|
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Some snippage paper is not a group controlled by NCI, they are a completely different entity. But they ARE a group calling for some things that I find a little disturbing. And this IS something I got my chops busted about earlier with what seemed to me to be a simple statement of fact. I'll state it again paraphrased: The removal of the Morse code test is the removal of knowledge required to get a ARS license. Thos who believe that less knowledge should be necessary to get a license can only be heartened by this event. There will be a move towards further reductions in the knowledge needed for a license. lessee he (from KL7CC: One of the primary goals of the new license we are going to propose is a true entry-level ticket. Limited power, limited frequencies, but still useful, with enough of the essence of Amateur Radio to attract beginners and show them what lies ahead when they upgrade. Simpler exam. WAIT! - - WAIT! - - WHAT WAS THAT??!! Yes, I said simpler exam. Hopefully 20 questions. Aimed at a young person aged 12 or more. That means a 6th grade education. Also fits teens, high schoolers, home schoolers. You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept! 20 questions, simple enough to get someone started in a responsible way, pointed in the right direction, all that stuff. Well what do we have here? A proposal for a simpler exam? Certainly looks like it. Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really doing is reinventing the Novice. I'm still not so hot on the idea. Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education are going to supply us with fresh ideas. I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades..... Were you "average" Jim? I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th grader thing is bothersome. Its even more charming that this new, fresh blood will be able to see their radios without glasses. I've worn glasses since I was in second grade. One of the things that bugs me a little about that paper is the little digs it tosses in - like that one. They're subtle but they convey an undertone of insult. I guess the (authors of the KL7CC paper) doesn't really want me to be a ham. Nor me, nor a lot of us. Next: Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget. This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all, is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator” or simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name “Communicator”. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees. Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay for a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she will get the priveleges anyhow. Exactly! That sounds a LOT like simplification to me. Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the General question pool and use the Tech one instead? Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code separated them, and even there it was only the difference between 5 and 13 WPM. But its not that way now. And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made! hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^) Quick history: From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of 1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General. Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test. This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the paper. And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous treatment of Pro coders: (more from the KL7CC paper) So, there are no “Morse code haters” on the committee. There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no “black plan” from the ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer. and (I had to put this in again): You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept! and: A few final words: There are no black helicopters. I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are? See what I mean about undertone? I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too! Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are doing? Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to see our wonderful hobby prosper! If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us? Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just $5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign it, write a check for $5 and send it to them. Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They thought I needed "help". Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^) snippage And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim? Who, me? Yeah, you!! more snippage I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save removal of the Morse code test) And they've been very clear about that. That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more. You got my point exactly. I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he or she had read and understood part 97. Why not extrapolate that to the whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh, we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses! - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really doing is reinventing the Novice. I'm still not so hot on the idea. All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it stands right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF. Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education are going to supply us with fresh ideas. I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades..... Were you "average" Jim? In some things yes, in others no. I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th grader thing is bothersome. Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere. Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and test should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the sixth-grade level in order to understand the material". Next: Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget. This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all, is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator” or simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name “Communicator”. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees. Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay for a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she will get the priveleges anyhow. Exactly! That sounds a LOT like simplification to me. Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the General question pool and use the Tech one instead? Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code separated them, and even there it was only the difference between 5 and 13 WPM. But its not that way now. And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made! hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^) "They remember a past that never was" Quick history: From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of 1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General. Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test. This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the paper. And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous treatment of Pro coders: (more from the KL7CC paper) So, there are no “Morse code haters” on the committee. There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no “black plan” from the ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer. and (I had to put this in again): You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept! and: A few final words: There are no black helicopters. I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are? See what I mean about undertone? I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too! I recycle. Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are doing? Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to see our wonderful hobby prosper! If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us? Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just $5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign it, write a check for $5 and send it to them. Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They thought I needed "help". Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^) Maybe? snippage And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim? Who, me? Yeah, you!! More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"? more snippage I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save removal of the Morse code test) And they've been very clear about that. That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more. You got my point exactly. I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he or she had read and understood part 97. I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe it the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!! Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service. Didn't work very well. Why not extrapolate that to the whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh, we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses! Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that approach is valid for the rules, why not the whole test? But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime author admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license he holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that fact. As dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about a pair-a-docs. Why not give yourself an enigma, Len? Dave K8MN Dave: He can't. He's too busy trying to decipher Morris Kode with an Enema machine. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really doing is reinventing the Novice. I'm still not so hot on the idea. All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it stands right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF. I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143, the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea. That said, I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing, licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated with each. Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education are going to supply us with fresh ideas. I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades..... Were you "average" Jim? In some things yes, in others no. I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th grader thing is bothersome. Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere. Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and test should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the sixth-grade level in order to understand the material". Next: Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget. This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at all, is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name "Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees. Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay for a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she will get the priveleges anyhow. Exactly! That sounds a LOT like simplification to me. Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the General question pool and use the Tech one instead? Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code separated them, and even there it was only the difference between 5 and 13 WPM. But its not that way now. And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made! hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^) "They remember a past that never was" What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below. Quick history: From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of 1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General. Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test. This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the paper. And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous treatment of Pro coders: (more from the KL7CC paper) So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee. There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer. and (I had to put this in again): You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept! and: A few final words: There are no black helicopters. I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are? See what I mean about undertone? I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too! I recycle. Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what they are doing? Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to see our wonderful hobby prosper! If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us? Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just $5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign it, write a check for $5 and send it to them. Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They thought I needed "help". Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^) Maybe? snippage And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim? Who, me? Yeah, you!! More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"? more snippage I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save removal of the Morse code test) And they've been very clear about that. That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more. You got my point exactly. I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he or she had read and understood part 97. I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe it the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!! Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service. Didn't work very well. The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it anywhere" ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less than $50. Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the lack of any real DX ability. Why not extrapolate that to the whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh, we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses! Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that approach is valid for the rules, why not the whole test? But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime author admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license he holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that fact. As dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal. One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage in...space communications for example. Better to test on what we really want most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really doing is reinventing the Novice. I'm still not so hot on the idea. All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it stands right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF. I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143, the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea. But...but...Bill, the FCC thought it was a good idea! Are you saying FCC made a mistake? ;-) That said, I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing, licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated with each. KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education are going to supply us with fresh ideas. I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades..... Were you "average" Jim? In some things yes, in others no. I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th grader thing is bothersome. Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere. Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and test should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the sixth-grade level in order to understand the material". Next: Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget. This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at all, is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name "Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees. Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay for a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she will get the priveleges anyhow. Exactly! That sounds a LOT like simplification to me. Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the General question pool and use the Tech one instead? Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code separated them, and even there it was only the difference between 5 and 13 WPM. But its not that way now. And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made! hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^) "They remember a past that never was" What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below. Direct quote: "Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code separated them, and even there it was only the difference between 5 and 13 WPM." That sentence, and the lack of other clarification, says that the General and Tech writtens were the same right up to when the Tech lost its code test in 1991. That's simply not the case - the written was split almost 4 years earlier. Note that the paper wants to give *all* Techs a free upgrade to General! It also ignores the fact that any Tech who got that license before March 1987 is already able to upgrade to General with no additional testing. And it's been that way since April 15, 2000. And that's not a giveaway because those folks *did* pass the same written as Generals. Quick history: From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of 1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General. Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test. This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the paper. And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous treatment of Pro coders: (more from the KL7CC paper) So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee. There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer. and (I had to put this in again): You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept! and: A few final words: There are no black helicopters. I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are? See what I mean about undertone? I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too! I recycle. Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what they are doing? Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to see our wonderful hobby prosper! If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us? Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just $5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign it, write a check for $5 and send it to them. Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They thought I needed "help". Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^) Maybe? snippage And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim? Who, me? Yeah, you!! More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"? more snippage I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save removal of the Morse code test) And they've been very clear about that. That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more. You got my point exactly. I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he or she had read and understood part 97. I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe it the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!! Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service. Didn't work very well. The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it anywhere" ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less than $50. I never saw them that cheap, but then again, I wasn't looking. But what you are effectively saying, Bill, is that the real problem with cb was "lack of investment" by many who used it. They did not take it seriously because they had invested only a few dollars and practically no time or effort into getting set up. Does that mean if cb sets had cost, say, $500 back then instead of $50, that service would not have become such a mess? Almost sounds like a new version of "what isn't worked for isn't valued" Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the lack of any real DX ability. Why not extrapolate that to the whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh, we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses! Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that approach is valid for the rules, why not the whole test? But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime author admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license he holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that fact. As dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal. One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage in...space communications for example. Better to test on what we really want most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc. It used to seem to me that the one thing we could all agree on was that the basic regulations (not talking about the fine-print stuff, just the basics) were one subject that absolutely had to be tested for. But the KL7CC paper suggests doing away with most of that! Surreal... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really doing is reinventing the Novice. I'm still not so hot on the idea. All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it stands right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF. I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143, the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea. But...but...Bill, the FCC thought it was a good idea! Are you saying FCC made a mistake? ;-) Please point to any statement I have made that indicates I agree with every FCC decision. :-) :-) That said, I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing, licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated with each. KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? No, is it on a web site?. Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education are going to supply us with fresh ideas. I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades..... Were you "average" Jim? In some things yes, in others no. I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th grader thing is bothersome. Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere. Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and test should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the sixth-grade level in order to understand the material". Next: Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget. This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at all, is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name "Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees. Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay for a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she will get the priveleges anyhow. Exactly! That sounds a LOT like simplification to me. Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the General question pool and use the Tech one instead? Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code separated them, and even there it was only the difference between 5 and 13 WPM. But its not that way now. And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made! hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^) "They remember a past that never was" What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below. Direct quote: "Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code separated them, and even there it was only the difference between 5 and 13 WPM." That sentence, and the lack of other clarification, says that the General and Tech writtens were the same right up to when the Tech lost its code test in 1991. That's simply not the case - the written was split almost 4 years earlier. OK and understood. Note that the paper wants to give *all* Techs a free upgrade to General! It also ignores the fact that any Tech who got that license before March 1987 is already able to upgrade to General with no additional testing. And it's been that way since April 15, 2000. And that's not a giveaway because those folks *did* pass the same written as Generals. IF (and it is a big IF) the FCC ever entertains some type of license changes of the type being discussed there will be two choices as to the affected hams already licensed. You can repeat the 1968 approach and take away privileges or you can give some people a "pass" while still impacting all new hams or hams not already licensed at a particular level. Time will tell. Quick history: From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of 1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General. Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test. This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the paper. And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous treatment of Pro coders: (more from the KL7CC paper) So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee. There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer. and (I had to put this in again): You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept! and: A few final words: There are no black helicopters. I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are? See what I mean about undertone? I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too! I recycle. Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what they are doing? Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to see our wonderful hobby prosper! If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us? Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just $5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign it, write a check for $5 and send it to them. Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They thought I needed "help". Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^) Maybe? snippage And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim? Who, me? Yeah, you!! More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"? more snippage I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save removal of the Morse code test) And they've been very clear about that. That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more. You got my point exactly. I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he or she had read and understood part 97. I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe it the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!! Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service. Didn't work very well. The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it anywhere" ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less than $50. I never saw them that cheap, but then again, I wasn't looking. But what you are effectively saying, Bill, is that the real problem with cb was "lack of investment" by many who used it. They did not take it seriously because they had invested only a few dollars and practically no time or effort into getting set up. Does that mean if cb sets had cost, say, $500 back then instead of $50, that service would not have become such a mess? Probably because the sets wouldn't have found such a wide market of accepatance for that price. Clearly the other factor was the "no license" other than send in the application approach. Almost sounds like a new version of "what isn't worked for isn't valued" Cute, but no cigar. Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the lack of any real DX ability. Why not extrapolate that to the whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh, we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses! Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that approach is valid for the rules, why not the whole test? But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime author admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license he holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that fact. As dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal. One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage in...space communications for example. Better to test on what we really want most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc. It used to seem to me that the one thing we could all agree on was that the basic regulations (not talking about the fine-print stuff, just the basics) were one subject that absolutely had to be tested for. But the KL7CC paper suggests doing away with most of that! Surreal... I'll have to find that paper and read it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? No, is it on a web site?. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/ Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on that. What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should happen to the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Bill Sohl wrote:
A whole litany of stuff snipped I'll have to find that paper and read it. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc I think it is pretty important to read it, Bill. It is a very interesting piece. One of the emost interesting parts is that while the NCVEC claims it is not "official" policy, the name of the doc is NCVECplan.doc. and: "First, who is this committee, this Gang of Four? Who are these people, and who elected them as God? They are the NCVEC Rules Committee. This group of 4 persons consists of: Fred Maia, W5YI, John Johnstone, W3BE, Scott Neustatder, W4WW, and myself, Jim Wiley, KL7CC. So this isn't official, but it comes from the committee, it's namedwhat it is. But they tell us it isn't................... Just one of the reasons that a few of us are kind of uneasy about the thing. It takes a few gratuitous potshots at those who believe in the Morse Code test, as well as a patricularly bizzare dig at homebrewers. Oddly enough, it wants to encourage people who do not wear glasses to join the hobby. That little jab was almost certainly at people who do not wear bifocals, but as a wearer of glasses since the second grade, I can tell you it was neither funny or appropriate. It proposes HF access after taking a 20 question quiz that is passable by an "average" 6th grader. It proposes the applicant sign a statement that they have read and understood part 97 - This is a hoot! I envision a "click here" like we get when we install software and the terms of use screen pops up. And we all read all of those, don't we? 8^) It wants to take out "some of the math" two or more of the theory questions because "we aren't making engineers - yet" It offers some questions like: "What do you think is better for our hobby lots of enthusiastic newcomers, or an ever-declining number of increasingly older hams?" Let's see, that sounds an awful lot like a "Have you quit beating your wife?" sort of question. "Morse will probably retain most of its exclusive band segments, at least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This may change in the future." I give them half a point for being half honest - whoops, maybe only a quarter point for being only half right! Just how many "exclusive band segments" are there for Morse? Which is telling me that as soon as they have their way with getting the qualifications reduced for HF access, they will be going after getting the narrowband segments opened up for SSB. and if that isn't what they mean to do, why would they put that in the piece? Their proposal to "slide" the bands down to take over the Novice segments and give the upper part of the bands to the "communicators" isn't removing anything from the data bands is it? Finally, in one of the most strange bits of reasoning I have ever seen: "All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees." They are telling us that the existing technicians will study for, test for, and pay for something that they will get even if they flunk the test, or not take it in the first place!!!!!!!! Someone who make a statement like this has no place throwing out the gratuitous insults they make towards those who believe that the Morse tests should be retained. It is plain stupid, can't sugar coat that one! Some things I wonder about: Is a person who is granted HF access on a 20 question very simple test that the hypothetical average 6th grader going to be all that worried about staying within the allotment given him or here? My guess is that they will not be too worried about straying outside their allocations. It happens already with generals in the Extra segments. Will they be amenable to OO's? some will, and some probably won't. It won't take too many to make a mess. If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect if a plan like this is adopted, there will be a rush of people getting the lowest level license. They will be on HF, and won't feel much reason to upgrade. They will very likely spread out from thier allotted segment of band, and talk where they like. "You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to put It pon (sic) glasses what a concept!" Sometimes fresh ideas are not what we may want them to be! Will I be wrong? Great Gawd I hope so! But it will be an interesting social experiment to see if we will improve a service by lowering the entrance requirements. In the meantime, I'll be here, wearing my glasses, homebrewing, and enjoying myself. My favorite quotes: "There are no black helicopters." "This is not a plot by ARRL or Fred (W5YI) or anyone else to sell more books, antennas, radios, or (fill in the blank)." "There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no black plan from the ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer." Thing one: Why do they go on so about conspiracies? Thing two: With a few notable exceptions, I think that those of us who wish to see Morse CW testing continued DO care very much about our great hobby. I take exception to the apparent belief on some NCTA's that we do not. Final analysis: If this isn't NCVEC opinion, they should get it off the title and quit referring to it so much. This is like the person that says "not to interrupt you as they interrupt you. If it isn't the NCVEC, then don't talk about the NCVEC. But it is. What's with the gratuitous potshots? Want to turn people off? Start accusing us of seeing black helicopters or needing "It pon glasses" as if it is something bad to wear them (maybe we're genetically inferior?) Or even better, infer that the only people who care about Ham Radio are those who want the code test removed. This is a bold step, to improve something by radically simplifying the requirements for admission. I haven't seen it work yet, but perhaps there is something different here? - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Bill Sohl wrote: I'll have to find that paper and read it. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc I think it is pretty important to read it, Bill. It is a very interesting piece. One of the emost interesting parts is that while the NCVEC claims it is not "official" policy, the name of the doc is NCVECplan.doc. ARRL cannot possibly "represent all radio amateurs" either, yet they've said so for years. and: "First, who is this committee, this “Gang of Four”? Who are these people, and who elected them as “God”? They are the NCVEC “Rules Committee”. This group of 4 persons consists of: Fred Maia, W5YI, John Johnstone, W3BE, Scott Neustatder, W4WW, and myself, Jim Wiley, KL7CC. So this isn't official, but it comes from the committee, it's namedwhat it is. But they tell us it isn't................... So...write them directly or, better yet, go comment on their Proposal before the FCC. Let the world know how you feel. Just one of the reasons that a few of us are kind of uneasy about the thing. Yes, I'm sure you FEW are very disturbed. Ask your doctor about a Xanax prescription. Very cheap and good for those that get emotionally disturbed. It takes a few gratuitous potshots at those who believe in the Morse Code test, as well as a patricularly bizzare dig at homebrewers. Tsk, tsk, tsk. ALL of them are 20 WPM code-tested Amateur Extras. It proposes HF access after taking a 20 question quiz that is passable by an "average" 6th grader. There is NO age restriction in US amateur radio. Sixth graders are 12 years old. The youngest hams were only 6 years old. It proposes the applicant sign a statement that they have read and understood part 97 - This is a hoot! I envision a "click here" like we get when we install software and the terms of use screen pops up. And we all read all of those, don't we? 8^) You don't like to know and understand the LAW? That sounds very lawless, Xena... It wants to take out "some of the math" two or more of the theory questions because "we aren't making engineers - yet" Ah so, you think anything more complicated than Ohm's Law is "rocket science?!?" It offers some questions like: "What do you think is better for our hobby – lots of enthusiastic newcomers, or an ever-declining number of increasingly older hams?" Let's see, that sounds an awful lot like a "Have you quit beating your wife?" sort of question. Well, if you are "married" to your hobby, I'm sure you would be insulted one way or the other by allowing others to intrude on your very private domain. "Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments, at least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This may change in the future." I give them half a point for being half honest - whoops, maybe only a quarter point for being only half right! Just how many "exclusive band segments" are there for Morse? Which is telling me that as soon as they have their way with getting the qualifications reduced for HF access, they will be going after getting the narrowband segments opened up for SSB. and if that isn't what they mean to do, why would they put that in the piece? Have your ears and eyes checked again. There are NO black helicopters of conspirators waiting to attack old, cherished values. Their proposal to "slide" the bands down to take over the Novice segments and give the upper part of the bands to the "communicators" isn't removing anything from the data bands is it? You tell us, mighty keeper of the private domain that only belongs to old-values, anal retentive long-timers. Finally, in one of the most strange bits of reasoning I have ever seen: "All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees." They are telling us that the existing technicians will study for, test for, and pay for something that they will get even if they flunk the test, or not take it in the first place!!!!!!!! Someone who make a statement like this has no place throwing out the gratuitous insults they make towards those who believe that the Morse tests should be retained. It is plain stupid, can't sugar coat that one! Tsk, tsk, tsk...how dare those 20 WPM code-tested Extras insult all you Extra-Lites, right? Some things I wonder about: Is a person who is granted HF access on a 20 question very simple test that the hypothetical average 6th grader going to be all that worried about staying within the allotment given him or here? My guess is that they will not be too worried about straying outside their allocations. It happens already with generals in the Extra segments. Have you been in another universe for a decade? In HERE, there was a MIGHTY HUE & CRY about age restrictions proposed by someone in 1999! CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!! cried the multitude! If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED! That's been said by the multitude in here, too. :-) Will they be amenable to OO's? some will, and some probably won't. It won't take too many to make a mess. Your tinnitus must be very bad today, hearing all those black helos. If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect if a plan like this is adopted, there will be a rush of people getting the lowest level license. They will be on HF, and won't feel much reason to upgrade. They will very likely spread out from thier allotted segment of band, and talk where they like. How dare they?!?!? And not even "approved" by the long-timer morsemen! "You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to put It pon (sic) glasses – what a concept!" Sometimes fresh ideas are not what we may want them to be! Of course not. Old, aged, long-time-in-the-bottle vintage morsemen can't possibly accept that! Why do they go on so about conspiracies? Tsk, tsk, you've named at least TWO such. :-) With a few notable exceptions, I think that those of us who wish to see Morse CW testing continued DO care very much about our great hobby. I take exception to the apparent belief on some NCTA's that we do not. NCTAs understand that you, as a PCTA, want a Living Museum of the Airwaves to Preserve and Protect morsemanship forever and ever. If this isn't NCVEC opinion, they should get it off the title and quit referring to it so much. This is like the person that says "not to interrupt you as they interrupt you. If it isn't the NCVEC, then don't talk about the NCVEC. But it is. For many more years ARRL has said it "represents ALL radio amateurs" yet they obviously do NOT. Last I looked there were 14 Volunteer Examiner Coordinators in the USA. Four does NOT equal 14, does it? I apologize for using mathematics too complicated for you... What's with the gratuitous potshots? Want to turn people off? 159-year-old morse code hasn't "turned on" many new folks... :-) Nobody in any VEC is required to kiss up to some long-timers who think they own amateur radio and can use their squatters rights to tell all they "know what is good for ham radio." Start accusing us of seeing black helicopters or needing "It pon glasses" as if it is something bad to wear them (maybe we're genetically inferior?) Let's see...YOU just accused THEM of "conspiracies." :-) Or even better, infer that the only people who care about Ham Radio are those who want the code test removed. Oh, my, how COULD they, those heinous 20 WPM code-tested Extras? This is a bold step, to improve something by radically simplifying the requirements for admission. I haven't seen it work yet, but perhaps there is something different here? Oh? You do NOT believe amateur radio has ALREADY been "dumbed down?" Why don't you go argue with Broose, the "Extra-Lite CB-plusser?" LHA |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? No, is it on a web site?. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/ Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on that. What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should happen to the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, et al; Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals. I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC) has certainly stirred the pot. Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator" entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that would lay out the rules for Communicator license. I have always felt memorizing band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is provided. Other basic questions probably should require some recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.) If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you can find it: http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at all if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with regard to privileges vs requirements. The other two alternatives a (1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track record on that as we saw in 1968) or (2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants for enforcement and rules simplification. Further commentary ad discussion welcome. And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? No, is it on a web site?. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/ Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on that. What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should happen to the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, et al; Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals. I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC) has certainly stirred the pot. Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO. Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator" entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that would lay out the rules for Communicator license. If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs. I have always felt memorizing band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is provided. Other basic questions probably should require some recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.) Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc. I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in the test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution. If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you can find it: http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at all if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with regard to privileges vs requirements. Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech gets a free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent. Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for General class privileges? Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is discriminatory? The other two alternatives a (1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track record on that as we saw in 1968) or (2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants for enforcement and rules simplification. I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac" license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced) with no real problems. They're just entries in a database. And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing Novices and Tech Pluses. Further commentary ad discussion welcome. And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate. AGREED! There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at all if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with regard to privileges vs requirements. The other two alternatives a (1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track record on that as we saw in 1968) or (2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants for enforcement and rules simplification. But with the fact that the renewals are pretty much automated, there is very little burden on the FCC as it is. So why bother with changing the existing over to whatever new ones they come up with. Regardless of what they do about the code, the current three tier license system seems quite appropriate as is. I got my Extra under the 5 level system and even then I thought three would be the most appropriate. The current Tech, General, and Extra seem about right to me and also seem about right if the system should go codeless. Tech covers a decent range of the basics for someone to get started for a wide range of amateur activities. General is well within the reach of anyone with a only a moderate amount of effort. Naturally Extra should require a significant "extra" effort. As far as enforcement being complicated by tracking the old Novice & Advanced in addition to the current three classes, it really doesn't seem to be much of a problem. If you read the published FCC enforcement letters, you see almost none of them going to Novice or Advanced licensees. That's probably because the majority of the Novice licensees are inactive while the Advanced category doesn't contain as many licensees as the others. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? No, is it on a web site?. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/ Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on that. What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should happen to the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, et al; Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals. I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC) has certainly stirred the pot. Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO. Are you saying discussion or stawman proposals are bad??? Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator" entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that would lay out the rules for Communicator license. If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs. I agree...to a point as noted below. I have always felt memorizing band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is provided. Other basic questions probably should require some recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.) Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc. I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in the test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution. No such legal precedent..rather, just the opposite...to wit, ignorance of the lasw is not a valid defense to a violation charge. If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you can find it: http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at all if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with regard to privileges vs requirements. Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech gets a free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent. Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for General class privileges? It proves nothing that definitive. Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is discriminatory? Someone can claim anything they want. The other two alternatives a (1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track record on that as we saw in 1968) or (2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants for enforcement and rules simplification. I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac" license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced) with no real problems. They're just entries in a database. They are more than just database entries. They also have specific privileges which differentiate them from the "lower" level licenses. IF the FCC granted identical privileges to Advanced rather than doing a "free upgrade" of Advanced to Extra, THEN the old licenses would be just a database differentiator. And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing Novices and Tech Pluses. The FCC once was looking for a consensus of hams before it would entertain dropping code speeds. Further commentary ad discussion welcome. And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate. AGREED! There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic. They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual "homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
Lennie whinned and cried: If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED! That's been said by the multitude in here, too. Duuuuuh....Maybe because it's TRUE, Lennie...?!?! It really gets under Lennieboy's skin that a 6 year old can pass the test and he, a so self professed professional in electronics, can't. |
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? No, is it on a web site?. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/ Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on that. What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should happen to the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, et al; Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals. I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC) has certainly stirred the pot. Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO. Are you saying discussion or stawman proposals are bad??? No! I'm saying that some of the proposal's ideas (not talking about the code test - that's old news!) are not the best way to reach the desired results. Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator" entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that would lay out the rules for Communicator license. If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs. I agree...to a point as noted below. I have always felt memorizing band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is provided. Other basic questions probably should require some recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.) Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc. I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in the test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution. No such legal precedent..rather, just the opposite...to wit, ignorance of the lasw is not a valid defense to a violation charge. My point is that if the govt. grants licenses that require tests, it makes sense that the rules for that license be on the test. If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you can find it: http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at all if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with regard to privileges vs requirements. Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech gets a free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent. Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for General class privileges? It proves nothing that definitive. See below. Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is discriminatory? Someone can claim anything they want. Consider this: Prospective ham reads about the upcoming changes. Reads that on Date X, all Techs will get free upgrade to General. Crams for Tech and takes it a day or two before Date X. Passes Tech, gets General as a freebie. Is that fair? Does said newbie really have General class qualifications? The other two alternatives a (1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track record on that as we saw in 1968) or (2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants for enforcement and rules simplification. I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac" license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced) with no real problems. They're just entries in a database. They are more than just database entries. They also have specific privileges which differentiate them from the "lower" level licenses. IF the FCC granted identical privileges to Advanced rather than doing a "free upgrade" of Advanced to Extra, THEN the old licenses would be just a database differentiator. Only difference is a few lines of rules - particularly the difference between Advanced and Extra. And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing Novices and Tech Pluses. The FCC once was looking for a consensus of hams before it would entertain dropping code speeds. But that wasn't the issue - ARRL proposed 5 wpm for General, so all Tech Pluses and Novices met that already. The sticking point was the written testing. Further commentary ad discussion welcome. And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate. AGREED! There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic. They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual "homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen? I've seen plenty! ;-) The "no voltages over 30" means no line-powered rigs, no antenna tuners..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , JJ
writes: Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote: Lennie whinned and cried: If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED! That's been said by the multitude in here, too. Duuuuuh....Maybe because it's TRUE, Lennie...?!?! It really gets under Lennieboy's skin that a 6 year old can pass the test and he, a so self professed professional in electronics, can't. Remember the old saying "can't means won't"? To my knowledge, no 6 year old has passed the Extra. A 6 year old being homeschooled at the first-grade level passed the General recently. Several years back, befoe restructuring, an 8 year old in 3rd grade passed the Extra - all 5 written tests and 20 wpm code. I have worked that amateur a few times on CW - excellent operator. And this isn't a new phenomenon. Way back in 1948, before there was a Novice or Technician level license, a 9 year old passed the old Class B exam at the Philadelphia FCC office. That exam required 13 wpm receiving and sending, plus a written test that was not from a public pool that required essay-type answers as well as multiple choice, and the drawing of schematic and block diagrams. On the last page of his voluminous reply comments to the restructuring NPRM back in 1999, Len requested that the FCC enact a minimum age requirement of 14 years for any class of amateur license. When challenged, however, he could not give a single example of on-air violations by licensed radio amateurs under the age of 14. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? No, is it on a web site?. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/ Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on that. What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should happen to the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, et al; Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals. I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC) has certainly stirred the pot. Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO. Are you saying discussion or stawman proposals are bad??? No! I'm saying that some of the proposal's ideas (not talking about the code test - that's old news!) are not the best way to reach the desired results. Hence the discussion and, I presume, you'll offer better alternatives? Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator" entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that would lay out the rules for Communicator license. If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs. I agree...to a point as noted below. I have always felt memorizing band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is provided. Other basic questions probably should require some recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.) Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc. I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in the test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution. No such legal precedent..rather, just the opposite...to wit, ignorance of the lasw is not a valid defense to a violation charge. My point is that if the govt. grants licenses that require tests, it makes sense that the rules for that license be on the test. I agree, but I don't much worry about memorizing band edges which I believe should be readily available in anyone's shack. If you asked me where the phne segment starts on 15 meters I have no idea, but I can and would look it up before operatng phone on 15. Even the band edges change over time as we saw with 80M novice segment some years back. If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you can find it: http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at all if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with regard to privileges vs requirements. Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech gets a free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent. Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for General class privileges? It proves nothing that definitive. See below. Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is discriminatory? Someone can claim anything they want. Consider this: Prospective ham reads about the upcoming changes. Reads that on Date X, all Techs will get free upgrade to General. Crams for Tech and takes it a day or two before Date X. Passes Tech, gets General as a freebie. Is that fair? Does said newbie really have General class qualifications? Is it fair? Depends on your outlook. As to qualifications, I have said all along that most license privileges bear little or no relavence to what the license tests for. The other two alternatives a (1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track record on that as we saw in 1968) or (2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants for enforcement and rules simplification. I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac" license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced) with no real problems. They're just entries in a database. They are more than just database entries. They also have specific privileges which differentiate them from the "lower" level licenses. IF the FCC granted identical privileges to Advanced rather than doing a "free upgrade" of Advanced to Extra, THEN the old licenses would be just a database differentiator. Only difference is a few lines of rules - particularly the difference between Advanced and Extra. But then there's enforcement, etc. What you are actually saying now is that an Advanced can operate as an Extra today and never expect to be called to task for operating in the Extra segments. And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing Novices and Tech Pluses. The FCC once was looking for a consensus of hams before it would entertain dropping code speeds. But that wasn't the issue - ARRL proposed 5 wpm for General, so all Tech Pluses and Novices met that already. The sticking point was the written testing. My point is that what was decided could or could not change. It depends on the end goal and the FCC's considerations. Further commentary ad discussion welcome. And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate. AGREED! There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic. They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual "homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen? I've seen plenty! ;-) The "no voltages over 30" means no line-powered rigs, no antenna tuners..... Most folks use a 12 volt DC supply anyhow. Interesting point, however, since anyone (ham/nonham) is allowed today to build there own DC supply powered from 120 v AC. Perhaps the NO homebrew would be limited to transmitters only. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote
They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual "homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen? Realistic? Surreal-istic is more like it! This is the same mantra sung by NCI's ex Executive Director, W5YI, and his fingerprints are all over this thing. He has stated publicly that he feels that since people who acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment assembled these days, and send them in for repairs when broken, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to build good "home-brew" stations, nor the knowledge to determine if their repairs/adjustments result in proper on-the-air signals. Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of questions regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build/repair/adjust equipment) should be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory questions would only be part of Amateur Extra examinations. While I can't remember the last "fully homebrew" shack I saw (probably KG6AIG back in the 60's, and even Luis had *some* commercial test equipment items lying about), it is extremely uncommon to find a shack where every item is commercial (or in it's original commercial state.) Homebrewing and modification to commercial designs is especially alive and well in the QRP, contesting, satelite, and microwave communities. The QCAO (Quarter Century Appliance Operators club) and ASSOOBA (Amalgamated Simple Shacks On Our Belt Association) would love it, but this idea would put our service on an immediate slide into nothing more than another consumer orientated Family Radio Service, and the consequent abolishment of Amateur Radio. The *single* unique element which differentiates our service from all the other radio services is our authority to experiment, build, modify, and generally tinker around and operate equipment which is not type accepted. The "technical" aspect of our hobby comprises 3 of the 5 reasons (paragraph 97.1) for the existence of the ARS, and removal of this requirement for licensing would tear the heart and soul out of the hobby. If amateurs were to be licensed without any requirement for electronics knowledge, then it follows that type acceptance of all amateur equipment would be a requirement for sale. Used equipment, if sold to "no-Tech" amateurs would need to be recertified and "mod-free", and repairs could only be accomplished by FCC-approved service facilities. The cost of new equipment would rise to commercial-service price levels, because of type-acceptance issues, and most vendors would probably leave the market. Sorry, but you guys are out to lunch with this cockeyed notion. Code-Free, then Tech-Free .... what next, license free? CU on eleven, good buddy. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper? No, is it on a web site?. http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/ Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on that. What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should happen to the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, et al; Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals. I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC) has certainly stirred the pot. Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO. Are you saying discussion or stawman proposals are bad??? No! I'm saying that some of the proposal's ideas (not talking about the code test - that's old news!) are not the best way to reach the desired results. Hence the discussion and, I presume, you'll offer better alternatives? Of course - as usual. But with the addy-tood that paper exhibits, I wonder how receptive the "Gang" will be... Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator" entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that would lay out the rules for Communicator license. If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs. I agree...to a point as noted below. I have always felt memorizing band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is provided. Other basic questions probably should require some recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.) Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc. I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in the test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution. No such legal precedent..rather, just the opposite...to wit, ignorance of the lasw is not a valid defense to a violation charge. My point is that if the govt. grants licenses that require tests, it makes sense that the rules for that license be on the test. I agree, but I don't much worry about memorizing band edges which I believe should be readily available in anyone's shack. If you asked me where the phne segment starts on 15 meters I have no idea, but I can and would look it up before operatng phone on 15. Even the band edges change over time as we saw with 80M novice segment some years back. Your opinion noted but there's a couple of other sides to it. I think a BIG reason all that bandedge stuff has been in the writtens for so long is that once-upon-a-time some hams had a problem staying inside the bands. And if you look at the enforcement letters, some still do. But the *big* problem with the "should be readily available in anyone's shack" idea is that if you accept that idea for band edge rules, why not for other rules as well? Say, the power limit on various bands, or who can be a control operator, etc. Why shouldn't "I'll just look it up when I need to know that" be good enough for *any* FCC rule, if it's good enough for band edges? If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you can find it: http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at all if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with regard to privileges vs requirements. Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech gets a free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent. Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for General class privileges? It proves nothing that definitive. See below. Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is discriminatory? Someone can claim anything they want. Consider this: Prospective ham reads about the upcoming changes. Reads that on Date X, all Techs will get free upgrade to General. Crams for Tech and takes it a day or two before Date X. Passes Tech, gets General as a freebie. Is that fair? Does said newbie really have General class qualifications? Is it fair? Depends on your outlook. I say it's inherently uunfair - but worse, if FCC did it, they'd be saying there was nothing in the General test that a Tech really needed to know in order to have General privileges. Bad precedent. As to qualifications, I have said all along that most license privileges bear little or no relavence to what the license tests for. Then why test for those things? The other two alternatives a (1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track record on that as we saw in 1968) or (2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants for enforcement and rules simplification. I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac" license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced) with no real problems. They're just entries in a database. They are more than just database entries. They also have specific privileges which differentiate them from the "lower" level licenses. IF the FCC granted identical privileges to Advanced rather than doing a "free upgrade" of Advanced to Extra, THEN the old licenses would be just a database differentiator. Only difference is a few lines of rules - particularly the difference between Advanced and Extra. But then there's enforcement, etc. What you are actually saying now is that an Advanced can operate as an Extra today and never expect to be called to task for operating in the Extra segments. Not at all! I'm saying that except for those few parts of 4 HF bands, some vanity callsign privs and some VE stuff, there's nothing that an Extra can do that an Advanced can't. Extras don't get more power, or more modes, or more bands - just some more kHz. Except for enforcing those few kHz, it's not much work for FCC. When's the last time an Advanced was cited for operating in the Extra subbands? There's no question pools for those license classes anymore and no administration of exams for them, so no work for VEs and VECs. All existing Advanceds have had almost 4 years to upgrade without any more code testing. Yet the number of Advanceds has dropped by only about 16% in that time - and at least half of that drop is expirations. And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing Novices and Tech Pluses. The FCC once was looking for a consensus of hams before it would entertain dropping code speeds. But that wasn't the issue - ARRL proposed 5 wpm for General, so all Tech Pluses and Novices met that already. The sticking point was the written testing. My point is that what was decided could or could not change. It depends on the end goal and the FCC's considerations. Agreed. My point is that there's no pressing need to make the "dead end" license classes disappear. The KL7CC paper talks like it's a major problem, but I can't see how that's true. Tech Plus will simply disappear in (at most) 6 years, 5 months and 11 days even if no rules at all are changed, because FCC has been renewing all Tech Pluses as Techs. And at the rate the number of Novices is declining, they'll probably be gone by then too. The "end goal" should be a better license structure. Further commentary ad discussion welcome. And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate. AGREED! There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic. They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual "homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen? I've seen plenty! ;-) The "no voltages over 30" means no line-powered rigs, no antenna tuners..... Most folks use a 12 volt DC supply anyhow. Then why legislate it? Interesting point, however, since anyone (ham/nonham) is allowed today to build there own DC supply powered from 120 v AC. Perhaps the NO homebrew would be limited to transmitters only. Again, why legislate it? Consider - anyone can build their own receiver, too. In the vacuum tube era, voltages of several hundred were common in receivers. So were AC-DC supplies, voltage doublers, etc. So under those proposed rules, it would be OK for a ham to have an old hot-chassis AC-DC rx like the Hallicrafters S-38B, or a homebrew receiver on an open chassis with hundreds of volts B+ - but not a manufactured rig with 50 volts on the transistor finals... Doesn't make any sense. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"N2EY" wrote
But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it? What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a broken record. Hans |
N2EY wrote:
You watch, Hans - those of us who resist these ideas will be called "elitist" and "stuck in the past" etc. Aren't we already? |
In article .net, "KHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it? What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a broken record. Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote
Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans. Of course I read it. But rather than fixate on it, I dismissed it as unworkable and without sufficient weight to gain any traction. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it? What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a broken record. Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans. I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing that point up. Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing requirement be radically reduced? It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"KHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans. Of course I read it. OK But rather than fixate on it, I dismissed it as unworkable and without sufficient weight to gain any traction. I hope you're right about that, and that the FCC agrees with you. Otherwise we could have quite a bit of a pool-pah to deal with. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing requirement be radically reduced? It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman! The paper is a self-admitted strawman, for Christ's sake!!!! Have you read it? Here is a direct quote: "It is intended as a way to help fellow Amateur Radio operators understand some of the thought processes that led us to where we are today. It is not a statement of the way things will end up, but rather it is simply a plan, subject to change and improvement. It is, in a word, someplace to start." If that isn't the classic definition of a strawman then I don't know what is! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it? What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a broken record. I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he doesn't want to see any more than I do ...) Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ... Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans. I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing that point up. Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing requirement be radically reduced? It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman! - Mike KB3EIA - The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented service" ... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others fighting that one. Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - there will be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were to lend any credence to such a proposal. 73, Carl - wk3c |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it? What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a broken record. I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he doesn't want to see any more than I do ...) Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ... Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans. I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing that point up. Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing requirement be radically reduced? It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman! - Mike KB3EIA - The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented service" ... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others fighting that one. And that can change really quickly. Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - there will be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were to lend any credence to such a proposal. Ahh, our very own Maginot line! Imagine how much less work it would have been to get rid of the Morse code requirements if we just would have kept our mouths shut. If in the future, if perhaps something like the KL7CC plan is adopted, do you think this will be the PCTA's fault because we said something like that may happen? Because we said it may happen? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it? What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a broken record. I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he doesn't want to see any more than I do ...) Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ... Carl, this is no different than Larry or Bruce wishing to destroy the ARS because they couldn't have things their way. Brian |
|
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it? What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a broken record. Note that Hans avoids my question. I have to agree with Hans on this. You're avoiding my question too, Carl. Why is that? I have asked Jim privately to please stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid as the Morse tests That's NOT what I've said at all! You're twisting my words into something completely different. I'm saying that the same arguments can be used - and will be used - by some against both tests. The process is already started - see KL7CC's comments on the recent petitions. (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he doesn't want to see any more than I do ...) So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in the amateur radio of the 21st century? Did you ask KL7CC and the other authors of that paper to shut up? Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ... I've never seen you guys more eager to get someone to be quiet about something. Tell it to W5YI. Oh, no, Fred's sacred - no one must criticize Fred - he's the Maximum Leader. btw, his outfit sent me another one of those renewal packets. This time they want $6 to do what I can do myself with a few mouse clicks. Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans. I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing that point up. If you guys have an answer that simply quashes the KL7CC paper's bad ideas, why are you so afraid? You didn't ask Hans to shut up with his 2 license class proposal. You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense. You haven't asked KL7CC et al to shut up with their bad ideas. Only me. Interesting. Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing requirement be radically reduced? It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman! - Mike KB3EIA - The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented service" Right. Now what the heck does that actually mean? How does it somehow prove the need for multiple license classes and written tests such as we have now? Why can't hams be left free to choose what parts of amateur radio to pursue? ... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others fighting that one. How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical service doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators" mantra. Has taking and passing all those written exams caused anyone to decide to build a radio or be "more technical" than they would have been otherwise? Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - Sounds to me like you're afraid that there are plenty of folks out there who will *agree* with KL7CC..... there will be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were to lend any credence to such a proposal. It's probably already too late. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it? What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a broken record. Note that Hans avoids my question. I have to agree with Hans on this. You're avoiding my question too, Carl. Why is that? I have asked Jim privately to please stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid as the Morse tests That's NOT what I've said at all! You're twisting my words into something completely different. I'm saying that the same arguments can be used - and will be used - by some against both tests. The process is already started - see KL7CC's comments on the recent petitions. (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he doesn't want to see any more than I do ...) So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in the amateur radio of the 21st century? That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet, and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are warning about come to pass. To which I would ask Carl and Hans: Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says it? Nothing ever stands still. If the political currents happen to make the entrance requirements for getting into the ARS easier, do those currents stop once the original goal is met? Face it, the people who want drastically reduced entrance requirements or no requirements at all are a subset of those who want no Morse code testing. Can you deny that? Did you ask KL7CC and the other authors of that paper to shut up? Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ... I've never seen you guys more eager to get someone to be quiet about something. Tell it to W5YI. Oh, no, Fred's sacred - no one must criticize Fred - he's the Maximum Leader. And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know. Why isn't he, if not asked to shut up, at least be asked to provide a disclaimer. Instead, all we get is that his views do not reflect, yadayada. btw, his outfit sent me another one of those renewal packets. This time they want $6 to do what I can do myself with a few mouse clicks. Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans. I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing that point up. If you guys have an answer that simply quashes the KL7CC paper's bad ideas, why are you so afraid? ahem.... You didn't ask Hans to shut up with his 2 license class proposal. nope.... You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense. nope.... You haven't asked KL7CC et al to shut up with their bad ideas. nope.... Only me. Interesting. Do you want to know why Jim? What you are saying is: T H E T R U T H And that makes some people very very uncomfortable. I hear Hans telling you about his losing respect for you. I hear Carl setting you up for taking the blame when the FCC starts seriously looking at massive reductions in knowledge needed to get a license. And how's this for getting the great unwashed worked up?: "Testing for the Amateur Radio Service is an anachronism, a relic of previous days of left wing Socialist ideas. Much of the regulatory morass that such thinking has inflicted on us has already been swept aside, witness the great success with deregulation in the broadcast bands. It is time we complete the process, and eliminate such regressive policies in the rest of the radio spectrum." This will truly turn the Amateur bands into the.............. You think THAT wouldn't sell with some people in power? Another chance to diss the hated regulators. Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing requirement be radically reduced? It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman! - Mike KB3EIA - The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented service" Right. Now what the heck does that actually mean? How does it somehow prove the need for multiple license classes and written tests such as we have now? Why can't hams be left free to choose what parts of amateur radio to pursue? Here is what I think it means (to some): I know people who think that they are "high tech" because they use a cell phone. Or a computer. Or a GPS reciever. They might not be able to explain how any of those things work, but by just using them, they consider themselves high tech. I never asked, but I would be that they would take one look at my IC-745 with it's 30 some buttons and knobs, and conclude that just knowing how to operate it was a major bit of "primarily a technically oriented service" Oh-Oh! A percon of average intelligence could indeed learn to operate my rig if they read the manual. NO test required! ... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others fighting that one. How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical service doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators" mantra. We won't be able to fight it, will we? How on earth can Pro-Coders fight it when we lost the last war against the arguments presented by the No Coders, and how are the No-Coders going to fight against the same arguments that they had once used so successfully? Has taking and passing all those written exams caused anyone to decide to build a radio or be "more technical" than they would have been otherwise? Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - Sounds to me like you're afraid that there are plenty of folks out there who will *agree* with KL7CC..... No doubt there ARE plenty. But Jim, I think you are just being set up to take the blame here. Once the movement has gained momentum, it will just be one more thing to blame upon those arrogant "Pro-coders". there will be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were to lend any credence to such a proposal. It's probably already too late. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... N2EY wrote: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KHB" writes: (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he doesn't want to see any more than I do ...) So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in the amateur radio of the 21st century? That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet, and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are warning about come to pass. Yep. That's exactly the way I read, you (Mike) read it, and you (Jim) read it. Probably more than just us. BUT, are we surprised? That is status quo in at least this group of people--i.e. rather common practice in this newsgroup to desire that someone "shut up" if that opinion is coming from an opposite or challenging side. To which I would ask Carl and Hans: Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says it? That's a good question, but it really isn't the point. *Whether* people "are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says it," or not, Jim has--anyone has--the perfect right to say whatever they'd like. Kim W5TIT |
How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical service doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators" mantra. We won't be able to fight it, will we? How on earth can Pro-Coders fight it when we lost the last war against the arguments presented by the No Coders, and how are the No-Coders going to fight against the same arguments that they had once used so successfully? Hello all .... The above represents some of the "soundest" logic I have read on this group. The groundwork has been laid over the last 10-15 years regarding change and the perceived or not necessity for it. Time will tell if the CW mode will stand on its own, wither and die or .....grow. I wish I could be more of an optimist regarding the service in the future. This feeling is based over what I have read over the years in this and other sources. The "love of radio" has been turned into the "love of computers-internet" This sounds corney but does the magic of radio have a counterpart in the computer-internet users ??? ....I don't have an answer here. What was once secure, or thought so, is now under attack on many fronts. Who wudda thunk that we would get begging letters from the ARRL who apparently took lessons from the NRA. People 50 years ago would have laughed if someone would have listed the infringments on a Constitutional right ....no that would never happen ... guess what folks. Add to that the fact that there is nothing in the bill of rights regarding pounding brass on 80 or yaking on 20. It will be interesting however to see how the members of our community will react both pro and con to the issuing of cereal box licenses which I feel will eventually come based on the "proper - correct" philosophy of the day. There is, on a good note, light at the end of the tunnel. This will be if a fiber optic system can pass the economic muster and render RF really antique. In our lifetime ???. I do wish for a long a happy life for the service and hope that it will continue to give others as much pleasure as it has for me over the last 40 years. God Bless 73 Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa |
|
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KHB" writes: (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he doesn't want to see any more than I do ...) So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in the amateur radio of the 21st century? That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet, and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are warning about come to pass. Yep. That's exactly the way I read, you (Mike) read it, and you (Jim) read it. Probably more than just us. BUT, are we surprised? Nope! That is status quo in at least this group of people--i.e. rather common practice in this newsgroup to desire that someone "shut up" if that opinion is coming from an opposite or challenging side. hehe, then this isn't the place to be for them. I like to come here for the different viewpoints. And of course, shutting up isn't an option for me. To which I would ask Carl and Hans: Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says it? That's a good question, but it really isn't the point. *Whether* people "are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says it," or not, Jim has--anyone has--the perfect right to say whatever they'd like. Well, yes! But it would be yummy fun to hear their answer though. 8^) I'm not going to hold my breath tho' Sunavagun! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
To which I would ask Carl and Hans: Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says it? No, I don't think there's anyone here that stupid. But then again I didn't think there was anyone here stupid enough to ask such a stupid question, and you've just proved me wrong. Sunuvagun! With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com