|
"N2EY" wrote
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? I've never asked you to shut up. But I have repeatedly informed you that you resemble a stray dog with three legs and one blind eye dragging around a 15-days-dead roadkilled stray cat and acting as if you've uncovered something dangerous. If you guys have an answer that simply quashes the KL7CC paper's bad ideas, why are you so afraid? I'm not a bit afraid. Here's my answer which "simply quashes" your pizza-shaped kitty. If you have tendency to forgetfullness, simply bookmark http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb and click on the left hand menu item labeled "FCC Comments". II Proposal: I propose that no new applicants be accepted for the current license classes and that after some reasonable grace period, no upgrades be available in the current licensing structure. A. New License Classes: I propose that new license applications be available in two classes, namely "Class B" and "Class A". The "Class B" license would have an entry-level test (basic regulations, safety, operating procedures, basic DC and AC electronics). This class would have full frequency and mode privileges, power limited to 50W output. The license would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable. holders of this license would be required to have 2 years experience as a licensee ("time in grade") before being eligible to upgrade to "Class A". The "Class A" license test would be of a difficulty level similar to the current Extra class test, and would have full privileges at power levels up to 1500W, equivalent to current Extra Class license holders. This license would be issued permanently without requirement for renewal. B. Status of current licensees. Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would retain their current operating privileges. Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class licensees could up grade to "Class A" at any time. You didn't ask Hans to shut up with his 2 license class proposal. Are you asking me to shut up with my 2 license class proposal, Jim? 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "They called me mad, and I called them mad, but damn them, they outvoted me." |
KØHB wrote:
"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. If pleasantness is inversely related to intelligence, you kind sir, are a genius. And this stupid person believes you are a genius. Quite frankly, you are as pleasant as Lenover21. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... N2EY wrote: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KØHB" 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. I don't think I've ever told anyone here to shut up. But I have seen others do it. For example: From: (Len Over 21) Date: 28 Oct 2003 04:35:14 GMT (in response to K8MN): "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English." Just the kind we want for newcomers, huh? New standards of civil debate. 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? (One "L" in the name) 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. Thanks, Kim. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote
That's a good question, but it really isn't the point. Actually it wasn't a very good question at all. In fact, I'm not sure it was even a question, but more a feeble attempt to troll, so I checked my Troll-O-Meter, and it didn't even budge up off the pin. Since Mike Coslo is an avid Morse Code operator like me, I expected a much better reading on the meter. Sigh...... truly disappointing. Jim has--anyone has--the perfect right to say whatever they'd like. Bingo! Good answer, Kim! You nailed it dead on! And I have every right to tell Jim that he resembles a flea-bitten stray dog with three legs and one blind eye dragging around a 15-days-dead roadkilled stray cat and growling and posturing and acting as if he has uncovered something dangerous. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Mike Coslo" wrote Well, yes! But it would be yummy fun to hear their answer though. 8^) Well, I gave you my answer. Are you having "yummy fun" now? Golly gee, I certainly hope so! Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
If pleasantness is inversely related to intelligence, you kind sir, are a genius. And this stupid person believes you are a genius. Thank you! Why am I reminded of the old saw about "if you can't stand the heat....." My "pleasantness" to you was directly related to your "pleasantness" toward me, but I don't get even, I get ahead. And just what the hell is "yummy fun" anyhow? With kindest personal regards, de Hans, K0HB |
N2EY wrote:
(One "L" in the name) Oops, Sorry Jim. But what about Jim Miccollis? - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote Well, yes! But it would be yummy fun to hear their answer though. 8^) Well, I gave you my answer. Are you having "yummy fun" now? Golly gee, I certainly hope so! Sunuvagun! Actually, if you think that calling me stupid is an answer, yes indeed Hans, it was indeed yummy fun to hear you answer my question! Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis (sic) says it? 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. Good reply! tks OM! - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote If pleasantness is inversely related to intelligence, you kind sir, are a genius. And this stupid person believes you are a genius. Thank you! Why am I reminded of the old saw about "if you can't stand the heat....." huh? My "pleasantness" to you was directly related to your "pleasantness" toward me, but I don't get even, I get ahead. Perhaps I touched a nerve asking the question? mea maxima culpa And just what the hell is "yummy fun" anyhow? Delicious irony. Like you finding it appropriate to call me stupid when I ask a question. That you find it an appropriate answer is the key. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om... "Kim W5TIT" wrote That's a good question, but it really isn't the point. Actually it wasn't a very good question at all. In fact, I'm not sure it was even a question, but more a feeble attempt to troll, so I checked my Troll-O-Meter, and it didn't even budge up off the pin. Since Mike Coslo is an avid Morse Code operator like me, I expected a much better reading on the meter. Sigh...... truly disappointing. Jim has--anyone has--the perfect right to say whatever they'd like. Bingo! Good answer, Kim! You nailed it dead on! And I have every right to tell Jim that he resembles a flea-bitten stray dog with three legs and one blind eye dragging around a 15-days-dead roadkilled stray cat and growling and posturing and acting as if he has uncovered something dangerous. 73, de Hans, K0HB Well, yes. Yes, you do Hans. But it's not that that I am pondering upon. It is that someone made a remark about "shutting up." That is what I am pondering upon... Kim W5TIT |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KØHB" 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. Neither test is "invalid". Opinions vary on how necessary certain tests are, however. 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. Or KL7CC. And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know. No, they do not. NCI's mission in the USA is to get rid of Element 1, nothing else. If/when FCC dumps all code testing in the USA, NCI will cease to function in the USA. That mission is demonstrated by NCI's petition, which asks FCC to drop all code testing as a requirement, merge Tech and Tech Plus, and....nothing else. 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. Fred et al ain't on rrap. 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.... Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans' proposal has at least one major problem: forced upgrading. I doubt FCC would ever again enact a ham license that wasn't renewable. They dumped that feature of the old Novice more than a quarter century ago. But even if FCC *did* make the entry-level class nonrenewable, it wouldn't stay that way. You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense. nope.... Len wants just one class of license. 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.............. Who the heck wrote *that*?? Not me! Not Hans or Carl, either! Where's it from?? 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" They oughta try to use the Southgate Type 7.... Oh-Oh! A percon of average intelligence could indeed learn to operate my rig if they read the manual. NO test required! No test to use a computer.... ... 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? Sure we will - the question is how? That's what I want to know, so we're ready. 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? My questions exactly. 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. I hope there aren't. I don't see how my discussing a paper that is already in the public domain on a website is going to change people's minds to agree with said paper. 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". And it can be said that they were told to be quiet.... 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. I don't see what else there is to say. I've been working up a response to the KL7CC paper. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote
Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans' proposal has at least one major problem: forced upgrading. Is forced upgrading a "major problem"? The Novice license is widely acknowledged to have been the best licensing idea the FCC ever had. It admitted people to the hobby with a sort of "learner permit" in which they could learn some skills and meet other experienced hams "on the air". It expired after one year and was not renewable. If it had any fault, it was that it tended to isolate newcomers into little "ghettos" mostly frequented by other newcomers. My "learner permit" is different than the old Novice license in 4 ways: 1) Rather than isolate the newcomers into narrow little band segments crowded with mostly other newcomers, it gives them expanded privileges on all bands. 2) Rather than expiring in 1 year, it would expire after 10 years, giving them more time to "gain their wings". 3) Power would be limited to 50 watts (in line with prevailing RF exposure doctrine.) What "major problem" lies in that? (Give me **your**version of the problem, not what you think the FCC version of the problem would be.) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans' proposal has at least one major problem: forced upgrading. Is forced upgrading a "major problem"? It was for the old Novice. The Novice license is widely acknowledged to have been the best licensing idea the FCC ever had. Wasn't FCC's idea, but that's beside the point. If it was such a great idea, why was it closed to new license issues in 2000? It admitted people to the hobby with a sort of "learner permit" in which they could learn some skills and meet other experienced hams "on the air". It expired after one year and was not renewable. Only from 1951 to 1967. And not only was it nonrenewable, it was "nonretakeable" - one Novice license to a customer, and if you'd ever had any class of ham license before, you couldn't have a Novice. In 1967, the Novice went to 2 years, nonrenewable, still "nonretakeable". The reason given back then was "too many dropouts" In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick changes. First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year to get a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a Novice forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time. Again the reason given was "too many dropouts". Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given was... Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago. If it had any fault, it was that it tended to isolate newcomers into little "ghettos" mostly frequented by other newcomers. The reasons for the limited privileges we - to simplify the "ideal" Novice station. 75 watts, xtal control, 3 HF bands CW only meant that almost anybody could have a half-decent station that wasn't much worse than anybody else's. High point was reached with Heathkit's $100 HW-16 "shack in a box" that needed only a key, speaker, xtals and antenna. - to encourage homebrewing/tinkering (what a concept). Lot of newbies built their own rigs, either from scratch (ahem) or simple kits. - to minimize the chances of Novices straying outside the ham bands. Thus the xtals. This was not well-thought-out by FCC, because while the xtal requirement kept Novices inside the bands on the fundamentals, the harmonics fell outside the bands. Also required a different xtal for each band. - to keep the level of activity high. Novices could count on other Novices being on the air on nearby frequencies almost 24/7. My "learner permit" is different than the old Novice license in 4 ways: 1) Rather than isolate the newcomers into narrow little band segments crowded with mostly other newcomers, it gives them expanded privileges on all bands. I thought it gave them all privileges on all modes on all bands - just limited power. The old Novice license got higher power and VFO control in the '70s, too. More bands and modes in the '80s. Didn't help much. 2) Rather than expiring in 1 year, it would expire after 10 years, giving them more time to "gain their wings". Sure. And that's the problem. See below. 3) Power would be limited to 50 watts (in line with prevailing RF exposure doctrine.) Not many non-QRP rigs out there limited to 50 watts out. Would it be acceptable to simply reduce the power level on a 100 W rig? What "major problem" lies in that? (Give me **your**version of the problem, not what you think the FCC version of the problem would be.) First off, the FCC *is* an issue, because there are some things they simply won't enact. IMHO, they won't enact a nonrenewable nonretakeable ham license. Second, you're pretty vague about the test requirements. How much test for each license? How many questions, and from what pools? If the entry license is kept simple and easy, then the step to Extra is gonna be a *big* one. But that's not what you asked. Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular, because it gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test. Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will be with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied with their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written jump did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their 10 year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or they won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada. And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being forced off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams. Since the only difference between your two proposed classes is the power level, there will be quite logical arguments that such a system forces hams who don't want to run high power to "jump through a written test hoop" to gain privilges they have no intention of using. That's gonna be a tough argument to defeat. Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to the two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test? Just my opinion. But it's based on historical fact and long-term trends. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote
Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular, because it gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test. Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will be with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied with their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written jump did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their 10 year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or they won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada. This is precisely why I suggest a 10-year term. Right from the get-go, these new hams know that they have 10 years to prepare to "re-enlist", and that it will require some real learning. If they can't cut it after a 10-year apprenticeship, then they weren't meant to be hams. The FCC didn't "stick to their guns" on the original Novice concept, and I lay that at the feet of the "entitlement" mentality of the 60s-70s. And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being forced off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams. This will sound cold, and the IOoDHW (International Order of Dismayed Hand Wringers) will convene a special session to condemn me, but who really CARES if we lose those learners-permit holders. Since the only difference between your two proposed classes is the power level, there will be quite logical arguments that such a system forces hams who don't want to run high power to "jump through a written test hoop" to gain privilges they have no intention of using. Sorry Jim, but you're waving the same old roadkill again. Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to the two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test? Read my proposal again, Jim. You'll see how I've completely avoided that problem. As a closing note....... I really don't have a problem with a high dropout rate among newcomers. I'd be happy to see a million people "have a look at ham radio" and if just 20% stick around, well so be it. That would give us 200,000 new qualified hams. To the 800,000 who left, I say "I hope you had a good time, and it's been nice meeting you. Sorry this ham radio thing wasn't your bag." They're not "bad people" or "quitters" --- they just don't have the same interest in hobbies that you and I do. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo 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? And I was always told that there is no such thing as a stupid question! Good thing I was set straight on this! ;^) 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. Or KL7CC. And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know. No, they do not. NCI's mission in the USA is to get rid of Element 1, nothing else. If/when FCC dumps all code testing in the USA, NCI will cease to function in the USA. So I've heard. We shall see. Organizations have a way of morphing, and are notoriously resistant to organizational self dissolving. That mission is demonstrated by NCI's petition, which asks FCC to drop all code testing as a requirement, merge Tech and Tech Plus, and....nothing else. 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. Fred et al ain't on rrap. True enough Jim. Remember I was replying to your rhetorical question with another one! 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.... Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans' proposal has at least one major problem: forced upgrading. I doubt FCC would ever again enact a ham license that wasn't renewable. They dumped that feature of the old Novice more than a quarter century ago. But even if FCC *did* make the entry-level class nonrenewable, it wouldn't stay that way. You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense. nope.... Len wants just one class of license. From what I can gather, I'm not so sure he wants any license, or at least the equivalent of that. 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.............. Who the heck wrote *that*?? Not me! Not Hans or Carl, either! Where's it from?? That is something that I came up with while I was typing out the reply. It has a number of qualities that would appeal to some people that are in power now: It speaks to lowering or elimination of regulations. This is a very big thing with some people. It relates itself to the "The government that governs best governs least" worldview. It speaks to the continuance of a process that has been going on for a few years now where less constraints have been put on radio broadcasters. A disaster IMO, but to some a great thing. I'm talking about relaxation of broadcaster regs, leading to outfits like Clear channel owning all the radio stations in town. But as I say, there are plenty who would think that this would be good. Spin city, IOW. It is ridiculous, but ridiculous can sell big sometimes. 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" They oughta try to use the Southgate Type 7.... Oh-Oh! A percon of average intelligence could indeed learn to operate my rig if they read the manual. NO test required! No test to use a computer.... ... 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? Sure we will - the question is how? That's what I want to know, so we're ready. Perhaps I should have said "fight successfully" 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? My questions exactly. And that leads us back to a question I posed a while back. Why didn't the peolpe who were officially agitating for the elimination of the Morse code test have some simultaneous proposals to fill the vacuum that would be created when the requirement went away?. It's called responsibillity. And here we DO have some people with some ideas, who ARE making proposals. Who are they? 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. I hope there aren't. I don't see how my discussing a paper that is already in the public domain on a website is going to change people's minds to agree with said paper. Of course it doesn't. The whole concept of your devil's advocacy serving as the seed for a no-test movement is at best amusing. More likely you are making some people feel very uncomfortable. Certainly my questions make some people unconfortable. 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". And it can be said that they were told to be quiet.... And that and 50 cents will get you a down payment on a cup of coffee. It will be much too late by that time. 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. I don't see what else there is to say. I've been working up a response to the KL7CC paper. I'll be happy to publish said paper on the web. - Mike KB3EIA - |
-- ô¿ô 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Help support youth involved in Amateur Radio. http://www.mnyarc.org http://www.k0bsa.org "N2EY" wrote In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick changes. First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year to get a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a Novice forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time. Again the reason given was "too many dropouts". See my other post about "too many dropouts". Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given was... Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago. You're right, Jim, it was more than a quarter century ago. And over a quarter century ago FCC thought that 13 and 20 WPM code tests were a good idea, and a no-code license was a bad idea. Seems FCC no longer holds those views, so I think we can safely ignore your argument about what they thought back then on this matter also. Do YOU think learners permits ought to be renewable beyond 10 years? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
-- ô¿ô 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Help support youth involved in Amateur Radio. http://www.mnyarc.org http://www.k0bsa.org "N2EY" wrote In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick changes. First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year to get a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a Novice forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time. Again the reason given was "too many dropouts". See my other post about "too many dropouts". Will do. Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given was... Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago. You're right, Jim, it was more than a quarter century ago. And over a quarter century ago FCC thought that 13 and 20 WPM code tests were a good idea, and a no-code license was a bad idea. And a lot of other things, like secret tests given by FCC examiners, extreme limits on vanity calls and repeaters, yada yada yada. Seems FCC no longer holds those views, so I think we can safely ignore your argument about what they thought back then on this matter also. That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is to note that since that time, FCC has consistently made it *easier* and *more convenient* to get and keep an amateur radio license - of *any* class. As long as said changes mean less work for FCC, that is. That's been a consistent policy from then to now. Forced upgrading would go against that tide. One thing I'm not clear on, though. If an LP reached the end of the 10 years but couldn't pass the upgrade test, could they take the LP test and get another 10 years (as with driver's license LPs) or is it one-LP-to-a-customer, as the old Novice was? Do YOU think learners permits ought to be renewable beyond 10 years? I think *all* amateur licenses are essentially "permits to learn". And I think *all* classes of amateur license should be renewable. Just my opinion. If your proposed LP is going to allow all authorized modes on all authorized freqs from 1.8 MHz on up, it's going to need a rather considerable written test, doncha think? The power limit removes the need for lots of RF exposure and other safety questions, and the VE stuff, but what about almost all the rest? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote
One thing I'm not clear on, though. If an LP reached the end of the 10 years but couldn't pass the upgrade test, could they take the LP test and get another 10 years (as with driver's license LPs) or is it one-LP-to-a-customer, as the old Novice was? One to a customer. If you can't "get it" in 10 years, then you probably aren't going to be able to "get it" in 20 or 30 years. BTW, drivers license permits are not renewable here, although you can retest for a new one. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular, because it gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test. Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will be with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied with their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written jump did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their 10 year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or they won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada. This is precisely why I suggest a 10-year term. Right from the get-go, these new hams know that they have 10 years to prepare to "re-enlist", and that it will require some real learning. OK, fine. No surprises. If they can't cut it after a 10-year apprenticeship, then they weren't meant to be hams. Try to sell *that* to the amateur community (including the FCC)!! The FCC didn't "stick to their guns" on the original Novice concept, and I lay that at the feet of the "entitlement" mentality of the 60s-70s. I think you're just toying with us, Hans...;-) FCC "stuck to their guns" for almost 25 years with the "no renewal, no retake" Novice. As for "entitlement mentality of the 60s-70s", those were the times that gave us incentive licensing and significantly raised the requirements (both code and written) for a full-privs license. In fact the written requirements were raised more than the code.... But that's all ancient history. The main question is how you're gonna sell the "up or out" concept to FCC and the amateur community. And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being forced off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams. This will sound cold, and the IOoDHW (International Order of Dismayed Hand Wringers) will convene a special session to condemn me, but who really CARES if we lose those learners-permit holders. Those who don't want to see them leave the air and the ARS will care. And if there are enough of them, they may simply outvote everyone else. Since the only difference between your two proposed classes is the power level, there will be quite logical arguments that such a system forces hams who don't want to run high power to "jump through a written test hoop" to gain privilges they have no intention of using. Sorry Jim, but you're waving the same old roadkill again. How is that argument not valid? Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to the two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test? Read my proposal again, Jim. You'll see how I've completely avoided that problem. I did and you did. Which means FCC will have to keep the existing database going. It also sets up the unique situation where a new ham faces a challenge/requirement that no existing ham has to face. Somebody may holler 'discrimination'.... As a closing note....... I really don't have a problem with a high dropout rate among newcomers. I'd be happy to see a million people "have a look at ham radio" and if just 20% stick around, well so be it. That would give us 200,000 new qualified hams. To the 800,000 who left, I say "I hope you had a good time, and it's been nice meeting you. Sorry this ham radio thing wasn't your bag." They're not "bad people" or "quitters" --- they just don't have the same interest in hobbies that you and I do. OK, fine. The problem is, how you gonna get those million people to take the look? We've had an easy-to-get nocodetest ham license for 12-1/2 years now, the old Novice for half a century, and we've gotten maybe 30,000 new hams per year tops. (check AH0A stats on new licenses). In ten years that works out to maybe 300,000 "taking a look", not 1,000,000. If your 20% rate is correct, we'll see drastic reductions in the size of the ARS in the USA 10 years down the road as LPs expire. Is that a good thing? Most of all, how you gonna sell the idea to the FCC and the rest of ham radio? Perhaps you should send the ideas directly to FCC and see if you can get an RM number for it. I know you used it in a comment, but why not go for the RM? One more on top of the existing 14 won't hurt anything. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote
I did and you did. Which means FCC will have to keep the existing database going. It also sets up the unique situation where a new ham faces a challenge/requirement that no existing ham has to face. Somebody may holler 'discrimination'.... Somebody is always hollering 'discrimination' --- BFD. Life's a bitch, and then you die and they give all your toys away. It's clear that you don't like my "up or out" proposal, and it's clear that I'll not persuade you to like it, and it's **really** certain that you'll not persuade me to change it. Now all we're left doing is picking the fly **** out of the pepper pot. I don't play that non-productive game. Have a nice day. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
N2EY Wrote:
I doubt FCC would ever again enact a ham license that wasn't renewable. They dumped that feature of the old Novice more than a quarter century ago. And I count that as one of largest mistakes the FCC ever made, even worse than dis-incentive licensing in 1968. In my mind the non-renewable nature of the Novice license was the very reason ham radio still survives today. People were given an almost-free pass into the hobby, and they flocked in by the droves. If they liked it, they were forced to qualify for a real license or hit the bricks. I know that notion spins you up big time, something about "we can't afford to lose them", but frankly my dear, we never had them in the first place if they couldn't manage to take the next baby step up to General/Conditional/Technician. (When Technician meant "technician", not "beginner".) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote I did and you did. Which means FCC will have to keep the existing database going. It also sets up the unique situation where a new ham faces a challenge/requirement that no existing ham has to face. Somebody may holler 'discrimination'.... Somebody is always hollering 'discrimination' --- BFD. Life's a bitch, and then you die and they give all your toys away. Sometimes they're right to holler it, too. It's clear that you don't like my "up or out" proposal, and it's clear that I'll not persuade you to like it, and it's **really** certain that you'll not persuade me to change it. Doesn't matter whether I like it or not. I got my Extra 33 years ago and there hasn't been a day since then that I couldn't pass the required tests to get another one if that were required. I'm actually trying to help you refine it, Hans. Because the problem isn't hams like me, who would gladly retest every coupla years just to show we still got it. The problem is how you're gonna sell the idea to FCC and the rest of the ARS. Have a nice day. You too, Hans. And think about sending that proposal to FCC for an RM number. Who knows - it might gain widespread support and I'd be dead wrong about it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: N2EY Wrote: I doubt FCC would ever again enact a ham license that wasn't renewable. They dumped that feature of the old Novice more than a quarter century ago. And I count that as one of largest mistakes the FCC ever made, even worse than dis-incentive licensing in 1968. How were the changes in 1968 a "dis-incentive"? In my mind the non-renewable nature of the Novice license was the very reason ham radio still survives today. How so? That feature went away a quarter century ago. People were given an almost-free pass into the hobby, and they flocked in by the droves. So 5 wpm code is an "almost-free pass"? I agree! ;-) oh wait - back in those days we had to send *and* receive.... Plus a 25 question written that was mostly about the regs. As for the droves, back in those days the number of Novices was about 15,000-18,000 per year. If they liked it, they were forced to qualify for a real license or hit the bricks. You mean the Novice wasn't a real license? If so, then those Novices weren't real hams? I know that notion spins you up big time, something about "we can't afford to lose them", but frankly my dear, we never had them in the first place if they couldn't manage to take the next baby step up to General/Conditional/Technician. (When Technician meant "technician", not "beginner".) I had one of those 2 year one-shot Novices. I got my Advanced (ahem) less than a year after passing the Novice. I was 14. Yer preachin' to the choir, Hans. But ya still haven't told us how to sell your idea to the FCC and the rest of the ARS. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote One thing I'm not clear on, though. If an LP reached the end of the 10 years but couldn't pass the upgrade test, could they take the LP test and get another 10 years (as with driver's license LPs) or is it one-LP-to-a-customer, as the old Novice was? One to a customer. Understood. If you can't "get it" in 10 years, then you probably aren't going to be able to "get it" in 20 or 30 years. All depends what's going on in those 10 years. I know plenty of hams who were quite active until something significant happened in their lives like military service, a major illness in the family, marriage, divorce, children, relocation, new career, etc. Then, in accordance with "The Amateur Is Balanced", they put amateur radio on hold for anywhere from months to decades. Then, when their lives permitted, they came back in a big way. A few let their licenses lapse, but most kept renewing and modifying. Case in point: Amateur licensed in high school, got a bachelor's degree, worked a year or two, then decided to become a doctor. For the next 7 years his life was med school/residency/fellowship. Not a lot of time in there for ham radio, but he had an HT and kept in touch. And now he's an M.D. and hamming in a big way. His 10 years as a ham hit somewhere towards the end of medical school. Under today's rules, he just renewed and kept on going. Under your proposal, he would have lost his license and had to go all the way to Extra in one go if he ever wanted to be a ham again. Is that really what's best for the ARS? BTW, drivers license permits are not renewable here, although you can retest for a new one. Same deal here, AFAIK. So why not the same deal for hams? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote
You mean the Novice wasn't a real license? If so, then those Novices weren't real hams? Leading question noted. And dismissed without response. But ya still haven't told us how to sell your idea to the FCC and the rest of the ARS. Since you've expressed nothing but disdain for the idea, you wouldn't sell it to the FCC even if I told you how, so the best advice I can give you is "hide and watch". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"N2EY" wrote
Doesn't matter whether I like it or not. Correct. I got my Extra 33 years ago Didn't know we were running a seniority contest here, but if we are you lose by 7 years. ...and there hasn't been a day since then that I couldn't pass the required tests to get another one if that were required. The point being? I'd expect that's true of most licensees. I'm actually trying to help you refine it, Hans. It's already refined, thank you very much. The problem is how you're gonna sell the idea to FCC and the rest of the ARS. At least it's a problem in **your** mind, but you don't count. The FCC counts. And think about sending that proposal to FCC for an RM number. Who knows - it might gain widespread support and I'd be dead wrong about it. You are dead wrong about it, and it doesn't need "widespread support", just the support of FCC. |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know. No, they do not. NCI's mission in the USA is to get rid of Element 1, nothing else. If/when FCC dumps all code testing in the USA, NCI will cease to function in the USA. So I've heard. We shall see. Organizations have a way of morphing, and are notoriously resistant to organizational self dissolving. I think they mean it. That mission is demonstrated by NCI's petition, which asks FCC to drop all code testing as a requirement, merge Tech and Tech Plus, and....nothing else. Just ask Carl or Bill. Len wants just one class of license. From what I can gather, I'm not so sure he wants any license, or at least the equivalent of that. In a recent post where I pointed out that Len wants amateur radio to essentially become a multiband high power version of cb, he denied wanting no license at all. Then he railed about multiple license classes. Logical conclusion (if one can ever apply logic to his posts here) is that he wants one class of license. Look up the post - couple days ago, aimed at me, something about needing multiple classes of license for egos or some tripe like that. "Testing for the Amateur Radio Service is...(snip) Who the heck wrote *that*?? Not me! Not Hans or Carl, either! Where's it from?? That is something that I came up with while I was typing out the reply. It has a number of qualities that would appeal to some people that are in power now: Put it away before the wrong person reads it and takes it seriously! It speaks to lowering or elimination of regulations. This is a very big thing with some people. It relates itself to the "The government that governs best governs least" worldview. Yep. It speaks to the continuance of a process that has been going on for a few years now where less constraints have been put on radio broadcasters. A disaster IMO, but to some a great thing. I'm talking about relaxation of broadcaster regs, leading to outfits like Clear channel owning all the radio stations in town. But as I say, there are plenty who would think that this would be good. Mike Powell is one of them. Spin city, IOW. It is ridiculous, but ridiculous can sell big sometimes. To some people it's not ridiculous. Look how many books Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have sold.... You think THAT wouldn't sell with some people in power? Another chance to diss the hated regulators. boo...hissss.... 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" They oughta try to use the Southgate Type 7.... Oh-Oh! A percon of average intelligence could indeed learn to operate my rig if they read the manual. NO test required! There ya go! No test to use a computer.... Perhaps I should have said "fight successfully" We'll sure try. And that leads us back to a question I posed a while back. Why didn't the peolpe who were officially agitating for the elimination of the Morse code test have some simultaneous proposals to fill the vacuum that would be created when the requirement went away?. It's called responsibillity. Because they didn't think it needed to be replaced with anything. And here we DO have some people with some ideas, who ARE making proposals. Who are they? A committee of NCVEC. No doubt there ARE plenty. I hope there aren't. I don't see how my discussing a paper that is already in the public domain on a website is going to change people's minds to agree with said paper. In the words of the great Flip Wilson (as Geraldine Jones): "the DEVIL made me do it!" Of course it doesn't. The whole concept of your devil's advocacy serving as the seed for a no-test movement is at best amusing. And at worst, possible. More likely you are making some people feel very uncomfortable. Certainly my questions make some people unconfortable. If you want to make people hate you, cause them to think.... 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". And it can be said that they were told to be quiet.... And that and 50 cents will get you a down payment on a cup of coffee. It will be much too late by that time. Might be already. The trend is in place - has been for a long time. I've been working up a response to the KL7CC paper. I'll be happy to publish said paper on the web. When I get it done I'll send it to KL7CC and post it here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: (One "L" in the name) Oops, Sorry Jim. But what about Jim Miccollis? He'd probably agree with me. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote One thing I'm not clear on, though. If an LP reached the end of the 10 years but couldn't pass the upgrade test, could they take the LP test and get another 10 years (as with driver's license LPs) or is it one-LP-to-a-customer, as the old Novice was? One to a customer. Understood. If you can't "get it" in 10 years, then you probably aren't going to be able to "get it" in 20 or 30 years. All depends what's going on in those 10 years. I know plenty of hams who were quite active until something significant happened in their lives like military service, a major illness in the family, marriage, divorce, children, relocation, new career, etc. Then, in accordance with "The Amateur Is Balanced", they put amateur radio on hold for anywhere from months to decades. Then, when their lives permitted, they came back in a big way. A few let their licenses lapse, but most kept renewing and modifying. You can put me in that catagory from about 1961 until 1990 or so. I always renewed the license, sometimes subscribed and/or bought CG or QST, but was not on the air at all. Case in point: Amateur licensed in high school, got a bachelor's degree, worked a year or two, then decided to become a doctor. For the next 7 years his life was med school/residency/fellowship. Not a lot of time in there for ham radio, but he had an HT and kept in touch. And now he's an M.D. and hamming in a big way. His 10 years as a ham hit somewhere towards the end of medical school. Under today's rules, he just renewed and kept on going. Under your proposal, he would have lost his license and had to go all the way to Extra in one go if he ever wanted to be a ham again. Is that really what's best for the ARS? BTW, drivers license permits are not renewable here, although you can retest for a new one. Same deal here, AFAIK. So why not the same deal for hams? Works for me. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know. No, they do not. NCI's mission in the USA is to get rid of Element 1, nothing else. If/when FCC dumps all code testing in the USA, NCI will cease to function in the USA. So I've heard. We shall see. Organizations have a way of morphing, and are notoriously resistant to organizational self dissolving. I think they mean it. As one of their directors, I certainly mean it...although the objective of NCI is not solely focused on USA morse testing alone. That mission is demonstrated by NCI's petition, which asks FCC to drop all code testing as a requirement, merge Tech and Tech Plus, and....nothing else. Just ask Carl or Bill. See Bill's comment above... :-). Len wants just one class of license. From what I can gather, I'm not so sure he wants any license, or at least the equivalent of that. In a recent post where I pointed out that Len wants amateur radio to essentially become a multiband high power version of cb, he denied wanting no license at all. Then he railed about multiple license classes. Logical conclusion (if one can ever apply logic to his posts here) is that he wants one class of license. Look up the post - couple days ago, aimed at me, something about needing multiple classes of license for egos or some tripe like that. "Testing for the Amateur Radio Service is...(snip) Who the heck wrote *that*?? Not me! Not Hans or Carl, either! Where's it from?? That is something that I came up with while I was typing out the reply. It has a number of qualities that would appeal to some people that are in power now: Put it away before the wrong person reads it and takes it seriously! It speaks to lowering or elimination of regulations. This is a very big thing with some people. It relates itself to the "The government that governs best governs least" worldview. Yep. It speaks to the continuance of a process that has been going on for a few years now where less constraints have been put on radio broadcasters. A disaster IMO, but to some a great thing. I'm talking about relaxation of broadcaster regs, leading to outfits like Clear channel owning all the radio stations in town. But as I say, there are plenty who would think that this would be good. Mike Powell is one of them. Spin city, IOW. It is ridiculous, but ridiculous can sell big sometimes. To some people it's not ridiculous. Look how many books Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have sold.... You think THAT wouldn't sell with some people in power? Another chance to diss the hated regulators. boo...hissss.... 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" They oughta try to use the Southgate Type 7.... Oh-Oh! A percon of average intelligence could indeed learn to operate my rig if they read the manual. NO test required! There ya go! No test to use a computer.... Perhaps I should have said "fight successfully" We'll sure try. And that leads us back to a question I posed a while back. Why didn't the peolpe who were officially agitating for the elimination of the Morse code test have some simultaneous proposals to fill the vacuum that would be created when the requirement went away?. It's called responsibillity. Because they didn't think it needed to be replaced with anything. And here we DO have some people with some ideas, who ARE making proposals. Who are they? A committee of NCVEC. No doubt there ARE plenty. I hope there aren't. I don't see how my discussing a paper that is already in the public domain on a website is going to change people's minds to agree with said paper. In the words of the great Flip Wilson (as Geraldine Jones): "the DEVIL made me do it!" Of course it doesn't. The whole concept of your devil's advocacy serving as the seed for a no-test movement is at best amusing. And at worst, possible. More likely you are making some people feel very uncomfortable. Certainly my questions make some people unconfortable. If you want to make people hate you, cause them to think.... 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". And it can be said that they were told to be quiet.... And that and 50 cents will get you a down payment on a cup of coffee. It will be much too late by that time. Might be already. The trend is in place - has been for a long time. I've been working up a response to the KL7CC paper. I'll be happy to publish said paper on the web. When I get it done I'll send it to KL7CC and post it here. 73 de Jim, N2EY How much longer 'till it is done? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote You mean the Novice wasn't a real license? If so, then those Novices weren't real hams? Leading question noted. And dismissed without response. You wrote of the Novice being a learner's permit to a "real license", Hans... But ya still haven't told us how to sell your idea to the FCC and the rest of the ARS. Since you've expressed nothing but disdain for the idea, you wouldn't sell it to the FCC even if I told you how, so the best advice I can give you is "hide and watch". I don't have "disdain" for the idea, Hans. I simply don't think FCC will enact it, for reasons previously listed. YMMV. So I'll watch and see what happens. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Doesn't matter whether I like it or not. Correct. I got my Extra 33 years ago Didn't know we were running a seniority contest here, but if we are you lose by 7 years. Were you in high school when you got yours? ;-) ...and there hasn't been a day since then that I couldn't pass the required tests to get another one if that were required. The point being? That it's no big deal to my license. Or your license. But it may be a big deal to prospective hams. I'd expect that's true of most licensees. The author of the paper which is the this thread's title says he couldn't. He almost sounds proud of the fact. I'm actually trying to help you refine it, Hans. It's already refined, thank you very much. You're welcome. Then I won't comment on it any more. The problem is how you're gonna sell the idea to FCC and the rest of the ARS. At least it's a problem in **your** mind, but you don't count. I don't count? Sounds a bit hostile and elitist to me. The FCC counts. So let's see what they do. And think about sending that proposal to FCC for an RM number. Who knows - it might gain widespread support and I'd be dead wrong about it. You are dead wrong about it, and it doesn't need "widespread support", just the support of FCC. I doubt FCC will enact such a radical change without widespread support in the amateur radio community. So far I haven't seen a single rrapper in favor of it. But FCC may be different. Note that if FCC did enact your LP idea, they'd have to maintain a permanent database of everyone who ever held an LP license, to make sure they didn't get another one. Extra admin work for FCC - to solve what problem? Good luck on selling your ideas to FCC 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know. No, they do not. NCI's mission in the USA is to get rid of Element 1, nothing else. If/when FCC dumps all code testing in the USA, NCI will cease to function in the USA. So I've heard. We shall see. Organizations have a way of morphing, and are notoriously resistant to organizational self dissolving. I think they mean it. Perhaps they do. Right now. But I've been involved in enough organizations to know that everything can change almost overnight. Organizational suicide is quite rare. That mission is demonstrated by NCI's petition, which asks FCC to drop all code testing as a requirement, merge Tech and Tech Plus, and....nothing else. Just ask Carl or Bill. Or W5YI? Len wants just one class of license. From what I can gather, I'm not so sure he wants any license, or at least the equivalent of that. In a recent post where I pointed out that Len wants amateur radio to essentially become a multiband high power version of cb, he denied wanting no license at all. Then he railed about multiple license classes. Logical conclusion (if one can ever apply logic to his posts here) is that he wants one class of license. Look up the post - couple days ago, aimed at me, something about needing multiple classes of license for egos or some tripe like that. Who knows? "Testing for the Amateur Radio Service is...(snip) Who the heck wrote *that*?? Not me! Not Hans or Carl, either! Where's it from?? That is something that I came up with while I was typing out the reply. It has a number of qualities that would appeal to some people that are in power now: Put it away before the wrong person reads it and takes it seriously! Just like my thoughts on your devil's advocacy toward testing using the arguments used to get rid of the Morse CW requirement, this idea couldn't stay covered up. I find it chilling because it would be compelling to some. It speaks to lowering or elimination of regulations. This is a very big thing with some people. It relates itself to the "The government that governs best governs least" worldview. Yep. It speaks to the continuance of a process that has been going on for a few years now where less constraints have been put on radio broadcasters. A disaster IMO, but to some a great thing. I'm talking about relaxation of broadcaster regs, leading to outfits like Clear channel owning all the radio stations in town. But as I say, there are plenty who would think that this would be good. Mike Powell is one of them. Bingo! Sounding ominous, eh? Spin city, IOW. It is ridiculous, but ridiculous can sell big sometimes. To some people it's not ridiculous. Look how many books Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have sold.... Bingo again! You think THAT wouldn't sell with some people in power? Another chance to diss the hated regulators. boo...hissss.... Aint that the truff? Truly scary stuff! - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
Good luck on selling your ideas to FCC Luck will have nothing to do with it. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes: N2EY wrote: Good luck on selling your ideas to FCC Luck will have nothing to do with it. I am reminded of the Mae West line... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com