**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 21 Sep 2003 06:28:53 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

If you have to MAKE it happen, then it isn't making it on it's own
merit.

Fine. Then let's get rid of any and all testing in schools at every
educational level. After all, all those tests only "force" students to
demonstrate academic achievement, don't they? That's "making"
an education happen, so we can't have that, can we?

We can, and we do, primarily because one is doomed to fail in life
without an education. You'll also note that one does not have to study
medicine and get an M.D. in order to graduate with a degree in, say,
business administration - primarily because a guy with an MBA isn't
expected to perform brain surgery. With respect to Amateur Radio,
nobody is forced to operate in CW once they're licensed, and one can
succeed in the ARS by using any one of a few dozen other modes we're
allowed to use, so forcing them to take a code test makes no sense.

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 24 Sep 2003 03:18:21 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

What are you saying then? That it *is* a welfare program after 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

What are you saying then? That it *is* a welfare program after all?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John:

No, you and Clint said that code testing was a "welfare program," and
you're both wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT

No, you and Clint said that code testing was a "welfare program," and
you're both wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT


well, if you listen to fellow PCTA types then the only conclusion
is that it IS a governement subsidation.... JUST like the farm subsidies
where the government artifically keeps the prices of food propped up
by buying all the excess crop that isn't sold at a given price instead
of letting the free market determine it.

In terms of ham radio, when the PCTA types say "it's the only
incentive to get people interested in CW, therefore we have to
make people learn it" you are essentially saying "if that product
(morse code) isn't purchased willingly at market price (as
to whether or not the individual is INTERESTED in learning it
in the first place) then the governement (FCC) will subsidize it
by purchasing the excess that doesn't sell (make the remainder
of the hams who don't want to learn it do so against thier will).

Pretty clear analogy.

If you look at it as a welfare program, then all the same it is
equally deserving of criticism.... if a system can't make it's own
way and sell itself and perpetuate itself, you never do it any
good by artificially keeping it alive, it'll never stand on it's own
two feet proverbially speaking.

The government, by the way, STILL buys insande amounts
of helium due to the strategic value of blimbs & derigables
and pumps it underground in northern texas. Yes, you read
that right.. WWI technology is being subsidized due to the
fact that it was ONCE useful, but since it's STILL on the
books as a government hand out, it's STILL purchased in
mass quantities

Cite: Martin L. Gross, "Washington Racket: Government
Waste from A to Z"

Clint
KB5ZHT

On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:23 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

What are you saying then? That it *is* a welfare program after all?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John:

No, you and Clint said that code testing was a "welfare program," and
you're both wrong.

Ahem...kindly re-read the quoted material.

Clint called it a welfare program.

I called it a (all together now, class):

government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

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.

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?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:23 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

What are you saying then? That it *is* a welfare program after all?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John:

No, you and Clint said that code testing was a "welfare program," and
you're both wrong.

Ahem...kindly re-read the quoted material.

Clint called it a welfare program.

I called it a (all together now, class):

government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

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".

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?

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.

Meanwhile, give the Novices and Tech Pluses more HF space than those
four little slots.

73 de Jim, N2EY

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

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. Sorry, I don't buy
it. 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."

The design of modern communications equipment is based on digital
electronics. Learning about digital electronics, therefore, is in
keeping with the Basis And Purpose.

There's nothing in the Basis And Purpose about telegraphy.

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)

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...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.

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. Not
just locally, but if the band is open, the subband's wiped out over a
significant portion of the planet.

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.

Meanwhile, give the Novices and Tech Pluses more HF space than those
four little slots.

I definitely agree with that.

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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"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

**** 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=