment I hear on HF. I guess that
"minority" must be on HF. Sadly, I wouldn't expect the welcome
wagon...but I hope I'm wrong about that.

Furthermore, their
view, based more on "tradition" and "emotional attachment" thereto,
is not relevant in terms of what the license requirements should
reasonably be.


We all have our crutches, Carl. Be thankful that the FCC need less
works too.

Carl - wk3c


73 de Bert
WA2SI
  #344   Report Post  
Old July 17th 03, 11:35 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

As stated their purpose is to ADMINISTER ham radio, not necessarily to
encourage its growth.


That is your opinion, not fact.



Please read "200 Meters and Down". It is an excellent history of the
actions taken by the government regarding radio services. Twice the
government tried to eliminate ham radio. Once was by limiting amateurs to
wavelengths of 200 meters and shorter since the "experts" believed such
frequencies were useless. The government also tried to get rid of hams by
delaying the re-opening of the bands to amateurs after World War I. If it
had not been for the hams lobbying the government, we would not have
recovered from the latter. The FCCs sole purpose is to regulate and
administer the various radio services.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #345   Report Post  
Old July 18th 03, 12:15 AM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"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.


Please read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". The problem that people
generally have in learning the code are incorrect study methods and
unrealistic expectations. Yet when proper training methods are employed,
achieving 20wpm is within the reach of almost everyone whether or not they
have any talent for it. Now setting world records does require talent but
you don't have to have talent to be OK at something.

The same applies to learning to sing. The number of people who are truly
tone deaf is miniscule. However there are a large number of people who
"can't carry a tune in a bucket" because they have not been taught how to
discriminate and reproduce different pitches although they can hear them as
different tones. Some people come by this ability to differentiate
naturally and some have to be taught. Those who can't carry a tune are in
the latter category. Anyone that can hear the notes can be talked to sing
passably well although not everyone will be a Pavarotti. Unfortunately a lot
of so called vocal instructors don't know how to teach it. Read the book
"The Joy of Music". A church choir member was going to be asked to leave
because he "could not sing". His real problem was pitch matching. Once he
found a teacher who knew how to address the problem, he rapidly developed a
truly magnificant singing voice.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



  #346   Report Post  
Old July 18th 03, 01:45 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

As stated their purpose is to ADMINISTER ham radio, not necessarily to
encourage its growth.


That is your opinion, not fact.




Please read "200 Meters and Down". It is an excellent history of the
actions taken by the government regarding radio services. Twice the
government tried to eliminate ham radio. Once was by limiting amateurs to
wavelengths of 200 meters and shorter since the "experts" believed such
frequencies were useless. The government also tried to get rid of hams by
delaying the re-opening of the bands to amateurs after World War I. If it
had not been for the hams lobbying the government, we would not have
recovered from the latter. The FCCs sole purpose is to regulate and
administer the various radio services.


I would propose that "200 Meters and Down" be required reading and have
a few questions on the tests!

- Mike KB3EIA -

  #347   Report Post  
Old July 18th 03, 01:57 AM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.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.

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.?

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.


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.

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.


As stated above read up on the early years of radio and the establishment

of
the FCC.


The initial purpose of the FCC derived from interference
mitigation. The charter of the FCC does not, however,
forclose consideration of what is or isn't beneficial for any
individual service.

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.

Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.


Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding.


Which makes all this discussion rather academic.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK



  #348   Report Post  
Old July 18th 03, 02:57 AM
Brian Kelly
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Bert Craig) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

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. 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.
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. 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.

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.

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.

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.


A 5-wpm test where you have to peg 25 in a row....with numbers,
puctuation marks, and prosigns count double...and you get lotsa time
to fill in the blanks at the end...the "be all and end all" of ham
radio?! ROTFL Like I said, Carl, it'd almost be amusing... :'-(

Those who believe that Morse testing should remain a requirement
forever will, for the most part, probably never change their minds,
but they are increasingly becoming a minority.


That's funny. Sure isn't the sentiment I hear on HF. I guess that
"minority" must be on HF. Sadly, I wouldn't expect the welcome
wagon...but I hope I'm wrong about that.

Furthermore, their
view, based more on "tradition" and "emotional attachment" thereto,
is not relevant in terms of what the license requirements should
reasonably be.


We all have our crutches, Carl. Be thankful that the FCC need less
works too.

Carl - wk3c


73 de Bert
WA2SI


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
  #349   Report Post  
Old July 18th 03, 03:14 AM
Carl R. Stevenson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message

...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

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.


The FCC is about "regulatory purpose." If there's no legitimate
purpose for a regulation, the regulation should not exist.

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


Yada, yada, yada ... regulators have no business making/keeping
rules that serve no purpose other than to "maintain tradition."

I wish folks would stop leaning on "regulatory" as if it's ok just
because big brother says so.


I'm not saying "its OK because big brother says so," I'm saying
"Big brother shouldn't be making/maintaining regulations that
have no legitimate purpose."

Carl - wk3c

  #350   Report Post  
Old July 18th 03, 03:23 AM
Carl R. Stevenson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"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.


Please read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". The problem that

people
generally have in learning the code are incorrect study methods and
unrealistic expectations. Yet when proper training methods are employed,
achieving 20wpm is within the reach of almost everyone whether or not they
have any talent for it. Now setting world records does require talent but
you don't have to have talent to be OK at something.


I *was* "OK" at Morse ... but I have NO interest in using that mode and
will likely never do so again in my life. 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 ...

The point is that amateur radio is, per the FCC's own pronouncments
(and they are the ones that set the rules of the game), primarily a
technically-oriented service ... they see no need for making people
practice an ear-hand coordination drill (which has nothing technical
about it) to acquire proficency that isn't necessary and many, if not
most, won't use.

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. It's about
as ridiculous as asserting that all hams should be tested for their
ability to hop on one foot, while patting themselves on the head
with their left hands and talking on an HT with their right hands
at the same time without losing their balance. Some folks could
do it easily, some with more difficulty, and some would probably
fall over. Insisting on Morse skill for to obtain what are for the
most part TOTALLY UNRELATED privileges is absurd ... there
is no other way to describe it.

Carl - wk3c

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017