|
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:15:37 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: What of those who simply aren't smart enough to pass a test? are they not human and have rights? Nobody has a "right" to transmit radio signals. See the International Radio Regulations and Section 301 of the US Communications Act. As for mode specific questions, they have no business asking me about modes of operation that I am not interested in. "They" -the 800 pound gorilla - have every business...... Let the good times roll, baby...... ggg Everyone emits radiation. That's why IR surveillance devices are so useful. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 9 Jul 2003 03:19:48 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote: State originally meant country, but then you formed a union. Actually we formed a confederation. And i thought it was a federation, governed as a republic. |
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Penny Traytion" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next? No Test International. WRONG... NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address... and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support of any other NCI directors. Assuming success, what then? A big party and then disbandment? - Mike KB3EIA - That'd be fine with me. I am also in ARRL and have held a field assignment position (LGL) for several years. I have repeatedly stated I did not see NCI trying to expand beyond NCI's core objectives nor do anything else to try and replicate ARRL functions. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Dir. NCI |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Penny Traytion" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next? No Test International. WRONG... NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address... and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support of any other NCI directors. Assuming success, what then? A big party and then disbandment? - Mike KB3EIA - That'd be fine with me. I am also in ARRL and have held a field assignment position (LGL) for several years. I have repeatedly stated I did not see NCI trying to expand beyond NCI's core objectives nor do anything else to try and replicate ARRL functions. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Dir. NCI Political groups often have problems after achieving their objectives. The people who join them tend to be avtivists and often will just shift their Objectives. Even if you personally are ready to disband, are your followers? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@my gate.mailgate.org... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY should there be testing for a ham license? Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource, sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. 73, de Hans, K0HB Well said Hans. Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic? What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200 bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other qualifications for the license? - Mike KB3EIA - When the FCC takes that position then I'll fight against it. For now, that's just empty speculation. I have long sgo stated my opposition to any elimination of written testing...and, have made suggestions to the VCCs on ways to improve written testing. Understood, and I believe you, Bill. I just wonder what the troops will do....... - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Penny Traytion" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next? No Test International. WRONG... NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address... and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support of any other NCI directors. Assuming success, what then? A big party and then disbandment? - Mike KB3EIA - That'd be fine with me. I am also in ARRL and have held a field assignment position (LGL) for several years. I have repeatedly stated I did not see NCI trying to expand beyond NCI's core objectives nor do anything else to try and replicate ARRL functions. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Dir. NCI Political groups often have problems after achieving their objectives. The people who join them tend to be avtivists and often will just shift their Objectives. Even if you personally are ready to disband, are your followers? - Mike KB3EIA - But I'm not ready to disband. There are over 100 adminstrations that need to change their rules before NCI's core purpose is met. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Sohl" writes: The problem with that is, if Carl Stevenson's brain were composed of Semtex, he couldn't blow his nose! 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, Sure sounds like sour grapes to me. Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the US delegation? Seems pretty respected in ITU circles to me. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: I didn't know that, but it sounds like "blather" to me! 73 de Larry, K3LT Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation and involved both during and before the WRC. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
I still think that if morse code is so important for the hams to have to
know how to do, then all others utlizing public service and business band frequencies should have to know it as well such as law enforcement, fire, ems, governmental entities, transportation frequencies etc. Especially the emergency service people, as if there were ever a case where they may be caught in a position where morse code may be useful, I don't know what would be. Can you imagine if they used it for at least a secondary level of communications if not a primary one?? People in scannerland would have to learn morse code as well to figure out what the hell is being sent! ALL-CODE INTL.!!!!!!!! -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY should there be testing for a ham license? Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource, sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
... Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation and involved both during and before the WRC. Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that required a much smaller amount of effort. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message . .. "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation and involved both during and before the WRC. Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that required a much smaller amount of effort. 73 de Bert, WA2SI The effort is of no consequence when judging the need for any specific requirement. The only thing that matters is clear and compelling reason(s) to have or not have a particular requirement. The FCC weighed in on morse rational in the R&O for 98-143 plus the subsequent petitions for reconsideration. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bert Craig wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation and involved both during and before the WRC. Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that required a much smaller amount of effort. Yup, a celebration of less knowledge. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the US delegation? Seems pretty respected in ITU circles to me. Blather, he was just another observer with some commercial interest group he's involved with, had absolutely nothing to do with ham radio, not even close. Actually, I was a "Private Sector Advisor" member of the US Delegation (that's different than an "Observer" ... IARU was an "Observer" not a member of a Member State Delegation) I was officially listed on the Delegation as a private sector expert on Agenda Item 1.7, as well as the agenda items that my employer sent me for. (This is because I was heavily involved, through NCI, in the US prep process for the WRC on 1.7.) There were also two other private sector "experts" on the US Delegation for Agenda Item 1.7 ... Paul Rinaldo and Jonathan Siverling of the ARRL. (However, before anyone "flames" ARRL for not retaining the Morse requirement in the ITU Radio Regs, I would remind them of two things: 1) the IARU postion was that that requirement should go 2) members of the US Delegation are *bound* to support the US position, which was also that the Morse requirement should go.) Interestingly, when the US presented its Proposal on 1.7 at the CITEL meeting in Mexico City last year, the FCC International Bureau rep asked me to present the document in Plenary (I was also attending that meeting as a member of the US Delegation) ... I asked him "Why me, not you?" His response was "You know more about the issue and the background." What can I say? I participated in the process ... I don't recall you as having participated in any of the US WRC prep meetings, Brian ... nor did I see you listed as a member of the US Delegation to the WRC. 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY should there be testing for a ham license? Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource, sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. 73, de Hans, K0HB Well said Hans. Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic? What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200 bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other qualifications for the license? - Mike KB3EIA - When the FCC takes that position then I'll fight against it. For now, that's just empty speculation. I have long sgo stated my opposition to any elimination of written testing...and, have made suggestions to the VCCs on ways to improve written testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK NCI Director I fully agree with Bill ... I will also oppose any attempt to eliminate written testing on technical, RF safety, rules/regs, etc. THAT's what separates ham radio from "personal radio services." 73, Carl - wk3c |
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote: I still think that if morse code is so important for the hams to have to know how to do, then all others utlizing public service and business band frequencies should have to know it as well such as law enforcement, fire, ems, governmental entities, transportation frequencies etc. Especially the emergency service people, as if there were ever a case where they may be caught in a position where morse code may be useful, I don't know what would be. Can you imagine if they used it for at least a secondary level of communications if not a primary one?? People in scannerland would have to learn morse code as well to figure out what the hell is being sent! ALL-CODE INTL.!!!!!!!! Whoaaa there, Ryan! You're getting spun up here! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bert Craig wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation and involved both during and before the WRC. Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that required a much smaller amount of effort. Carl has obviously been on a Jihad against Morse code for most of his adult life. Seems he must have flunked his 13wpm code test for the General in San Diego many years ago and wound up getting enough of that 13wpm to qualify for an old-category Tech. That daunting experience seems likewise to have left him with a load of bile that has taken all these years to find a relief outlet for...NCI and its "mission" have been right up his alley. And you're right, of course- it would have been much easier for him to have just tuned in W1AW code practice a few more sessions and retested, but what the hey! |
|
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation and involved both during and before the WRC. Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that required a much smaller amount of effort. Carl has obviously been on a Jihad against Morse code for most of his adult life. Seems he must have flunked his 13wpm code test for the General in San Diego many years ago and wound up getting enough of that 13wpm to qualify for an old-category Tech. That daunting experience seems likewise to have left him with a load of bile that has taken all these years to find a relief outlet for...NCI and its "mission" have been right up his alley. And you're right, of course- it would have been much easier for him to have just tuned in W1AW code practice a few more sessions and retested, but what the hey! Talk about a "load of bile"! NCI followed all the rules, participated actively in the preparation for WRC and had an NCI Director at the WRC itself and all Dick can do is whine. Seems like the PCTA folks didn't care enough about morse to even try to retain it. Guess morse will really die off if the PCTA folks are the sole recruiting effort for morse going forward. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY should there be testing for a ham license? Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource, sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. 73, de Hans, K0HB Well said Hans. Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic? What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200 bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other qualifications for the license? - Mike KB3EIA - When the FCC takes that position then I'll fight against it. For now, that's just empty speculation. I have long sgo stated my opposition to any elimination of written testing...and, have made suggestions to the VCCs on ways to improve written testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK NCI Director I fully agree with Bill ... I will also oppose any attempt to eliminate written testing on technical, RF safety, rules/regs, etc. The way it works is a slow, gradual reduction of written testing, not complete elimination all in one go. Consider the 2000 restructuring. IIRC, to get a full-privileges license, we went from 5 written tests totalling 190 questions (30/35/35/50/40) to 3 written tests totalling 120 questions (35/35/50). For a General, it went from 3 written tests totalling 100 questions to 2 questions totalling 70 questions. Technician got the biggest reduction - from two tests totalling 65 questions to one test of 35 questions. Yes, the Q&A pools were merged and the rules simplified, but does that account for the large drop in both the number of tests and number of questions? Note that the NPRM comments were full of suggestions to improve the written tests. Indeed, if there was any subject in which there was general consensus among those responding, it was that the written tests were either adequate as they were or needed to be improved. But all that was done was to reduce written testing and remove the requirement that each test contain a certain number of questions from each category. In fact I recall that several of us were in agreement back before restructuring that the then-current tests for a Tech were inadequate for the privileges granted, particularly being able to run 1500 W output at meat-cooking wavelengths. But FCC disagreed, and cut the testing for a Tech almost in half. Some folks here have proposed either a single license class, or at most two license classes. It is logical to conclude that such changes would result in even less written testing. Perhaps the rewording of S25 wrt written testing standards will have an effect - but I sincerely doubt it. I have read that W5YI, Fred Maia, has proposed making the license tests "less technical" in order to attract more newcomers. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding about NCI's stand on written testing originated. THAT's what separates ham radio from "personal radio services." That and a lot more. Like the use of a wide variety of bands and modes - including Morse/CW. But to ask the devil's advocate question: Why MUST there be so much written testing for an amateur license, given that most hams use modern, manufactured equipment today, and that almost all FCC enforcement actions against hams are for "operating" violations rather than technical ones? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@ mygate.mailgate.org... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY should there be testing for a ham license? Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource, sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. 73, de Hans, K0HB Well said Hans. Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic? What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200 bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other qualifications for the license? - Mike KB3EIA - When the FCC takes that position then I'll fight against it. For now, that's just empty speculation. I have long sgo stated my opposition to any elimination of written testing...and, have made suggestions to the VCCs on ways to improve written testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK NCI Director I fully agree with Bill ... I will also oppose any attempt to eliminate written testing on technical, RF safety, rules/regs, etc. The way it works is a slow, gradual reduction of written testing, not complete elimination all in one go. Consider the 2000 restructuring. IIRC, to get a full-privileges license, we went from 5 written tests totalling 190 questions (30/35/35/50/40) to 3 written tests totalling 120 questions (35/35/50). For a General, it went from 3 written tests totalling 100 questions to 2 questions totalling 70 questions. Technician got the biggest reduction - from two tests totalling 65 questions to one test of 35 questions. Yes, the Q&A pools were merged and the rules simplified, but does that account for the large drop in both the number of tests and number of questions? Note that the NPRM comments were full of suggestions to improve the written tests. Indeed, if there was any subject in which there was general consensus among those responding, it was that the written tests were either adequate as they were or needed to be improved. But all that was done was to reduce written testing and remove the requirement that each test contain a certain number of questions from each category. In fact I recall that several of us were in agreement back before restructuring that the then-current tests for a Tech were inadequate for the privileges granted, particularly being able to run 1500 W output at meat-cooking wavelengths. But FCC disagreed, and cut the testing for a Tech almost in half. Some folks here have proposed either a single license class, or at most two license classes. It is logical to conclude that such changes would result in even less written testing. Perhaps the rewording of S25 wrt written testing standards will have an effect - but I sincerely doubt it. I have read that W5YI, Fred Maia, has proposed making the license tests "less technical" in order to attract more newcomers. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding about NCI's stand on written testing originated. Well put, Jim. It's what I've been trying to say, without getting into a "slippery slope" argument. You've phrased it very well indeed. Thanks much THAT's what separates ham radio from "personal radio services." That and a lot more. Like the use of a wide variety of bands and modes - including Morse/CW. But to ask the devil's advocate question: Why MUST there be so much written testing for an amateur license, given that most hams use modern, manufactured equipment today, and that almost all FCC enforcement actions against hams are for "operating" violations rather than technical ones? I've been trying to say the same thing as devil's advocate, and I fear that Carl and Bill may not quite grasp the concept. Whether or not the Morse Code is an anachronism, whether or not it should or should not be tested for, the elimination of the Morse code test *is* a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed for a amateur radio license; undeniable unless a person wants to look silly. Those responsible for such a reduction in knowledge needed for a license, regardless of their reasons, now find themselves in league with those who propose even less knowledge needed for that ticket. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. I understand that Carl and Bill do not support lessening of the knowledge needed. But that does not really matter. Those who want the tests to consist of nothing but sending in an application (if that) **applaud their efforts** That is another thing that is pretty hard to deny. Let's put it this way: Those who do not believe that the tests should be radically simplified or eliminated, but believed the Morse code requirement should have been eliminated may some day find themselves on the losing end of the proposition, just as those who support Morse code testing have lost the battle at this time. I remember when you had to have a license to use CB. just something to think about...... - Mike KB3EIA (and one time KBM-8780) |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:15:37 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: What of those who simply aren't smart enough to pass a test? are they not human and have rights? Nobody has a "right" to transmit radio signals. See the International Radio Regulations and Section 301 of the US Communications Act. As for mode specific questions, they have no business asking me about modes of operation that I am not interested in. "They" -the 800 pound gorilla - have every business...... Let the good times roll, baby...... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane How many bannas will it to make the gorilla happy? :-) Larry |
"Brian" wrote ...
I have the quote from the NCI reply comments on restructuring where they say that the exams should be more geared to what ops actually do (IOW, more operating questions, less technical) -- I have to locate it, but will post it before I go to bed -- Just hold yer horses thar partner. Arnie - KT4ST |
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes: Bill: I didn't know that, but it sounds like "blather" to me! 73 de Larry, K3LT Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation and involved both during and before the WRC. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: Hmmm -- impressive. I wish I could say the same about Nancy Kott. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
Brian wrote ...
Arnie, citation please. It is the disgruntled PCTA that have advocated a "No Test International" concept. __________________________________________________ __________________________ "review the privileges afforded to each license class and make certain that all test requirements for each license class RATIONALLY and DIRECTLY RELATE to the privileges the licensee receives by virtue of passing the test." "In the interest of continuity with the present licensing structure, study guides, and testing materials, NCI again recommends that the three license classes be called "Technician," "General," and "Extra." This will permit a practical combination of existing study guides and testing materials to be used until such time as such materials are REVISED and will result in REASONABLE tests for the three new classes of license contemplated in these comments." (my emphasis added)____________________________________________ __________________________ _______ First, I was never a PCTA ... and you know that. But that aside, above are the quotes from the reply comments of NCI to the NPRM. Of course, they don't come out and directly say it, but it is clear where they are going with this. Now, add to that, the comment from an NCI Director -- "Just having a test...any test, serves as a barrier to millions of people. That an actual learning effort is required (even if it is straight memorization) will continue to act as a barrier for 99% or more of the population." - Bill Sohl, NCI Director, 02/01/97 on this NG. Arnie - KT4ST |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Sohl" writes: Bill: I didn't know that, but it sounds like "blather" to me! 73 de Larry, K3LT Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation and involved both during and before the WRC. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: Hmmm -- impressive. I wish I could say the same about Nancy Kott. 73 de Larry, K3LT Who is Nancy Kott? My memory thinks it is someone involved with FISTS? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Well, if fair is fair, and the value of morse code is what it has been
reported to be in this newsgroup and others, then it should be no problem eh? :) -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Ryan, KC8PMX wrote: I still think that if morse code is so important for the hams to have to know how to do, then all others utlizing public service and business band frequencies should have to know it as well such as law enforcement, fire, ems, governmental entities, transportation frequencies etc. Especially the emergency service people, as if there were ever a case where they may be caught in a position where morse code may be useful, I don't know what would be. Can you imagine if they used it for at least a secondary level of communications if not a primary one?? People in scannerland would have to learn morse code as well to figure out what the hell is being sent! ALL-CODE INTL.!!!!!!!! Whoaaa there, Ryan! You're getting spun up here! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message a whole bunch of snippage to trim this one up Whether or not the Morse Code is an anachronism, whether or not it should or should not be tested for, the elimination of the Morse code test *is* a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed for a amateur radio license; undeniable unless a person wants to look silly. The problem with your analysis is that you are attempting to apply some mystical "amount of knowledge" criteria which is NOT what licensing is about. Certainly, as a separate knowledge base, the end of morse testing reduces one speciifc piece of knowledge and testing. BUT, that is all it does. Nope, just stating the obvious. No mysticism either. Those responsible for such a reduction in knowledge needed for a license, regardless of their reasons, now find themselves in league with those who propose even less knowledge needed for that ticket. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. FALSE - As Jim will attest, I have been an advocate of better written testing for a long time. Working to eliminate an unneeded (IMHO...but shared by WRC) requirement does not automatically put me or anyone else inleague with those that have a desire to lower or eliminate written tests. No one is doubting your personal convictions, Bill. Related example: Those who oppose elimination of smoking in public places because of personal "rights" issues, and those who oppose it because they want to smoke in public are on the same side of the fence. I understand that Carl and Bill do not support lessening of the knowledge needed. But that does not really matter. Sure it matters. Our opinions are as valued as ayone else in the dialog. Yes they are. Nice out of context quote there too! Clip there and it means one thing, put it next to the sentence it was suposed to be in, and it means something else entirely. Those who want the tests to consist of nothing but sending in an application (if that) **applaud their efforts** That is another thing that is pretty hard to deny. You deny that people who want the tests reduced or even eliminated don't think it is a good thing that the Morse code test is being eliminated? PLEASE tell us who the "just send in an application" advocates are? I haven't seen any semblence of support for that stand anywhere. Well, I haven't taken a poll or collected names, but I've read enough from people who think that the tests are too hard now. If I get the gumption, I could google them out. Let's put it this way: Those who do not believe that the tests should be radically simplified or eliminated, but believed the Morse code requirement should have been eliminated may some day find themselves on the losing end of the proposition, just as those who support Morse code testing have lost the battle at this time. Agreed, but it'll be a long wait to see if that pans out (IMHO). I remember when you had to have a license to use CB. So? CB, even then, had NO testing to get that license. And now there is not even that.... Look, I seriously doubt that there will ever come a time when there is no test at all. We would probably lose the spectrum allotment before that happens. That is just some slippery slope stuff. But I have NO doubt whatsoever that there will be pressure to simplify and reduce the difficulty of the testing process. Its all conjecture, so we'll just have to wait and see. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
Well Arnie, nice of you to take my text out of context. Don't you Just HATE it when that happens, Bill! When someone said: I understand that Carl and Bill do not support lessening of the knowledge needed. But that does not really matter. And someone else said: Sure it matters. Our opinions are as valued as ayone else in the dialog. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...
Well Arnie, nice of you to take my text out of context. You try to imply by my stating the obvious, that I am saying we should end tests and that is BUNK. The point I was making was simply that even a multiple choice test is sufficient a barrier to keep 99% of the population from even considering becoming a ham... that said, the statement does not then lead to any position or support by me of ending written testing. __________________________________________________ _________________________ "Not so fast there, Brian. NCI has been on the record as saying that the tests should be made less technical. Not a far leap at all to presume they will try and "dumb" them down even more." - Arnie (7-8-2003) Once again, I have been accused of saying that NCI wants to END testing. Never said it. BRIAN said it, then tried to attribute it to me. What I said (above) and stand by, is that NCI is in favor of less technical tests. They would favor written tests that concentrate more on rules and operating skills and less on knowing the alpha of a bipolar transistor. Arnie - KT4ST |
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the US delegation? Seems pretty respected in ITU circles to me. Blather, he was just another observer with some commercial interest group he's involved with, had absolutely nothing to do with ham radio, not even close. Actually, I was a "Private Sector Advisor" member of the US Delegation (that's different than an "Observer" ... IARU was an "Observer" not a member of a Member State Delegation) I was officially listed on the Delegation as a private sector expert on Agenda Item 1.7, as well as the agenda items that my employer sent me for. (This is because I was heavily involved, through NCI, in the US prep process for the WRC on 1.7.) OK . . . There were also two other private sector "experts" on the US Delegation for Agenda Item 1.7 ... Paul Rinaldo and Jonathan Siverling of the ARRL. There's a couple more internationally well known ham radio power brokers. Who the hell are Rinaldo and Silverling?? Never mind, don't bother . . Your ignorance of amateur radio regulatory matters never ceases to amaze me, Brian ... Actually, Paul Rinaldo spends a great deal of time in Geneva representing ARRL at the ITU-R. And when he's stateside, I frequently run into him in the halls of the FCC. Jonathan Siverling also works for ARRL in the DC office ... he's a "Chapter Coordinator" in CITEL and also does ITU-R work. Jon was the "country outreach coordinator" for the Americas, due to his CITEL experience/contacts and ability to speak Spanish. (I was assigned several Latin American countries to work with because I also speak Spanish pretty well and know delegates from Latin America from my participatin in CITEL, and I also participated in the US review of the Spanish translation of some documents from the editorial committee to make sure the Spanish version was consistent with the English text ... found some misuse of verbs that we had to have corrected because they changed the meaning in the Spanish version.) (However, before anyone "flames" ARRL for not retaining the Morse requirement in the ITU Radio Regs, I would remind them of two things: 1) the IARU postion was that that requirement should go 2) members of the US Delegation are *bound* to support the US position, which was also that the Morse requirement should go.) Making the point to having this squad of "experts" on hand in Geneva moot before the conclave even it got off the ground eh? Not really ... the WRC is a VERY complex activity, involving both technical and political considerations ... sometimes when there are contentious issues, some "horse trading" goes on behind the scenes. USG relies on Private Sector Advisors to help develop the strategies and fallbacks and "talking points" that are used to lobby other delegations to achieve the delegation's goals ... sometimes it means "giving" a little on an issue that's important to another delegation (or group of delegations), where you have some flexibility, in order to obtain their support on some other issue that is important to the US. In such cases, the USG folks consult with the private sector advisors on things like "What can your constituency live with?" so that they know how much they can "flex" without hurting US private sector interests. They also often "assign" private sector advisors to "work the floor," lobbying other delegations (within the bounds of the US position) for support (in many cases, the private sector advisors know and have good relations with members of other delegations that can be used to the Delegation's advantage in achieving its overall goals.) I find enormous humor in *you* of all people floating around Geneva posing as an "private sector expert" in the testing and use of Morse in ham radio in the U.S. Sez it all. I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm, but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that? Interestingly, when the US presented its Proposal on 1.7 at the CITEL meeting in Mexico City last year, the FCC International Bureau rep asked me to present the document in Plenary (I was also attending that meeting as a member of the US Delegation) ... I asked him "Why me, not you?" His response was "You know more about the issue and the background." That's worse than appalling. One more chunk of evidence that the FCC has been seriously dumbed down and is dragging ham radio down with it. It's not reasonable to expect a single VERY high level person from the FCC to know every detail of every agenda item ... their job at such meetings is to rely on the lower level staffers and private sector experts, overseeing things to make sure everyone's doing their jobs, and (frankly) to do some high level "shmoozing" with important people on other delegations to help "grease the skids" a bit. It is not uncommon for a private sector member of delegation to be tasked to present a document that he/she has been intimately involved in crafting. But the FCC is apparently still smart enough to use tools of convenience to support it's own agenda. That's all you've been since the gitgo Carl, an FCC tool. Attempt to disparage if you must, but it's simply not accurate. The US position on most WRC agenda items was VERY substantially driven by the private sector (the FCC's constituency) ... of course the result had to be acceptable to NTIA, representing DoD and other USG users of the spectrum, and to the State Dept. as well, but the bulk of the prep committees that developed position papers, talking points, strategies and fallbacks, etc. consisted of representatives from the private sector. This was, IMHO, truly an example of good governance ... the govt. REALLY listened to those who actually use the spectrum and took their technology, spectrum needs, etc. into account. At no point has eliminating the code tests ever had anything to do with "modernizing" ham radio, "outdated modes", "taking ham radio into the 21st century" or any of the rest of transparent bull**** which has been touted as the rationales for eliminating the code tests Carl. This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests, dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing more. Under the VE system, code testing essentially costs the FCC zilch ... there are no waivers, the VEs do the work ... where's the beef? What can I say? I participated in the process ... I don't recall you as having participated in any of the US WRC prep meetings, Brian No kidding! Do you think the FCC or the ARRL would have wanted me espousing MY position on S25.5? The process is open to all interested parties ... under the law you have a right to participate. If you don't, then don't carp about the outcome. By the way who paid yer air fare to Geneva? You? NCI? The FCC? Thought so. Otherwise you wouldn't have been there huh? Not that it's REALLY your business, but my employer paid my travel expenses ... I was also there to follow two agenda items that were important to my employer (non-ham stuff, of course). ARRL paid the expenses for their reps ... IARU probably paid those for Dave Sumner and the other IARU observers. Again, where's the beef? Back to Genesis here Tool: The NCI mission statement has been the elimination of S25.5. Ya blew it, S25.5 lives on. Now what? Actually, your statement is not correct. The NCI mission statement makes NO mention of S25.5 ... (see the web page ... that text hasn't changed in the time I've been Exectutive Director of NCI ... You are also wrong that "I(we) blew it." The mandatory Morse requirement in the ITU Radio Regs ceased to exist July 5, 2003 ... the new language of S25.5 has EXACTLY the same effect as if S25.5 had been "suppressed" (eliminated entirely) ... it states that administrations have the right to decide if Morse testing will be a part of their national requirements. (In the absence of a mandatory requirement, soverign nations ALWAYS have the right to choose to have a requirement (or not ) in their national rules, whether it's said so explicitly in the Radio Regs or not. Similarly, if the Radio Regs were to say, for example, "Stations in the Amateur Radio Service shall not employ transmitter output powers in excess of 1500W PEP." that would NOT preclude an administration from enacting a national rules limit lower than 1500W PEP. However, an administration could not enact national rules permitting a power limit greater than 1500W PEP without being in derrogation of the Radio Regs.) The Morse requirement is GONE from the ITU Radio Regs ... administrations are free to drop Morse testing (many are planning to do so with surprising rapidity ... we in the US are used to government moving slowly, so the speed with which some administratons plan to allow access to HF by no-code hams seems surprising to us ...) These are facts that you can't change, so I suggest you simply learn to live with them. 73, Carl - wk3c |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm, but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that? I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will bring Amateur Radio. Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto imagine that someone really interested would do that. The Morse requirement is GONE from the ITU Radio Regs ... administrations are free to drop Morse testing (many are planning to do so with surprising rapidity ... we in the US are used to government moving slowly, so the speed with which some administratons plan to allow access to HF by no-code hams seems surprising to us ...) These are facts that you can't change, so I suggest you simply learn to live with them. Last time I checked, we were allowed to voice our opinions. No one doubts it will be dropped, but we don't have to like it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Arnie Macy wrote:
"Brian" wrote ... Bill, welp, I brought out the fine-toothed comb and swept it through the citation. Nowhere did I pick up the words "reduced technical material" or anything remotely like it. Exams that "Rationally and Directly relate to priveleges" could be quite difficult, making some of these long-time hams glad that retesting isn't required every 10 years. It is a PCTA ploy that they continue to cry for no exams. Since we won't let them take their ball and go home, they want to damage the ARS for all. They're tring to scuttle the ship rather than let it fall into unworthy hands. __________________________________________________ ________________________ "This will permit a practical combination of existing study guides and testing materials to be used until such time as such materials are REVISED and will result in REASONABLE tests for the three new classes of license contemplated in these comments." First, please show me where I said that NCI wants to END testing. You can't because I never said it. Second, please explain what "revised" and "reasonable" mean within the context of the above quote from NCI? (that you conveniently snipped from my answer) Does it mean that NCI wants to make the test MORE difficult? Even a blind man could see where this is going. Since we have all this in one place now, just exactly is meant by that statement? REVISION means a change, obviously. It happens from time to time. REASONABLE tests mean what? You could poll 10 people and get 10 different answers. running from virtually no esting to those who believe that the test process should require the equivalent of a Bachelor's in EE. Reasonable means different things to different people. That quote is exceptionaly vague. Witness people here with different interpretations. Here is a golden chance for NCI to clarify and say *exactly* what they mean. What is reasonable testing for the ARS? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Dick Carroll wrote: Mygawd, Dwight, are you really licensed as a ham? And *that's* all you know of radiotelegraphy? You been hiding out in the wilderness somewhere, in a cave? What do you think it was that started radio in the first place, semaphores? You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is just plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you and Larry have to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up the ghost or conditions get SO bad that CW can't even get through you and Larry could save the world by using semaphore, if you had that skill, that is. |
Mike Coslo wrote: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm, but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that? I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will bring Amateur Radio. Yeah, Mike, we all do.....as we have lo these many years now. Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but the Morse Code test kept them out? just hard to imagine that someone really interested would do that. The Morse requirement is GONE from the ITU Radio Regs ... administrations are free to drop Morse testing (many are planning to do so with surprising rapidity ... we in the US are used to government moving slowly, so the speed with which some administratons plan to allow access to HF by no-code hams seems surprising to us ...) These are facts that you can't change, so I suggest you simply learn to live with them. Last time I checked, we were allowed to voice our opinions. No one doubts it will be dropped, but we don't have to like it. Ah, but you DO. Carl sez so. |
Mike Coslo wrote: Arnie Macy wrote: "Brian" wrote ... Bill, welp, I brought out the fine-toothed comb and swept it through the citation. Nowhere did I pick up the words "reduced technical material" or anything remotely like it. Exams that "Rationally and Directly relate to priveleges" could be quite difficult, making some of these long-time hams glad that retesting isn't required every 10 years. It is a PCTA ploy that they continue to cry for no exams. Since we won't let them take their ball and go home, they want to damage the ARS for all. They're tring to scuttle the ship rather than let it fall into unworthy hands. __________________________________________________ ________________________ "This will permit a practical combination of existing study guides and testing materials to be used until such time as such materials are REVISED and will result in REASONABLE tests for the three new classes of license contemplated in these comments." First, please show me where I said that NCI wants to END testing. You can't because I never said it. Second, please explain what "revised" and "reasonable" mean within the context of the above quote from NCI? (that you conveniently snipped from my answer) Does it mean that NCI wants to make the test MORE difficult? Even a blind man could see where this is going. Since we have all this in one place now, just exactly is meant by that statement? REVISION means a change, obviously. It happens from time to time. REASONABLE tests mean what? You could poll 10 people and get 10 different answers. running from virtually no esting to those who believe that the test process should require the equivalent of a Bachelor's in EE. Reasonable means different things to different people. That quote is exceptionaly vague. Witness people here with different interpretations. Here is a golden chance for NCI to clarify and say *exactly* what they mean. What is reasonable testing for the ARS? Mike, you can Google up enough of Carl's stuff to show clearly what it means. Which is exactly what Carl wants it to mean. |
On 11 Jul 2003 05:30:06 -0700, Brian wrote:
Please cite the manual giving explicit directions for gaining permission to operate amateur radio in a country w/o a government, and now without an occupying military force that has jurisdiction over my person. Ah, effendi, you are starting to understand. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
(snip) Whether or not the Morse Code is an anachronism, whether or not it should or should not be tested for, the elimination of the Morse code test *is* a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed for a amateur radio license; undeniable unless a person wants to look silly. Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at a piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com