"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
(Len Over 21) writes:

(snip) I got a COMMERCIAL Radiotelephone license
in 1956 (only one test needed) and had a career in radio-
electronics design since then. You will no doubt have to
say such is "irrelevant" for lots of reasons.

Not at all.

Please explain how that license and career have any relevance
to amateur radio policy. Particularly since you have never held
any class of amateur radio license.

Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur radio policy (license
policy or whatever), I do think a person's communications knowledge and
experience elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's part in
that discussion.

In certain technical matters, perhaps. But in the formation of policy
for the amateur service, why would such experience outside amateur
radio be more significant than another's experience as a radio
amateur?

Should we ask Howard Stern about amateur radio policy? He has
extensive experience in radio *outside* of amateur radio. He has made
millions from his radio career, and has branched out into TV, movies
and books, all of which have been financially successful ventures.

Millions of people listen to him daily, and find him informative and
entertaining.

Why not see what Howard Stern thinks about amateur radio policy
issues.

Why would you think otherwise, Jim?

I'm not saying that anyone should not be heard. Just the opposite.

I'm simply saying that holding up non-amateur-radio experience as some
sort of credential that disproves the opposing viewpoint of those with
amateur radio experience is faulty logic.

Len is obviously
interested in Amateur Radio, which is good.

Whoa, hold on a sec!

The only "interest" Len has shown in the past decade or so is numerous
lengthy postings to a few newsgroups.

Do you consider his attitude and behavior towards those who disagree
with him to be "good"?

Would you want a lot of new hams who behave the way he does?

The only thing I don't
understand is why he hasn't acted on that interest and gotten some kind of
Amateur Radio license over the years.

Perhaps the newsgroups are all the interest he has.

Since VHF and above is one focus of
commercial communications today, one would think the Technician license
would have at least some appeal to him. This glaring, long term, lack of
committment to Amateur Radio is what brings his ongoing participation in
this discussion under suspicion.

Which is why I point it out. The Tech license has not had a code test
for more than 12 years. Its written test is not very difficult. It
conveys all amateur VHF/UHF privileges. Yet Len has no interest in it.

You don't want to admit your occupation's firm name or what
it does,

Because it's not relevant. (snip)

This position is equally valid.

Thanks!

While a person's communications knowledge
and experience elsewhere is somewhat relevant (if that person chooses to
make it so), communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is obviously
not manditory for participation in this discussion, especially for the
person holding an Amateur Radio license which will be directly impacted by
the outcome of this discussion.

There is also the plain, simple fact of Len's behavior when he knows
the employment of someone who disagrees with him.

Is there *any* employment situation that *anyone* who supports code
testing could have that would cause Len to change his position on code
testing? I don't think so!

Is there *any* employment situation that *anyone* who supports code
testing could have that would cause Len to treat that person with
respect? I don't think so!

And so there's no point in *anyone* mentioning their employment here.
So I don't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
(Len Over 21) writes:

(snip) I got a COMMERCIAL Radiotelephone license
in 1956 (only one test needed) and had a career in radio-
electronics design since then. You will no doubt have to
say such is "irrelevant" for lots of reasons.

Not at all.

Please explain how that license and career have any relevance
to amateur radio policy. Particularly since you have never held
any class of amateur radio license.

Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur radio policy (license
policy or whatever), I do think a person's communications knowledge and
experience elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's part in
that discussion. Why would you think otherwise, Jim? Len is obviously
interested in Amateur Radio, which is good. The only thing I don't
understand is why he hasn't acted on that interest and gotten some kind of
Amateur Radio license over the years.

Why do you insist that getting-a-license is culmination of "interest?"

Explain how obtaining an AMATEUR license suddenly embues one with
spirit and verve and "permission" to experiment with RF? Especially
when a person is already a professional in electronic design engineering
who has ALREADY been working on "experiments" in RF?

A half century ago I began HF communications at a large station
operating 24/7 to keep long-distance paths across the Pacific. No
need to hold "contests" or have "certificates" of working far-away
places...or of being required to use "CW" because it supposedly "got
through when no other mode would." Station ADA used RTTY,
commercial SSB (12 KHz, 4 circuits), and voice, no "CW."

A couple months ago I used an SGC-2020 on HF while on a friend's
sailboat moored in a marina. No license required by me, just with
the owner's permission (wasn't a licensed amateur either). I never
needed any special license when taking private pilot lessons and
using civil aircraft frequencies (my First Phone obtained 4 years
prior was fine for that). I've used "radios" and emitted RF from VLF
to microwaves without needing ANY radio operator license (done on
government contracts). I won't mention CB earlier because that is
supposed to be a heathen sin on HF radio according to all the
amateur gurus in here. :-)

Since VHF and above is one focus of
commercial communications today, one would think the Technician license
would have at least some appeal to him.

Dwight, VHF and above was ALREADY a focus of commercial
communications a half century ago. I was a military supervisory NCO
using General Electric microwave radio relay equipment operating at
1.8 GHz back then. State of the art then. All tubes, 24 voice channels
per terminal. In the commercial world of radio, mobile 2-way radio was
already out and designer-manufacturers were ramping up to sell them
by the tens of thousands at VHF and UHF for both business and
government use. Civil aviation radios on VHF were standardized as
AM on 108 to 137 MHz by the ICAO in 1955. Television transmitters
were already in operation from 54 MHz and up before that. Remote
link transmitters for TV mobile use was in the microwaves. ICAO
approved UHF glideslope and low-microwave DME radionav standards
in the late 1950s.

About 1960 solid-state active devices were appearing on the market
for use in all sorts of "radio" equipment in the commercial-government
radio market and design and manufacturing really took off there. By
1970 there were all sorts of neat miniaturization going on and I was
working on a few of them...too many under development for any one
person to work on all of them. The 1960-1970 decade marked the
great influx of off-shore designed and built radios for all markets,
including amateur radio. Off-shore-made electronics (and radios)
would eventually dominate the consumer market (amateur gear
put into that consumer market).

Dwight, ALL OF ELECTRONICS (including radio) has been
constantly under CHANGE in the last half century. I know it well
because I was (and still am under contract conditions) a
professional in electronics design...AS WELL AS an electronic
hobbyist.

I lost interest in "working DX" or "contesting" back in 1955 when I
spent a month at station ADA's Control. When you can pick up a
handset and talk to a counterpart in Hawaii or San Francisco stations
on any shift just by signalling them to come on line, the "personal
exploration-pioneering of DXing" as an amateur pales. Prior to
entering the Army I could do maybe 8 WPM of morse. Never had to
use that in the Army or since. After working on and with much
higher technology radios, there was little impetus to work up any
skill of an on-off keying code to meet some 1930s standards in
OLD radio.

This glaring, long term, lack of
committment to Amateur Radio is what brings his ongoing participation in
this discussion under suspicion.

"Glaring?!?" :-)

I'm just against a morse code test for any radio operator license, Dwight.

Said that a long time ago and I keep saying so. I don't expect you to
believe me.

I made a true committment over four decades ago to GET INVOLVED
in professional radio-electronics engineering design. I did that. Retired
from it on regular hours but still do some of it on contract.

Morse code skill-proficiency is required to be demonstrated by an
UNLICENSED IN AMATEUR RADIO person for legal permission to
transmit on HF ham bands. I've already transmitted on non-ham HF
bands long ago also just recently, legal and proper.

Morse code testing is required for GETTING INTO ham HF bands.
Such doesn't affect an already-licensed General or Extra and only if
they lapse their ham license renewals. Those AREN'T AFFECTED
except in some personal pride or personal ego way where they need
all the license and trappings to "prove themselves." I've already
proved myself and don't need a federal merit badge or more pretty
papers hanging on a wall.

Morse code testing AFFECTS THE UNLICENSED. Morse code
testing is PART OF POLICY about amateur radio...POLICY about
GETTING INTO it.

Sorry, but I'm not going to buy into HF ham radio licensing being all
about this magical "CW" testing thing, like it is the epitome of ham
qualities. All the exhortations of old stuff about "CW" is the bestest
passed out for years in QST isn't a ruling from any god, radio or
otherwise. Newington doesn't dictate what I care to do for a hobby.
Only the FCC regulates civil US radio.


This position is equally valid. While a person's communications knowledge
and experience elsewhere is somewhat relevant (if that person chooses to
make it so), communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is obviously
not manditory for participation in this discussion, especially for the
person holding an Amateur Radio license which will be directly impacted by
the outcome of this discussion.

Let all explain how they will be so terribly affected by the elimination
of an amateur radio license morse code test...especially when they
already have passed such tests and will never have to take one again.

Let all explain how the already-licensed are the "authority" to which
all others unlicensed in amateur radio must answer. Let them explain
how they became an integral part of the FCC and may thus abrogate
the First Amendment for everyone else.

Let all explain why everyone in the future MUST do as they did and
always follow the standards and practices of long ago.

Hey, you don't like some of my comments on the code test. So, what
else is new? Do you need instant adulation for the accomplishments
of passing a morse test? Special honors? Awards? Sorry, all out.

Try considering that lots and lots of folks sure as hell don't like what
the pro-coders are saying, have been saying, or the mythology about
certain ways of radio they keep spreading. Already licensed amateurs
don't have any special dispensation to act superior just because they
exist...and they don't have any authority on any radio matters to stop
any other citizen from speaking out in a public-access forum.

This newsgroup is public-access, unmoderated. Some of what you
see may not to be to your liking. Hand me your TS card and I'll punch
it for this week. Glad to oblige anytime I have free time. :-)

If some hissy-fit superiors are waiting for replies, good luck. Going to
be a long wait and a long winter of PCTA discontent ahead. Not my
problem.

beep, beep

LHA.

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur
radio policy (license policy or whatever), I do think
a person's communications knowledge and experience
elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's
part in that discussion.

In certain technical matters, perhaps. But in the formation
of policy for the amateur service, why would such
experience outside amateur radio be more significant than
another's experience as a radio amateur?


I read back over what I said, and didn't see anything about it being "more
significant."


Should we ask Howard Stern about amateur radio policy?


And I don't remember saying we should "ask" anybody for anything. Instead,
I said anybody in this country has a say in government policy, including
policy concerning Amateur Radio.


Len is obviously interested in Amateur Radio, which
is good.

(snip) Do you consider his attitude and behavior towards
those who disagree with him to be "good"?


Something else I don't remember saying. However, since you seem to want to
discuss Len's attitude and behavior, what exactly are you referring to?
After reading some of the garbage posted by some in this newsgroup, I don't
see anything from him that stands out as particularily extraordinary. Of
course, perhaps you're more sensitive to what he says because it is often
targeted towards those who share your opinions.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Len Over 21" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur
radio policy (license policy or whatever), I do think
a person's communications knowledge and experience
elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's
part in that discussion. Why would you think otherwise,
Jim? Len is obviously interested in Amateur Radio,
which is good. The only thing I don't understand is why
he hasn't acted on that interest and gotten some kind of
Amateur Radio license over the years.

Why do you insist that getting-a-license is culmination
of "interest?"

Explain how obtaining an AMATEUR license suddenly
embues one with spirit and verve and "permission" to
experiment with RF? Especially when a person is already
a professional in electronic design engineering who has
ALREADY been working on "experiments" in RF?


Well, it must be the week to put words into other people's mouths. First
Jim and now you, Len. Anyway, I didn't "insist" any such thing. Instead, I
simply said I don't understand why you haven't gotten some kind of Amateur
Radio license over the years.


Since VHF and above is one focus of commercial
communications today, one would think the Technician
license would have at least some appeal to him.

Dwight, VHF and above was ALREADY a focus of
commercial communications a half century ago. (snip)


I didn't say it wasn't, Len. Instead, I simply said that this (commercial
communications today) might be one reason the Technician license would have
at least some appeal to you.


This glaring, long term, lack of committment to Amateur
Radio is what brings his ongoing participation in this
discussion under suspicion.

"Glaring?!?" :-)

I'm just against a morse code test for any radio operator
license, Dwight.


Your opposition to code is no barrier whatsoever to getting a Technician
license, Len.


(snip) Hey, you don't like some of my comments on the
code test. So, what else is new? Do you need instant
adulation for the accomplishments of passing a morse test?
Special honors? Awards? Sorry, all out.


Well, in this case, the "what else is new" is that you obviously haven't
noticed which license I hold. Since I haven't passed a Morse code test, no
adulation, honors, or awards, relating to that would be applicable. Further,
I don't particularily like or dislike anything you've said about the code
test. I've taken no position whatsoever on your comments. I'm opposed to the
code test, but that doesn't mean I specifically endorse anything you've said
on the subject.


This newsgroup is public-access, unmoderated. Some
of what you see may not to be to your liking. (snip)


My, you are reading a lot into what I've said, and getting it all wrong in
the process. Absolutely nothing I said had anything whatsoever to do with
whether I liked or disliked anything you've said. Take the chip off your
shoulder, and re-read what I said, and I think you'll agree with that.

By the way, if you reply, do try to keep it short - I don't have time to
respond to a long-winded rant (my only real comment about what you've said).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/