"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course. Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.
The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch,
or
something in between?

According to the FCC, competent enough to pass the written tests.
I'd like to see folks even more competent than that, but everyone has
to start somewhere.

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against
increased
numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level?
Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

See above.

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

That's the FCC's call ... as I said, I'd like to see folks actually learn
more
than the tests require (and would welcome more folks who ALREADY
know more than that, but aren't interested in Morse).

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience. And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows them
to do.

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for
anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I'm not bitching about today's tests ... the only issue I have is that I
think the Tech test is "light" for the power level it allows at frequencies
that can cook meat. Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes
beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required
for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Again, I think the Tech test/priv ratio is flawed WRT the power levels
allowed.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio ... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service
communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will
have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical
subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc.
should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

73,
Carl - wk3c

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

By acting as examples on how not to do things for the rest of the amateur
community ?

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course.

Why do such different levels of knowledge need to be tested? FCC sez a
Tech is qualified to use any authorized mode/power anywhere on the 2
meter band - but nowhere on the 20 meter band. Code test or no code
test. Why does 20 meters require more technical competency than 2
meters? Why does 14.020 require more technical competency than 14.030?

Yes, there's rules, regs and propagation. But the General and Extra
tests cover a lot more than those three things. The written test
system we have now, and which we have had for decades, FORCES more
technical stuff on prospective hams whether they want it, need it, or
plan to use it, or not.

Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.

And many do not. For non-technical types, learning the written
material can require quite a bit of effort. It took me far longer to
learn the written material than the code way back when. Heck, I was
licensed and on the air long before school got around to things like
electricity and basic trigonometry, let alone how even the simplest
radios work.

The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

Call that the "ante" effect.

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch,
or
something in between?

According to the FCC, competent enough to pass the written tests.

I'd like to see folks even more competent than that, but everyone has
to start somewhere.

So are the current writtens OK with you or not?

And WHY must there be more written testing forced on people just to
have full privileges?

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against
increased numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level?
Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

See above.

Doesn't answer the question.

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

That's the FCC's call ... as I said, I'd like to see folks actually learn
more
than the tests require (and would welcome more folks who ALREADY
know more than that, but aren't interested in Morse).

We'll see how that works out in a short time, when FCC dumps Element
1. I'm predicting that there won't be an NPRM or NOI or anything like
that. FCC will just do a MOO or equivalent and say "This was all
argued before, the treaty was the one reason to keep Element 1.
Treaty's gone and so is the element. Game over, thank you for
playing". As you predicted, a "slam-dunk".

Biggest unknown is how long it will take The Congress to rubberstamp
the treaty.

btw, you put a date in The Pool yet? (see thread of that name).

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience.

I'm not one of those people.

And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows them
to do.

It is simply human nature not to value highly what is acquired easily.

But let's talk about this "graduation" thing. In a way, a license IS a
"diploma" or "graduation certificate" - it says you have met the
requirements for that level of privileges. It does NOT say you know
everything there is to know about the subjects covered, or that your
education is complete. Just that you met the minimum requirements.

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for
anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I'm not bitching about today's tests ...

Which means you think that it's OK to force more written testing on
everyone else if they want a reasonable-privileges HF license or a
full-privileges HF license. Because when Element 1 disappears,
Elements 3 and 4 will still be there. Sure - they were easy for you ~3
years ago, and their predecessors were easy for me ~33 years ago, but
they're NOT easy for everyone.

the only issue I have is that I
think the Tech test is "light" for the power level it allows at frequencies
that can cook meat.

So you would either beef up (pun intended) the Tech written or lower
the Tech power level. (I think the latter is more reasonable, btw)

Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

Still doesn't explain why we need the Extra, or even most of the
General.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes
beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required
for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Again, I think the Tech test/priv ratio is flawed WRT the power levels
allowed.

But we're talking about a lot more than the power level. Most hams I
know don't ever run even 10% of the maximum allowed power. The past
two Field Days and Sweepstakes, I've used QRP. Did pretty well, too.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio

Ah - a "carrot" to get them to "jump through the hoop" of more written
testing. Or, to put it another way, it's OK to force people to learn
lots more written-test material, whether or not they are interested,
in order to grant them an HF license, but it's not OK to force people
to learn even a very basic level of Morse code/CW, whether or not they
are interested, in order to grant them an HF license.

Seems like a contradiction, since the Tech written test is obviously
adequate for all VHF/UHF modes and frequencies.

... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Sure - but at the same time, VHF/UHF is where many if not most of the
public safety services are. Interference with those services can
easily cost lives.

FCC sez Techs are technically competent to operate all amateur
VHF/UHF, but not on most amateur HF/MF. Sounds like an artificial,
arbitrary barrier to force those without a technical background to
expend effort learning more technical stuff just to pass the test so
they can get on HF.

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service
communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will
have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical
subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc.
should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

You missed the point that they could contribute in public service
communications and other ways. If there is any logical reason to make
ham licenses easier to get, it's so that there are more hams available
for public service comms - 'specially emergency comms.

Example: When the shuttle Columbia blew apart on reentry, it was
amateurs who provided much of the communications between search
parties (according to posts here by people who were there, on the
ground). Neither "technical competency" nor code speed made a bit of
difference then - just operating skills.

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course.

Why do such different levels of knowledge need to be tested? FCC sez a
Tech is qualified to use any authorized mode/power anywhere on the 2
meter band - but nowhere on the 20 meter band. Code test or no code
test. Why does 20 meters require more technical competency than 2
meters? Why does 14.020 require more technical competency than 14.030?

Yes, there's rules, regs and propagation. But the General and Extra
tests cover a lot more than those three things. The written test
system we have now, and which we have had for decades, FORCES more
technical stuff on prospective hams whether they want it, need it, or
plan to use it, or not.

See 97.1 ... basis and purpose ... the ARS is supposed to promote
technical self-education and experimentation. While it is still sort of
"incentive licensing," using the "carrot" of increased privs on HF is
the FCC's way of promoting that goal.

Also, as I pointed out ... Techs on VHF/UHF stand less of a
chance of causing worldwide interference problems than folks
on HF (and the FCC doesn't like to have to deal with complaints
from other administrations ...)


Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.

And many do not. For non-technical types, learning the written
material can require quite a bit of effort. It took me far longer to
learn the written material than the code way back when. Heck, I was
licensed and on the air long before school got around to things like
electricity and basic trigonometry, let alone how even the simplest
radios work.

However, learning that material at least is in line with 97.1's goals.
Learning how to encode/decode Morse with one's "wetware"
doesn't fall in the same ballpark.

The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

Call that the "ante" effect.

It's not a game of poker ... you either know the material or you don't
and it is not a legitimate purpose of regulation to "make you work xxx
amount to get a license." If someone has to work to learn the material
that's legitimately required, so be it ... if they already know it and don't
have to put forth any (further) effort to learn it, so be it, too.

[snippage]

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the
entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience.

I'm not one of those people.

And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows
them
to do.

It is simply human nature not to value highly what is acquired easily.

I worked hard for many years to gain the technical knowledge and
skills I have ... the fact that I didn't have to put forth additional
effort to pass the extra test doesn't devalue what the license allows
me to do one iota.

But let's talk about this "graduation" thing. In a way, a license IS a
"diploma" or "graduation certificate" - it says you have met the
requirements for that level of privileges. It does NOT say you know
everything there is to know about the subjects covered, or that your
education is complete. Just that you met the minimum requirements.

OK ... goes to the old joke, "What do you call the guy who finished
at the bottom of his class in medical school?" (Doctor)

Hams will have different levels of technical knowledge and skills,
depending on whether they are engineers, plumbers, cab drivers,
etc. (Though there is nothing preventing an interested, intelligent
cab driver from studying on his own and achieving a high level of
technical knowledge and skill.)

So you would either beef up (pun intended) the Tech written or lower
the Tech power level. (I think the latter is more reasonable, btw)

If it were up to me *personally*, I would reduce the power limit for
techs to something around 50W ... those that simply operate commercial
radios wouldn't really be affected, those who have the skill and knowledge
to build higher powered rigs for things like EME, tropscatter, etc. should
have no problem passing at least the General written.

Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

Still doesn't explain why we need the Extra, or even most of the
General.

If you don't get why the FCC uses the "carrot" to promote 97.1
I doubt I can explain it in a way that will cause you to get it.

I strongly suspect that you actually *do* get it, but simply wish
to be contrarian about it because it suits your purpose ... which
appears to be to attempt to justify forcing Morse on everyone
"just because the technical stuff is forced on everyone" (or something
to that effect.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio

Ah - a "carrot" to get them to "jump through the hoop" of more written
testing. Or, to put it another way, it's OK to force people to learn
lots more written-test material, whether or not they are interested,
in order to grant them an HF license, but it's not OK to force people
to learn even a very basic level of Morse code/CW, whether or not they
are interested, in order to grant them an HF license.

Back to 97.1 ...

Seems like a contradiction, since the Tech written test is obviously
adequate for all VHF/UHF modes and frequencies.

... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Sure - but at the same time, VHF/UHF is where many if not most of the
public safety services are. Interference with those services can
easily cost lives.

But I would wager that the vast majority of techs use store-bought rigs
(and with today's interated circuits, SMT manufacturing, etc, they are
generally VERY reliable, statistically-speaking)

[snip]

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

Sounds like sour grapes because your favorite mode is no longer
going to be on government life support.

73,
Carl - wk3c

On 11 Jul 2003 10:59:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

I for one have no problem requiring an applicant for an amateur
license to be well-rounded in radio and electronics, both theory and
operations including regulations.

There was lots of stuff that I was "forced" to learn in all three of
my professions (which I sometimes refer to as shoeshine boy, baggage
handler, and bus washer) but even though I may never use it in my
specialty, it was necessary to learn it in order to be a "well-rounded"
individual who can easily follow and evaluate what specialists in those
other fields say rather than just smiling, nodding my head, and not having
a clue.

Applying it to ham radio, the operator who may be a good traffic
handler but doesn't have a clue about what OET 65 requires of all
ham operators (OK folks, look it up) is going to be behind the
eight-ball if s/he's not in compliance. Ditto for the one who is an
antenna maven but doesn't have a clue about digital communication
protocols and emission masks.

Without the "generalist" background I'd be just another narrow geek.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
"Highball the scanner"

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 11 Jul 2003 10:59:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

I for one have no problem requiring an applicant for an amateur
license to be well-rounded in radio and electronics, both theory and
operations including regulations.

Nor do I, Phil.

Seems to me that a person who is "well rounded" in amateur radio will have at
least some skill in Morse code, though.

There was lots of stuff that I was "forced" to learn in all three of
my professions (which I sometimes refer to as shoeshine boy, baggage
handler, and bus washer) but even though I may never use it in my
specialty, it was necessary to learn it in order to be a "well-rounded"
individual who can easily follow and evaluate what specialists in those
other fields say rather than just smiling, nodding my head, and not having
a clue.

Same here. But amateur radio is an avocation, not a profession.

Applying it to ham radio, the operator who may be a good traffic
handler but doesn't have a clue about what OET 65 requires of all
ham operators (OK folks, look it up) is going to be behind the
eight-ball if s/he's not in compliance. Ditto for the one who is an
antenna maven but doesn't have a clue about digital communication
protocols and emission masks.

Only if the person wants to do those things.

Without the "generalist" background I'd be just another narrow geek.

Exactly! I'm sure you realize that I was in "devil's advocate" mode. Just
applying the anticodetest rhetoric to the writtens.

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
"Highball the scanner"

73 de Jim, N2EY

"No defects found...."