|
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message news:su9eb.37445 Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated effort, challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so on) is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the ARS. Exactly. Bert's comment underscores the core of many who don't give a hoot about having requirements that make sense...they only want requirements which, by their measure, constitute a "show of effort" on the part of all applicants. Sorry...but such a desire isn't any part of FCC's Part 97 Purpose. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill, I give a great big hoot about the regulatory stuff. I assume you're referring to the regulatory stuff wrt "making sense," since you appear to discount any form of testing which serves no "regulatory purpose." Exchange "only" with "in addition to" and we're in agreement. ;-) -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: What about thier constant use of the term "CBplusser" and so forth... There is only one person who uses that term. He also claims to be 305 years old. What is it with the application of one person's pejorative to everyone? You mean like the person who called us 'nazis'? That's a real good example! We have a whole spectrum of people with a whole spectrum of opinions in here. And some are too busy stereotyping to actually find out what anthers true opinion is. I've never called anyone a name here, and yet you and I are assigned the infamous "they" and "their". Of course. In fact, if you really want to get certain people mad, *don't* call them a name. I find that not ever responding to their posts works pretty well!! I don't know if THEY have kept up to date on ham radio violation records, but the vast majority of code & rule violaters are hams who've been in the hobby for many many years, have advanced licenses (advanced, extra) and thus have passed morse code testing. Your source, please? I read the "FCC enforcement letters", and there seems to be a wide distribution of experience, license classes, etc. One thing is quite obvious, though: the vast majority of enforcement actions are against hams using voice modes. When's the last time a ham using CW in the CW/data subbands was the target of an FCC enforcement action? I did a little research project on this a year or so ago. No vast majority of any license class as far as perps go. There were a bit more of the higher classes, but not significantly so. Techs were real close, and then there were the unlicensed. I'd have to say there was no significant difference in the license class as far as rule violations go. Remember too that HF violations are usually audible over a much wider area than VHF/UHF violations. The W6NUT machine is a local/regional problem, while 3950 and 14313 are much more widespread. How many of the enforcement actions were against hams using CW in the CW/data subbands? The next one makes one. The hams I have met personally that came out of 11 meters were the best hams I ever met. WHY? Because they KNEW where they came from, how nice it is up here, and have thus a respect for the advancement into a more serious hobby. Some of the best and the worst hams I have known came from 11 meters. The foulest mouths i've ever heard were on 75 meters ssb, and one ham who's call I won't mention was denied advancement by hollingsworth HIMSELF (you can look it up on ARRL records).. he lived at the time in conroe, texas.... he use to get just slobbering drunk on the radio and really raise hell; cussing, insulting, playing music, everything. And what mode was he using? Ahem... He passed the code requirements and written exam to advance to an even higher license, but recieved a letter from Hollingworth saying "you are not being given your upgrade, and furthermore, never will until I recieve a written letter from you explaining why you feel you DESERVE one." Was he using CW to do all that? THAT ham was a long time veteran ham who had already passed a CW test. Therefore, any argument brought up that CW testing is a "yahoo filter" as they call it is wrong. It doesn't stop any such thing. He'd also passed several *written* tests on regulations and operating practices. Those written tests didn't stop his behavior either. Shall we dump the writtens because they are not a "yahoo filter" either? No test can be a perfect "filter". And never will be. There are incompetent and even evil doctors. And yet they have one of the most rigorous entry requirements there are. Exactly. No requirements are needed to operate a transciever on HF. ?? I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence. This is what my whole argument comes down to, Jim. There is ample evidence that a person, even one who is less clever than most, can put up a station, run some serious power, and come to no harm. People do it on the 11 meter band all the time. Even on the Ham bands, a person can buy a modern rig, pay people to erect his or her antenna, and be on the air without doing anything but reading the manual. Things are not what they used to be. That some people like to homebrew can be considered as irrelevant now as the fact that some people like to use Morse Code CW. A person can use the argument that "If a person likes to build their own equipment, that's fine, but a person shouldn't have to be forced to test for electronic theory. Why should a person have to know Ohms law when they just want to run SSB or computer soundcard modes"? In fact, modern radios could simply not allow themselves to transmit out of band, (some may already do so) so who needs to know band edges? Another thing not needed to test for. Nothing is a foolproof filter, but the tests serve as one, both written and Morse proficiency tests. While some decry this as an elitist thing, it is no more so than any testing regimen. We take tests to get into schools, graduate, drive a car, and do many things in life. I'm not talking about the Morse code test specifically - for the purpose of the argument, throw it out and to hell with it. What I am talking about is that we are at a juncture where we can go one of both ways. We can toss the whole thing, and actually just have people buy their licenses, or we can have some sort of minimal testing, or we can have some meaningful testing, where the person demonstrates some sort of proficiency and interest and has to put in some sort of work to get their ticket. Some might also want the prospective ham to be the equivalent of an RF engineer. It's a whole spectrum of opinions. We have to decide how much knowledge is needed. My only wish is that the requirements are enough that I know that the person is highly interested in the service. Hard to measure "interest". Fun fact: a few years back, the FCC modified a General class ham's license as part of an enforcement action so that he was limited to using CW only. Oh the horror!!! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:23 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: Now, then...once the government has stopped subsidizing the manufacture and testing of CW operators by eliminating the code test, how do you think we should reallocate the Novice subbands? Well since there are still people who hold Novice licenses, we ought to keep them as is. Otherwise the current Novices (who can renew until they die) will be losing privileges. Normally rule changes attempt to be done in such a manner that current licensees neither gain nor lose privileges other than those very specific to the rule being changed. I.e. dropping the code test would not eliminate the Novice or any other class. If the simplest approach is taken to this change (simply dropping the code requirement), we would actually have an immediate increase in people with access to the Novice subbands as all Techs, not just Techs with code, would now be able to operate there. So this should increase the need to keep these bands allocated to the Novice/Technician groups. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... Let's find something worthwhile to discuss in this NG...like for example, how do we refarm the subbands once there's no longer any need for 'em? Not a useful discussion. Dropping the code test does not mean that there will be no need for the existing subbands. If all 600,000+ US amateurs are now eligible for HF operation and take advantage of that eligibility, the bands could be really chaotic. The DX stations may very well hope we keep the subbands in place. It will probably be even more necessary to continue to keep the subbands and I would expect to see more emphasis placed on following the voluntary band plans. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ... On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:45:17 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: Perhaps you think those that know/use Morse are superior to you. I don't ever recall seeing anyone that advocates Morse saying they felt superior. Perhaps you have a short memory, then, Dan. A search of Google or some other UseNet archive would, I'm sure, turn up at least one thread from circa July of this year where at least three of the PCTAs in this NG were claiming exactly that. In fairness, I'll admit that I don't recall you being one of them. Nevertheless, the attitude does exist among some of the PCTAs who regularly post here. I know I don't feel that way. However I do feel those that don't play on CW are missing a major part of the enjoyment they could get from having a amateur license. But thats their loss not mine. I feel that those who don't participate in public service work are missing a major part of the enjoyment they could get from having an amateur license. However, I don't go around advocating that hams be required to do so, or that they be tested on their ability to do so as a requirement of obtaining a license. EXCELLENT point, John. Touche. Kim W5TIT |
"N2EY" wrote in message
m... "Kim" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying "NO ONE should be denied a drivers license". see why the PCTA is accused of slant and spin? Nope. I am pretty sure that the phrase "who passes the tests required by contemporary modern society" was implied. Wasn't clear at all. If not, the part about "get thier license" pretty much removed any remaining "grey area" or misunderstanding. The word is spelled "THEIR", Clint. Turn on your spellchecker if you can't remember it. Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test) SHOULD be kept out of the ARS. 73, de Hans, K0HB that's what kim said. No, she didn't. And, btw, what makes you think Hans is "PCTA"? Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that the part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am... Oh well... Musta caught me at an inference-compromised moment, Kim. It wasn't clear to me when I read it. However, you have since rectified the ambiguity, so that the statement would now read something like: "NO ONE who has passed the required tests should be kept out of the ARS" How's that? 73 de Jim, N2EY Yeah. Kim W5TIT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that the part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am... Oh well... Kim W5TIT It is the fact that people think certain things are "implied" that keeps the lawyers mighty busy. These days, if something isn't stated, it isn't considered part of the meaning or intent of the passage. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Well, these days there's a lot more ways of thinking than what you think ;) Kim W5TIT |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
With all this talk about children vs. adults and superior vs. inferior, I can't help observing that insistence upon getting one's way regardless of the consequences to themselves or others is a personality trait that is generally observed in, shall we say, less mature individuals. I know what you mean, John. Why, not too long ago I knew a fellow who "owned" an e mail reflector that would grandiosly "ban" people from his list that didn't share HIS specific opinions on things. Some way to get in the last word, huh...??? It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument undoubtedly seems quite childish. Since this forum is about Amateur Radio FOR Amateur Radio operators (realizing that it IS an open, unmoderated forum, of course), it is irrelevent as to what "non-hams" think. No one, regardless of thier position on ANY subject, "owes" it to anyone who is NOT a licensed and participating operator, to explain each and evry reason for ANY opinion. If you are not experienced in a specific pursuit you shouldn't insult those who are. For example I would not be found in a NASCAR fan-club forum, nor in one dedicated to gardening...at least as anything other than a passive reader. Unless you are ASKING for help, it's a matter of common courtesy. Steve, K4YZ |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
The wake will undoubtedly be held here in rrap, where many will call it the end of ham radio...(SNIP) Actually it will only be the end of an era. The .0003% of the Amateur community that espouse any opinion to the contrary will go thier own way, and the other .0003% who constantly deride them for THIER opinions will go thier way too. And Amateur Radio, just like it has for the last 80+ years already past, will go on. Steve, K4YZ |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
In fact, it looks to me as if the code test has one foot out the door and the other on a banana peel, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not, so this entire debate in rrap is rather pointless. Let's find something worthwhile to discuss in this NG...like for example, how do we refarm the subbands once there's no longer any need for 'em? Big mistake there, John. Ironically, the ONLY two "CW Only" subbands in ANY US Amateur allocation are in the 6 and 2 meter bands. Even more ironic is the amount of time NCT folks have "debated" the need for CW on HF, yet not a single person, NCT or otherwise, to my knowledge, has ever challenged those VHF segments... Loooooooong after the requirement for code testing has slipped past us, there will be a lasting need for NARROWBAND subbands, John. PACTOR, AMTOR, PSK31, RTTY, and a host of other digital modes populate those segments. THOSE folks will be no more willing to face an influx of voice operators than CW ops would be. Furthermore, the elimination of code testing will NOT eliminate the presence of code USERS for some time to come. Once the code test has been eliminated, I expect we can see an increase in not only voice users, but digital mode operation will increase too. So while we can expect a gradual decrease in the number of stations employing CW, we will simultaneously see an influx of folks who will need those "digital" allocations. So don't get your hopes up, KC2HMZ, that the end of code testing will open 20 meters up from end to end for yakkity-yakers. The dynamics of Amateur HF practice exceed the code issue significantly. Steve, K4YZ |
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: "Kim" wrote: (snip) the real reason is for the desire of CW testing to stay around: these folks believe in its power to filter out folks who act just like them. I quoted this part because I wanted to make sure everyone read it. When it comes to at least a few of those on the pro-code side, I think you hit the nail right on the head with this, Kim. I am reminded of an old line usually credited to Groucho Marx: "I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member".... Said years ago. Amazing how little things change over time. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote:
It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument undoubtedly seems quite childish. This argument has been going on so long, I don't think most even remember what it is exactly about anymore. Sadly, I suspect the argument will continue on even after code testing itself is a distant memory. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
Here, try this one: "All else being equal, a radio amateur who has Morse Code skills is more experienced, more qualified, and has more radio communications options available than a radio amateur with no Morse Code skills." Without a desire to communicate with Morse Code, there is no truth to that statement at all. Even with that (the all being equal aspect), there is no truth to the "more experienced" or "more qualified" when it comes to absolutely anything beyond Morse Code. Therefore, those two have no place in that paragraph without Morse Code, not the radio amateur, specified as the "more" being discussed. Therefore, only the "more radio communications options" has any significant ring of truth to it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Without a desire to communicate with Morse Code, there is no truth to that
statement at all You just hate the truth dont you, for you that ability is not available, so there you are not a REAL HAM. |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:51:00 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:23 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: Now, then...once the government has stopped subsidizing the manufacture and testing of CW operators by eliminating the code test, how do you think we should reallocate the Novice subbands? Well since there are still people who hold Novice licenses, we ought to keep them as is. Otherwise the current Novices (who can renew until they die) will be losing privileges. Not necessarily. Normally rule changes attempt to be done in such a manner that current licensees neither gain nor lose privileges other than those very specific to the rule being changed. That's true, of course. Again, though, refarming the Novice subbands doesn't necessarily mean that Novices lose the privileges to operate at those frequencies. It all depends on how you do the refarming. I.e. dropping the code test would not eliminate the Novice or any other class. I'm nitpicking now, of course, but I think it would, in a way - it would eliminate the Tech-Plus, which, although it's no longer shown in FCC's database, is still for all intents and purposes a license class, in that any Technician who's passed a code test receives the operating privileges that were associated with that license class when the words were still being printed on licenses (and any Tech-Plus who hasn't renewed yet still has the words on the license). If the simplest approach is taken to this change (simply dropping the code requirement), we would actually have an immediate increase in people with access to the Novice subbands as all Techs, not just Techs with code, would now be able to operate there. So this should increase the need to keep these bands allocated to the Novice/Technician groups. I think it will create a need for even *more* spectrum to be allocated to those groups - and bear in mind it's not an exclusive allocation; General, Advanced and Extra licensees can operate there as well, as long as they stay at 200 watts or less - but the question is, how many of them are going to be using CW absent a code testing requirement, and how many will be on other modes? We're told by some PCTAs that once the test is eliminated, the stock of CW operators in the ARS is going to dry up - to hear them tell it, like a wet lawn on a sunny day in July. If they're correct (and with the way some of those folks toss around insults I have to admit that if I was a Technician the last thing I'd be interested in doing is learning code just so I could get on the air and work the same guy who just raked me over the coals in this NG), there's going to be a need for more space for all the new phone ops the PCTAs seem to be fearing the arrival of. Meanwhile, CW is already authorized on any frequency where an amateur has operating privileges, so why continue to have subbands at all? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:30:16 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote: I happen to think it's a case of turf defending...the PCTAs feel they must defend their exclusive little slices of the RF spectrum at all costs, regardless of what harm is done to the ARS in the process. They'll kill the mother to save the baby. What is a permitted method of expression, John? - Mike KB3EIA - Ummm...you lost me there somewhere, Mike. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On 30 Sep 2003 19:36:57 -0700, (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote: Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . .. With all this talk about children vs. adults and superior vs. inferior, I can't help observing that insistence upon getting one's way regardless of the consequences to themselves or others is a personality trait that is generally observed in, shall we say, less mature individuals. I know what you mean, John. Why, not too long ago I knew a fellow who "owned" an e mail reflector that would grandiosly "ban" people from his list that didn't share HIS specific opinions on things. If it's the person I think it is, the reflector in question was one where the list owner had to approve all requests to subscribe to the group. This is not that uncommon with reflectors. In fact, I'm currently subscribed to five reflectors where subscriptions must be approved by the list owner first. There were only two subscriptions to that particular list that were ever turned down by the list owner, and they were from two persons whose behavior on Usenet gave the list owner reason to believe that the two individuals in question were not likely to contribute anything worthwhile and, in fact, would probably behave the same way they did on Usenet. Thus, he did not grant them access to the reflector. The terms of service agreement with the server operator expressly granted the listowner that right, and he exercised it. Some way to get in the last word, huh...??? The bottom line in this matter is that reflector listowners, moderators on moderated Usenet newsgroups, and even Internet Service Providers - and before that moderators on FidoNet and sysops on landline BBSes, have been blocking access by undesirables and troublemakers since personal computers first started popping up on household desktops. Anyone whose access is thus blocked remains free to start their own reflector/newsgroup/echo/BBS/ISP and spout whatever drivel he or she sees fit on their OWN time...not on someone else's. It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument undoubtedly seems quite childish. Since this forum is about Amateur Radio FOR Amateur Radio operators (realizing that it IS an open, unmoderated forum, of course), it is irrelevent as to what "non-hams" think. That strikes me as a rather shortsided view that fails to take into account how the rest of the radio hobby view hams and the amateur radio service. Since the non-hams who read this and other public forum where ham radio is discussed by hams retain the right to vote for the politicians who make the laws that affect us - antenna restrictions, to name one important one - the perception of hams and the ARS by non-hams most certainly *is* relevant to ham radio. Why make enemies when it isn't necessary? No one, regardless of thier position on ANY subject, "owes" it to anyone who is NOT a licensed and participating operator, to explain each and evry reason for ANY opinion. The FCC commissioners aren't licensed hams, Steve. Yet, when you filed your comments on restructuring, you probably did a lot of explaining with respect to your opinion on the topic of the proceeding. If you are not experienced in a specific pursuit you shouldn't insult those who are. In general, I agree. I also feel that those who are experienced in a specific pursuit generally shouldn't insult those who are not. I say "in general" and "generally" because some people merely get what they ask for. For example I would not be found in a NASCAR fan-club forum, nor in one dedicated to gardening...at least as anything other than a passive reader. Unless you are ASKING for help, it's a matter of common courtesy. Well, as you said, this forum is about Amateur Radio, and is for Amateur Radio operators, and as a licensed ham, I do have some experience in this specific pursuit. I can also remember back to when I was not yet a licensed ham, and I recall that this debate about code testing was going on back then, and to me as a non-ham it looked quite a bit like a bunch of kids arguing over who was going to bat first in a sandlot baseball game. It wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as an observation that this is a public forum that can be read by anyone and that perhaps we ought to be more aware of the way we present ourselves and the ARS in such a forum - and the comment was especially aimed at the minority of regular participants here who routinely find it necessary to toss around insults like candy on halloween. I guess it's one of those instances where if the shoe fits, wear it, if not, then forget about it...frankly, I think the only people who might be offended by what I said would be the ones who are "guilty as charged." 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On 30 Sep 2003 19:44:33 -0700, (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote: Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . .. The wake will undoubtedly be held here in rrap, where many will call it the end of ham radio...(SNIP) Actually it will only be the end of an era. The .0003% of the Amateur community that espouse any opinion to the contrary will go thier own way, and the other .0003% who constantly deride them for THIER opinions will go thier way too. And Amateur Radio, just like it has for the last 80+ years already past, will go on. Steve, K4YZ That's pretty much what I expect, too. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
"N2EY" wrote:
Here's one answer: How many hams do you know who have designed, built and operate homebrew stations? Not kits, not partly home-made, not with homebrew accessories, but 100% built-from-scratch amateur radio receivers, transmitters, transceivers, antennas, power supplies, etc.? One of the oft-repeated claims has been that the code tests kept out "technically inclined" individuals. At least one NCTA (Vshah101) has claimed that "no self-respecting EE would use CW". Etc. (snip) If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see a lot more homebrew HF stations? Lets face it, homebrewing just isn't very popular today, in any license class. Part of that is due to changing radio technology. It's fairly hard to homebrew a radio today capable of competing with even the most basic commercial product. Most are simply choosing to buy rather than build. Those who are interested in electronics mainly focus their efforts on things outside ham radio. For example, I'm currently interested in robotics. At the same time, I'm doing almost nothing (electronics related) in ham radio itself. A friend, also a ham, is obsessed with security devices. Likewise, I don't see him doing much in ham radio. But, of course, most I've met have no interest in electronics at all, or limit that to kit building or very simple projects. So, to answer your question, I don't think we're going to see a lot more homebrew HF stations, with or without a change in the code testing requirement. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dick Carroll" wrote:
And by your logic, if it qualifies for the term, a marksman who practices on a target range weekly is no better qualified as a marksman than someone who has never picked up a weapon because the 'someone' has no interest in shooting. Lame. Logic is not your strong point, Dick. You're talking about two people's qualifications as a marksman. If Jim had said "more experienced" or "more qualified" in Morse Code (as you talked about qualified as a marksman), there would be no dispute. But, with that interpreted as saying a radio amateur with code skills is "more experienced" and "more qualified" than one without code skills, there is a conflict - it's simply not true. If it were true, a brand new ham who passed a code test yesterday would be "more experienced" than someone without code skills who has been a ham for ten years. [See why I disputed your "all things being equal" premise, Jim? Few are even going to notice it.] Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:
That's where I first learned about the morse code. I had to learn it to get a badge; upon learning it, I recieved a badge of achievement for having done so. (snip) I learned it as a Boy Scout also. However, in my case, that was a very long time ago (when the Empire State building was the largest building in New York - mentioned only because our troop when there during the New York World's Fair in the early 60's). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Bert Craig" wrote:
Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the regulatory body to whom we answer, they are definitely NOT the sum total of who or what defines OUR hobby/ service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part in retaining those element that define our rules, tradition, and culture. This is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well, the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it serves no regulatory purpose." (snip) As you know, that's only one part of the "battle cry," Bert. The rest is that about half the radio amateurs today (Technicians) don't know code (culture), that most who do know code don't use it (tradition), that code is not used for our service to those outside Amateur Radio (rules), and so on. (snip) Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly (snip) It is a barrier to those who have no interest in Morse Code. Nothing more and nothing less. Frankly, I have much more respect for someone with the stones to just admit that they're too lazy or insufficiently motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this "regulatory" mumbo jumbo. I've repeatedly said I have no interest whatsoever in learning code. Doesn't that qualify as "insufficiently motivated?" Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who said that the VHF and up privies of your license were sufficient for your needs? How long after Element 1 is dropped can I address you as W5NET/AE, hmm? Actually, I probably wouldn't rush out to upgrade. I have no place to install HF antennas, and probably will not for several more years. In fact, I'm in a situation now where my participation in VHF/UHF is even somewhat hindered. As such, upgrading my license will serve no purpose anytime soon. Therefore, I'll probably just leave what I have well enough alone. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Bill Sohl" wrote:
Exactly. Bert's comment underscores the core of many who don't give a hoot about having requirements that make sense...they only want requirements which, by their measure, constitute a "show of effort" on the part of all applicants. Sorry...but such a desire isn't any part of FCC's Part 97 Purpose. Haven't see you in here lately, Bill. Have you been hiding out or did I just miss your messages? Anyway, that's the point I'm trying to make. While Morse Code may be the greatest operating mode to ever come along, a testing requirement for it is just not necessary today. As such, that testing requirement should go. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
Some claim that Morse Code testing is at odds with the purpose of the amateur radio service as a fundamentally technical service. But in the practical experience of thousands of amateurs, the opposite is true. (snip) I've never made such a claim, so have no response to any counter-claim. Skill in Morse Code, even at a very basic level, permits amateurs to use radio equipment ranging from very simple to highly advanced designs, and technologies of almost any vintage. (snip) Skill in Morse Code is certainly not unique in that ability, Jim. In fact, almost any knowledge of radio would allow that. Morse Code skill encourages amateurs to actually build their own radio equipment by offering an easy first step, and a growth path that leads to almost any usable technology. (snip) With almost every commercial radio today equipped to transmit code, why would that be true? Few today, even those with an interest in code, are building their own equipment. Instead, most are using the same type of equipment I've purchased. I speak from direct experience in amateur radio home construction, having built my first amateur station at age 13. (snip) How many 13 year old kids today, with or without a ham license, with or without code skills, are building their own radio equipment today? The removal of the Morse Code test from the Technician class license has not resulted in a technical revolution in amateur radio from newly-licensed "technically qualified" amateurs. (snip) I didn't know the Technician license was supposed to lead to a technical revolution in anything, Jim. Instead, I thought they were just supposed to participate in the same activities most other Amateur Radio operators are participating in. Why the unique expectation for Technician license holders alone? Instead, the continued progress in amateur technical efforts continues to be mostly the result of work done by experienced amateurs, even though the Technician class license has not had a code test for more than 12 years. Which "amateur technical efforts" are you referring to, Jim? I must have missed something because I haven't seen much technical efforts from ANY of the operators I've met over the last few years, regardless of license class. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote
You may now proceed to thank me for finally clearing this up. Thank you. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
One of the principles that makes up the Basis And Purpose of the
ARS is "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts." " trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts." You have to kidding, most of the New Hams have no Idea what it is to be trained technicians or electronic experts. Nor will they ever be such. If your trusting the writtens to prove the above statments, then no wonder you done have a CLUE. |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: Here's one answer: How many hams do you know who have designed, built and operate homebrew stations? Not kits, not partly home-made, not with homebrew accessories, but 100% built-from-scratch amateur radio receivers, transmitters, transceivers, antennas, power supplies, etc.? One of the oft-repeated claims has been that the code tests kept out "technically inclined" individuals. At least one NCTA (Vshah101) has claimed that "no self-respecting EE would use CW". Etc. (snip) If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see a lot more homebrew HF stations? Lets face it, homebrewing just isn't very popular today, in any license class. Part of that is due to changing radio technology. It's fairly hard to homebrew a radio today capable of competing with even the most basic commercial product. Most are simply choosing to buy rather than build. Might be the company you keep Dwight! 8^) Unless you are counting only the building of the transciever itself, homebrewing is alive and well. I make all the parts of my shack that I can, and know many hams that do likewise. lots of cool stuff to build. Interfaces, anps, all sorts of monitoring and test equipment, and more. But its true, there aren't that many people building the rigs themselves. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: On 30 Sep 2003 15:12:12 -0700, (N2EY) wrote: by that logic, most of the General and Extra written exams are also "government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism" and/or "a welfare program". You've been dangling the above for a few days now. A few years, actually. Sorry, I don't buy it. I didn't expect you to. But it's still true. One of the principles that makes up the Basis And Purpose of the ARS is "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts." That's right. Does passing the General or Extra written exam make someone an electronics expert? Do you know any hams who, upon passing the General and/or Extra exams, suddenly decided to start building their equipment instead of buying it? The design of modern communications equipment is based on digital electronics. Partly. There's also a lot of analog stuff in there. Learning about digital electronics, therefore, is in keeping with the Basis And Purpose. Of course. But why *must* hams be tested on digital electronics beyond the level of the Tech exam? Is the digital electronics used in HF/MF amateur radio equipment somehow different from the digital electronics used in VHF/UHF amateur radio equipment? Why must all that theory stuff be forced down prospective HF hams' throats whether they are interested in it or not? There's nothing in the Basis And Purpose about telegraphy. Sure there is - it's under "trained operators". There's nothing in the "Basis And Purpose about digital electronics, either. FCC has already allowed that "because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." (Both quotes above are from FCC's report & order on the last round of restructuring in the ARS) This is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea, remember. And the same FCC that will probably take 2 years to drop Element 1. And the same FCC that radically reduced the written tests in that same restructuring. Here's proof of my argument about the content of the writtens: A newcomer can get a Tech license by passing the current 35 question Element 2. That license permits the new ham to use any authorized mode on any authorized amateur frequency above 30 MHz. Every amateur HF/MF mode is also allowed on VHF/UHF, and the power limits are the same. So FCC obviously thinks that the 35 question Tech test is a valid indicator of what a ham needs to know to design/build/repair/align and operate any amateur station on VHF/UHF. But even after the code test is passed, a new ham has to pass more written tests to get more than 'Novice' privileges on HF/MF. Of course the General and Extra writtens contain some "necessary" propagation, regulatory and safety stuff that is not in the Tech test. But the rest is stuff that is not absolutely necessary to design/build/repair/align and operate any amateur station on HF/MF. Add to this the fact that the only difference in operating privileges between a General class ham and an Extra is a few bits of spectrum on 4 of the 9 HF/MF bands, and it becomes very clear that most of the General and Extra written exams are also "government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism" and/or "a welfare program". The situation is made even clearer by the emergence of rigs that cover both HF and VHF/UHF. A Tech can buy, repair, align, and operate, say, an FT-897. Why is said Tech qualified to use its full capabilities on 2 meters but not on 20 meters? Now you might say that the tests "encourage" hams to become more "technical". Have you ever observed that effect on hams who were not inclined to be "technical" before they took the General and Extra class writtens? Which activity is more prevalent in amateur radio today: Hams operating CW, or hams designing and building their own radio equipment from scratch? Why must there be a test for all that stuff if it's not necessary to the safe and legal operation of an amateur radio station? How many doctors, lawyers, and other people who would be great hams are we keeping out because they are not interested in all that technical stuff? (We could sure use more hams who are lawyers to help fight CC&Rs and BPL!) Except for some extremely basic stuff on regulations and safety, *everything* in the tests is the result of somebody's opinion. An oft-repeated argument against the code test is that code operation is no longer absolutely necessary for any operation, so there's no absolute need to test for it. Apply the same logic to the writtens, and a lot of what's in them has to go as well. It's an inescapable logical conclusion. Clint has subsequently elaborated on his comment, citing government subsidizing of the agricultural industry as one example, demonstrating that this is in fact what he had in mind as well. What major industry in this country is *not* subsidized in some way? Um, well, there's the porn industry, I suppose.. Good point! .but other than that, you're right, there's a lot of subsidizing going on. However, that doesn't mean that I, or anyone else for that matter, wants the government to select my recreational activities for me on my behalf. I'll make my own choices, thank you. Your recreational choices are being subsidized and chosen for you as well. If you like hiking and camping as recreational activities, there's a whole system of parks, forests and wilderness areas, set aside by the government, for those activities. But if you want to be a lumberjack for a recreational activity, you cannot cut down trees in those areas. You have to go elsewhere, almost always to private property. Now, then...once the government has stopped subsidizing the manufacture and testing of CW operators by eliminating the code test, how do you think we should reallocate the Novice subbands? Reallocate them as special digital experimental subband. Allow any documented digital mode that will fit in the subbands to be used there. Including digital voice, image, and yes, Morse Code/CW. No arbitrary limits on occupied bandwidth or symbol rate as long as the signal fits inside. If somebody wants to run "PSK-3100" and they can document it for FCC, fine, let 'em have at it. I don't agree with unlimited signal bandwidths on HF - that means one guy trying out some ultrawide digital mode wipes out the whole subband and nobody else can experiment until he's through playing around. That's why we have the subbands. Not just locally, but if the band is open, the subband's wiped out over a significant portion of the planet. The same is true in part for any mode. But if it really bothers you that much, then perhaps the rule could be "any mode less than X kHz wide" where X is, say, 5 or 10 kHz rather than the entire subband. I could agree with this on the microwave bands, though, where the signals don't travel as far and there are far fewer users in line to use the spectrum that is available. DSSS near-far problem comes to mind. Meanwhile, give the Novices and Tech Pluses more HF space than those four little slots. I definitely agree with that. I'd say they should have at least half of the General CW/data subbands. |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net... "Bert Craig" wrote: Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the regulatory body to whom we answer, they are definitely NOT the sum total of who or what defines OUR hobby/ service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part in retaining those element that define our rules, tradition, and culture. This is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well, the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it serves no regulatory purpose." (snip) As you know, that's only one part of the "battle cry," Bert. The rest is that about half the radio amateurs today (Technicians) don't know code (culture), that most who do know code don't use it (tradition) Of course you can quote your source for these assertions, yes? I'd love to see 'em put it to a vote. No internet polls...just a "one ham, one ballot" vote. Oh, it shouldn't be just hams? Horsefeathers, WE define OUR hobby/service. If a prospective ham feels that strongly about it, enter the fold and then be heard. , that code is not used for our service to those outside Amateur Radio (rules), and so on. Amateur radio is all we're talking about, Dwight. (snip) Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly (snip) It is a barrier to those who have no interest in Morse Code. Nothing more and nothing less. That's odd, I've QSO'd via phone with a number of ops on 20 that have no interest in Morse code, yet they did not let the code elements (Much less, solely Element 1.) deter them from earning HF privies. It's just a requirement to be fulfilled. Nothing more, nothing less. Frankly, I have much more respect for someone with the stones to just admit that they're too lazy or insufficiently motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this "regulatory" mumbo jumbo. I've repeatedly said I have no interest whatsoever in learning code. Doesn't that qualify as "insufficiently motivated?" It would if it remained your individual issue, sure. Instead it's morphed into an "international" movement, the result of which will devalue AR as a whole. Then it's our issue...and many may hold you responsible. I know I'd NEVER snub a licensed ARO OTA...but it'd be foolish to believe that everybody will roll out the welcome mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.) Welcome to HF, Dwight. Be careful what you wish for. Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who said that the VHF and up privies of your license were sufficient for your needs? How long after Element 1 is dropped can I address you as W5NET/AE, hmm? Actually, I probably wouldn't rush out to upgrade. I have no place to install HF antennas, and probably will not for several more years. In fact, I'm in a situation now where my participation in VHF/UHF is even somewhat hindered. As such, upgrading my license will serve no purpose anytime soon. Therefore, I'll probably just leave what I have well enough alone. Try QRP, Dwight. You'll love it. Some of the newer antennas are made to be used in just your situation and are no bigger than VHF mobil antennas. There's also a special feeling of accomplishment with making a contact with 2-1/2 Watts into an "invisible" wire dipole or longwire strung temporarily from a window. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
but it'd be foolish to believe that
everybody will roll out the welcome mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.) Whats amazing is these NCTA think they should be welcomed with open arms, and thanked for getting a license. I for one will never welcome a No-Code into Ham Radio. Because to me they are nothing more than CBplussers, looking for more Welfare Handouts. |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ... Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it. Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving serious math. __________________________________________________ __________ When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a rather large roll in Amateur Radio. Arnie - KT4ST Bruce says not to work the math on the Extra exam. Should everyone take his advice? |
|
Bruce says not to work the math on the Extra exam. Should everyone take his
advice? Thats because there is no reason to work the Math, the Test is so simple. |
|
|
|
|
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:51:00 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: [snip] If the simplest approach is taken to this change (simply dropping the code requirement), we would actually have an immediate increase in people with access to the Novice subbands as all Techs, not just Techs with code, would now be able to operate there. So this should increase the need to keep these bands allocated to the Novice/Technician groups. I think it will create a need for even *more* spectrum to be allocated to those groups - and bear in mind it's not an exclusive allocation; General, Advanced and Extra licensees can operate there as well, as long as they stay at 200 watts or less - but the question is, how many of them are going to be using CW absent a code testing requirement, and how many will be on other modes? Nope don't give them more room. If they don't want to be restricted to the current Novice subbands and privileges, they can go pass the General test if they want more space. NO FREEBIES. The General test is almost a repeat of the Technician test. The additional material between Tech and General is pretty minimal. We're told by some PCTAs that once the test is eliminated, the stock of CW operators in the ARS is going to dry up - to hear them tell it, like a wet lawn on a sunny day in July. If they're correct (and with the way some of those folks toss around insults I have to admit that if I was a Technician the last thing I'd be interested in doing is learning code just so I could get on the air and work the same guy who just raked me over the coals in this NG), there's going to be a need for more space for all the new phone ops the PCTAs seem to be fearing the arrival of. Meanwhile, CW is already authorized on any frequency where an amateur has operating privileges, so why continue to have subbands at all? If the code "monster" is eliminated, they can get more room by upgrading to General. Again I repeat, NO FREEBIES. Why have subbands? Well simple, there are 600,000+ amateurs in the US. This is more than all other nations combined (if Japan is excluded). US voice operators could conceivably make too much noise worldwide for foreign operators. At least this way they foreign operators have a section that they can use voice while we are restricted to CW or data. Also given the way people are very poor at following the existing band plans that overlay the mandated subbands, I wouldn't trust the 600,000+ operators to follow a mere band plan. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message .net... "N2EY" wrote: The removal of the Morse Code test from the Technician class license has not resulted in a technical revolution in amateur radio from newly-licensed "technically qualified" amateurs. (snip) I didn't know the Technician license was supposed to lead to a technical revolution in anything, Jim. Instead, I thought they were just supposed to participate in the same activities most other Amateur Radio operators are participating in. Why the unique expectation for Technician license holders alone? Those who pushed for the Tech no code license loudly and repeatedly claimed that it would lead to a major influx of technically bright hams that would lead to significant technical advances in ham radio since it was supposedly code keeping them out. Well that influx of technical types didn't happen. Unfortunately, the Technician licensees following that change are saddled with an expectation that they themselves did not create. They shoulder the burden of expectations created by those who would not have to fulfill them. Whether or not one believes in code testing, it highlights some of the inherent flaws in the argument that code keeps technical types out of ham radio. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com