Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
|
#363
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|