|
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "N2EY" wrote in message om... [snip] How will we counter that argument? One approach would be to stop planting it in peoples' minds numerous times a day ... things that are repeated often enough sometimes catch on, even if they are BAD ideas ... Carl - wk3c You mean like "the 5-wpm code exam is a barrier" or "it's a lid filter that keeps out CBers?" Gee, not only "BAD ideas"...untruths too. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384 |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Bill Sohl" writes: (old stuff removed) (N2EY wrote:) Why is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify and most of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when it's the same rig? Actually, when you think about it...ANYONE is allowed to design, build, repair, align and/or modify ham equipment...it is ONLY the "operate" part that ultimately requires the license. Excellent point! However, in the interests of strict correctness, note that equipment which is manufactured for sale has to meet certain certification requirements which licensed hams ar exempt from. In the case of RF power amplifiers, a licensed amateur can homebrew things no manufacturer can legally sell. Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical incompetence are very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any particular license class. So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech? Jim, you keep bringing up what you believe are analogies to the ode test issue and I'm not gonna play anymore. the argument(s) fail to convince the FCC and I don't see you making them to the FCC either. If and when someone attempts to petiton for the changes you suggest are analogous...then I'll argue further. The code test issue will be decided by FCC one way or the other, sooner or later. I'm not worried about it, they'll decide whatever they decide. My concern is simply that if someone or some group starts using the same arguments against much of the writtens, they're going to be difficult to defend. That is your opinion...I think otherwise. OK, fine. You and I can join forces to defend writtens...if and when someone does try to end writtens. An out-and-out removal of the written test would be opposed by almost everyone, so no one with any sense will suggest that. Not right away, anyhow. What I'm talking about is efforts to gradually reduce the level of written testing. Take a few things out here and reduce the level of a few other things there, change the testing method a little someplace else, etc. Not just for entry-level but for all levels. For example, what would you say to a proposal to remove the regulations questions from the entry-level exam? No questions on Part 97 - just require each new ham to certify that they have provided themselves with a copy, have read it, understand it, and will follow it. Good idea or bad idea? Frankly, I don't think it'll happen on my watch. It's already started. See what the NC-VEC leadership has in mind for the future. The above is just one of their ideas. I think it's a very bad idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Making the second level license examination equivalent to the current Extra examination sounds like it would drive people out of ham radio. That depends on how it's done. If a person knows from the start that they have 10 years to get ready for the upgrade, they have a goal and can set a timeline to meet it. There's also the possibility (I don't know if Hans' plan would allow this or not) to allow Beginners to simply take the Beginner test again if they're not ready to upgrade after 10 years. That's simply too big a jump to expect people to take in one swallow so to speak especially since this would affect current Technicians who entered the licensing program under a system with 3 tiers (or more for those who entered several years ago). That all depends on how the transition is handled. Perhaps all existing hams would simply get Regulars. Or maybe all existing hams except Novices. Or perhaps existing hams would have their existing licenses and privileges extended/renewed until 10 years after the new system went into effect, putting everyone on the same timeline for upgrading. It would also take away privileges from existing Techs in that they are now receive renewable licenses but would not under that proposal. See above - it all depends how the transition is handled. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"Bert Craig" wrote in message t... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message om... [snip] How will we counter that argument? One approach would be to stop planting it in peoples' minds numerous times a day ... things that are repeated often enough sometimes catch on, even if they are BAD ideas ... Carl - wk3c You mean like "the 5-wpm code exam is a barrier"? That concept has been agreed in FCC comments by the ARRL, QCWA, and other organizations besides NCI ... and the IARU has recognized and resolved that continuation of the Morse test requirement is not in the best interest of the ARS. or "it's a lid filter that keeps out CBers?" That idea was rejected by the FCC both in 1990 and in 1999 ... Carl - wk3c |
That idea was rejected by the FCC both in 1990 and in
1999 ... Carl - wk3c So that makes it a FACT, I guess the FCC is never wrong. |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in message t... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message om... [snip] How will we counter that argument? One approach would be to stop planting it in peoples' minds numerous times a day ... things that are repeated often enough sometimes catch on, even if they are BAD ideas ... Carl - wk3c You mean like "the 5-wpm code exam is a barrier"? That concept has been agreed in FCC comments by the ARRL, QCWA, and other organizations besides NCI ... and the IARU has recognized and resolved that continuation of the Morse test requirement is not in the best interest of the ARS. Then I'm disagreeing with the ARRL's, QCWA's, and NCI's position re. this "barrier" concept. As a matter of fact, I offer myself as a living example to the contrary. I'm neither eligible for the QCWA nor NCI, however, I'm thankfully in a position where I e-mailed my respective Hudson section candidates to let them know my postion wrt code testing and that my vote partially (But in no small part.) depends on their position re. same. or "it's a lid filter that keeps out CBers?" It only acts as a filter to those who are unwilling to give it an honest effort to learn. That idea was rejected by the FCC both in 1990 and in 1999 ... However, back in the REAL world...? Carl - wk3c 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote
Making the second level license examination equivalent to the current Extra examination sounds like it would drive people out of ham radio. That's simply too big a jump to expect people to take in one swallow so to speak especially since this would affect current Technicians who entered the licensing program under a system with 3 tiers (or more for those who entered several years ago). It would also take away privileges from existing Techs in that they are now receive renewable licenses but would not under that proposal. Dee, I suspect you have not read my complete proposal. I'll attach a copy at the end of this. After you read it your concerns should be addressed. It is actually very accomodating of current hams of all classes. At the onset, current Novices and Technicians would have several options: 1) Within the grace period they could upgrade to General or Extra, and such license would be renewable indefinitely. 2) They could retain their current license and renew indefinitely. 3) They could take the "Class B" test and gain full access to all amateur bands at reduced power. (This license would expire after 10 years, so this is eventually an "up or out" choice.) 4) They could take the "Class A" test and gain full access to all amateur bands at full power. Current General and Advanced would have these options: 1) Retain their current licenses and renew indefinitely. 2) Within the grace period they could upgrade to Extra. 3) Take the "Class A" test and gain full access to all amateur bands at full power (functionally equivalent to choice 2). Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10787 Amateur Service Rules to eliminate ) Morse code testing. ) To: The Commission PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB OVERVIEW These comments are submitted in response to the petition of NCVEC which requests elimination of test Element 1 (Morse Code) from the Amateur Radio service rules. I. Discussion: The instant petition requests the elimination of Element 1 (5WPM Morse code test) from the required test for General and/or Extra Class licenses in the Amateur Radio service. I find no persuasive argument for continuation of this test, and support the petition to discontinue testing new applicants with Element 1. I am concerned, however, that other elements of the qualification tests are not adequate to ensure a high level of expertise in new applicants to the Amateur Radio service, and propose changes in the licensing structure to ensure that all 5 points of CFR 47 paragraph 97.1 (Basis and Purpose) are reasonably addressed in the qualification process. II Proposal: I propose that no new applicants be accepted for the current license classes and that after some reasonable grace period, no upgrades be available in the current licensing structure. A. New License Classes: I propose that new license applications be available in two classes, namely "Class B" and "Class A". The "Class B" license would have an entry-level test (basic regulations, safety, operating procedures, basic DC and AC electronics). This class would have full frequency and mode privileges, power limited to 50W output. The license would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable. Holders of this license would be required to have 2 years experience as a licensee ("time in grade") before being eligible to upgrade to "Class A". The "Class A" license test would be of a difficulty level similar to the current Extra class test, and would have full privileges at power levels up to 1500W, equivalent to current Extra Class license holders. This license would be issued permanently without requirement for renewal. B. Status of current licensees. Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would retain their current operating privileges. Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class licensees could up grade to "Class A" at any time. Respectfully submitted, H. Hans Brakob, K0HB |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Hans K0HB) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote On-off keying was adopted simply because it was the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE for early, primitive radio to allow communications. It's just practical applied physics. Nothing else. Oh ****, you got it wrong again! In Boston, on Christmas Eve of 1906, modulating a spark transmitter, Reginald Fessenden made a holiday broadcast of a short spoken introduction, some recorded Christmas music, and played "Oh Holy Night" on a violin. Obviously on-off keying was not the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE (your emphasis) for early ("spark") radio to allow communications. "Dear Mother Anderson, your son Leonard is failing in practical applied physics. Perhaps he would benefit from a stint in the Army to learn a useful trade." Sunuvagun! Good luck on this one now. Dear Mother Brakob, Your offspring is once again confused...(SNIP) I guess there was some relevence of all this, and that in posting this, our resident 14-year night-school radio god was trying to set the example that he would want all aspiring electrical engineers to emulate. Unfortunately, it was yet just another "cuss-him cuz I can't outwit him" rant of a very sick old man with no life. Again. Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com