"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
news

"easiest mode to implement" is not quite the same as "easiest, simplest
mode, with the easiest to build equipment"

Here's the difference:

"easiest mode to implement" means open the box, plug in the radio,
connect
antenna, and push the mike button.

That's what 95% of new hams today are doing already.

"easiest, simplest mode, with the easiest equipment to build" means
simpler
circuitry requirements, only an on/off "switch" to key the circuitry
rather
than the more complex microphone unit, and so on.

Like any CB radio is currently constructed.
All we have to do now is "channelize" the HF bands.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a need
for more "lebensraum."

OK, I'll bite ... what the hell is "lebensraum" ???

Carl - wk3c

The German word for "living room" -- used by Hitler in Mein Kampf to
justify his plan for the conquest of Russia, as I explained in greater
detail in a previous posting.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:


Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Having given this document due consideration, I can't say that it changes my
mind about anything code testing. I find this one passage particularly
interesting:

"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. Several countries no longer have exclusive segments, but depend
instead on voluntary band plans. In fact, our 160-meter band works this way
today, with surprisingly few problems"

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this.

Nor I!

What I find interesting, too, is that the CW/data parts of the bands are always
referred to as "exclusive CW" with no mention that all of them on HF are also
shared by data modes. In fact, there is very little mention of data modes at
all.

The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station, and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a need
for more "lebensraum."

Getting awful close to Godwin's Law there, Larry!

Again quoting:

" Are you proud that you "made it"?

Yes, I am. Is there something wrong with pride of achievement? Should I be
ashamed?

Can you not find something that another
person can do that you would find extremely difficult if not impossible?
Could you win the Tour de France bicycle race - even if you trained every day
for the rest of your life? Could you invent the Laser? Could you paint the
Mona Lisa? Not that painting a work of art or riding a bicycle has all that
much to do with radio, it's just to point out that while you may have been
able
to master the code with some degree of success, that doesn't necessarily mean
that everyone has the same ability as you.

Note that passing the 5 wpm code test is being compared to world-class
achievements in the worlds of art, sport, and science. That's just not a valid
comparison at all. 5 wpm is more like riding a bike at 5 mph for a mile on a
level road, painting a recognizable human face or assembling a flashlight.

More quotes

So, who's to say that mastering Morse code skills makes a better ham? I
would
not be so arrogant as to think such a thing.

It's equally "arrogant" to support either side. Which is to say, not arrogant
at all.


Final quote:

"CW is a great mode. It's fun. I enjoy it. And, it's time to move on.

What exactly does "time to move on" mean here?

We
no longer require applicants to draw schematic diagrams, demonstrate how to
neutralize a triode vacuum tube amplifier, lots of other things. Lets be
gentlemen and give CW a decent, respectful, wave. Remembering our old
friend,
but looking forward, not backward."

It sounds more and more like he wants the mode, not just the test, to go away.


Wiley has stated that it is incumbent on those of us who know and use the
Morse/CW mode to encourage newcomers to learn it and love it as much as we
do.
Therefore, as a licensing requirement, it only deserves a "respectful wave"
in
the future. Well, unfortunately, in this age of advanced technology where
our
own equipment is no longer within the technical capabilities of average radio
amateurs to build and/or service,

WHOA! I disagree!

He says the same thing ('most of us took the practical approach and bought a
manufactured rig') and it's simply not true.


He goes on for pages
about
his new entry-level license class, which, IMHO, is unnecessary. The present
Technician syllabus is proven to be achievable by people from all walks of
life.

Heck, the General has been achieved by a six-year-old and the Extra - the old
prerestructuring 5 written tests Extra - by an eight-year-old.

If there are any serious RF or electrical safety issues to be
addressed,
I would submit that perhaps we need to add some emphasis there, rather than
further reducing licensing standards simply for the nebulous purpose of
allowing more and younger hams to "get their feet wet"
as it were.

The biggest problems I have with the entry-level proposal are the removal of
"radio law" questions from its test and the free upgrades for Techs and
Advanceds.

The code test stuff is predictable and, IMHO, not the most important thing in
the paper at all. What's far more important is the "what happens after the code
test goes" stuff, which contains some very good ideas and some very bad ideas.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

What exactly does "time to move on" mean here?

"Time to move on:"
A phrase used by Democrats as a means to change or stop a debate,
when the illogic, stupidity or immorality
of their positions are exposed.

In article , David Stinson
writes:

N2EY wrote:

What exactly does "time to move on" mean here?

"Time to move on:"

A phrase used by Democrats as a means to change or stop a debate,
when the illogic, stupidity or immorality
of their positions are exposed.

Not just Democrats.....;-)
73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks for the URL, Jim

It is an interesting proposition. I've stated before that I can't justify
the *need* for CW, but I'll admit in my years of operating I never (and some
may have) experienced the jamming, swearing, or whatever on CW. Perhaps the
mode is too difficult for those of limited mentality who like to swear; more
likely they don't have the instant gratification of other folks yelling back
at them over a microphone.

One thing seems to stand out to me. If we are to attract and *keep* them,
we will likely have to allow some HF access, preferably on bands that will
have some dx capability. Although cw was the only mode on hf when I had my
novice ticket (1962/63), it was fun to communicate with states half a
continent away on a regular basis - if not other counties entirely. If it
is only VHF and above, we may experience a quick increase for folks wanting
to use the service as MURS or CB (but only for their family). If this
service was limited to those still in school, it might serve an excellent
purpose. As you may remember, the old novice license (back when it was
originally created) was *not* renewable and was good for only one year.
Perhaps the license could be extended until the individual reached the age
of 18.

As far as power limits go, they changed the limits years ago for the novice
from 75 watts input to 100 watts output (I think ... hmmm ...??). The
reality is that most commercially available equipment runs 100 watts out.
There are a few exceptions of 150 and 200 watts and, of course, there are
some qrp rigs and a few that will do 20 watts or so. Reality forces me to
question a limit that will likely be exceeded anyways and teach the
individual that rules are to be broken

Amateur radio does indeed compete with the internet and, upon thinking it
over, we will likely want hf access (likely including phone privileges) if
we wish to really "infect" new folks with the radio bug.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/03

N2EY wrote:

Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Jim is it considered good form to quote extracts from this doc in the
newsgroup?


I've read it, and frankly I find it quite "interesting". But I'd love to
quote parts of it with my responses


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:


Jim is it considered good form to quote extracts from this doc in the
newsgroup?

Never mind, I've seen plenty of qoutes from the doc..... 8^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Jim is it considered good form to quote extracts from this doc in the
newsgroup?

If the quotes are accurate, and properly referenced so that anyone interested
can look them up, I don't see why not.

The whole paper is on a public website and deals with a public policy issue.

I've read it, and frankly I find it quite "interesting". But I'd love to
quote parts of it with my responses

I'm working on a comprehensive response to send to the authors.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

Jim,

Your statement is very misleading. Here is a direct quote from the
document: "...it must be made clear that this document does not in any
way reflect official NCVEC policy, and has not been approved by their
leadership".

In point of fact, it doesn't really matter because the NCVEC is only a
handful of people without any mandate as regards the future of our
service. Some of them (W5YI comes to mind) tend to adopt "official
titles" and use them as a bully pulpit from which to attempt to
advance their personal agendas, but their influence with the
regulators is no more or no less than anyone else.

73, de Hans, K0HB