Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#349
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|