Amateur Radio in the 21st Century?
 

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,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

"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

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

It worked just fine for me, Carl -- and I'm a technically-incompetent,
computer-illiterate Pro-Coder! (I guess I'd better throw this in: 8-) )

73 de Larry, K3LT

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. 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."

Another quote:

"Will we lose something because we will no longer have the knowledge that all
hams can at least understand and send CW, even if very slowly? Maybe, maybe
not. You would be surprised at the number of applicants I see that actually
want to learn CW - they think it will be fun. There's a novel concept -
someone learning a skill because it is fun, not because the government says you
must do it."

If this is so, where is the objection *from those hams who _want to learn CW_*
to being code tested? I've seen the vast majority of new hams who have taken
the time and effort to learn the Morse code approach the code tests with
eager enthusiasm, and a great sense of satisfaction once they succeeded.

Again quoting:

"Obviously, removing the Morse test requirement will make it easier for
thousands of interested persons to join our hobby. There are many, who for
whatever reason have a real, not imagined, problem with learning the code.
Call it stage fright, a psychological block, hearing problems, poor recognition
skills, whatever you want; there are indeed those who literally cannot master
the code, no matter how hard they try. Lazy, you say? Anyone can make it to
5 WPM, you say? They just don't try, you say? Apparently you have not
participated at hundreds of exam sessions. I have. I have seen grown men and
women with tears in their eyes, frustrated, angry, sometimes back next time,
sometimes giving up on ham radio altogether. Where's the gain in having
someone give up?"

I have some personal experience here. I've had all the above mentioned
"problems"
with learning the code, and have made all the same excuses. However, I now
know
what my problem was -- I didn't *want* to be a radio amateur bad enough to
overcome these so-called problems. It was only after I took a much different
personal approach, involving a more mature attitude toward the requirement and
making the personal determination that there must be some good reason for it,
that I was able to finally succeed. In so doing, I had a much larger world of
amateur radio opened for me. Moreover, having succeeded in learning the code, I
subsequently found myself using it -- a lot -- and enjoying it immensely even
though I never thought I could.

Again quoting:

" Are you proud that you "made it"? 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. I would argue that the ability to
master the code has no apparent connection with how "good" a ham a person is.
What we want, I think you will agree, is someone who will respect our
traditions, follow the rules, bring enthusiasm and vigor to the hobby, and make
a positive contribution.

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. Every time I get to feeling
superior, I look around, and guess what? - - - I can find someone who is
better at something, anything, than me. I can also name several individuals
that I think are in one way or another "better hams" than I, better operators,
better engineers, better at some aspect of our hobby than me. Might that be
true with you too?"

I can honestly say that overcoming my objections to learning the code did, in
fact, make me a better ham, for the simple reason that it made that mode
available to me *as* a ham. Were it not for the requirement to take the code
tests, I would never have gained that capability, and it is my belief that new
radio amateurs in a "no code test" licensing environment will simply bypass
this mode entirely. I'm not saying that some tiny minority of them won't try
it and even gain useful proficiency at it on their own initiative or with the
encouragement of dedicated Elmers, but I don't think it very likely that it
will happen in anywhere near the same kind of numbers as it had under the
previous set of licensing standards. I fear that there will, in fact, be a
progressive loss of the total numbers of hams who know and use the Morse/CW
mode, eventually zeroing out. This is too great a loss to our service, for I
believe that the many well-known benefits and advantages of the Morse/CW mode
will be just as relevant to amateur radio in the 21st Century as it was in the
twentieth.

Final quote:

"CW is a great mode. It's fun. I enjoy it. And, it's time to move on. 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. Morse code will live forever. As long as
someone cares about the history and mystery of early radio, and lots of hams
do, CW will be around. Like anything else, when a person finds he or she has
a need to use Morse code, they will learn it. Want to work DX, or QRP, or weak
signal VHF, or Moon-bounce? Better learn the code, or you won't have a very
satisfying experience."

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, we can pretty much say the same about all the
technical written examination requirements as well. 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. 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.

I think the primary challenge ham radio faces, now and in the future, is it's
relative lack of publicity. It is safe to say that the majority of people
these these days simply cannot relate to amateur radio, mainly because very few
of us simply don't relate to the concept of "radio" in the first place. We
turn things on and they work. Our electronic devices, RF-based or not, are
totally taken for granted. I believe that what we need to do to incite
interest and curiosity in radio communication is to keep doing things "the old
way" as far as learning and licensing are concerned, but to bolster that with
some good public information about Amateur Radio as a concept in it's most
basic terms. This is usually done in terms of it's public service potential,
and that's fine and dandy, but we also need to emphasize the elements of
learning, exploration, and just plain fun. Fortunately, young people are still
quite receptive to such things, and, ironically, usually embrace the challenge
of learning the Morse code much more willingly than those of us who simply want
to flex our consumer muscles and make our voices heard in far-away places after
throwing a pile of money at the necessary technology. However, this will only
doom us to creating an ARS filled with more and more of the kinds of jaded,
technically uninvolved "hams" that could become problems on-the-air. If the
equipment manufacturers were producing very low cost (I mean a couple of
hundred bucks, maximum) low-power basic transceivers, preferably in kit form,
which would be challenging enough to put together but still virtualy guaranteed
to work well, they'd sell like hotcakes to exactly the audience we wish to
address -- young people. In addition, putting them on the air, on the HF bands
and primarily in the CW and data modes, would create a demand for things like
fewer antenna restrictions in housing developments and, ultimately, more
capable (and expensive) equipment for when skills and technical knowledge
advanced to that stage. However, we won't get there if everyone keeps saying
"Ham Radio -- what's THAT???"

I am convinced that ensuring the future of the ARS has nothing to do with
licensing standards, including code testing. It has everything to do with our
public image -- or almost total lack thereof. The NCVEC petition doesn't
address this issue at all. Like everything involving Fred Maia, W5YI, it's all
about the code and getting rid of code testing. I don't think he will find his
answers to the nature of Amateur Radio in the 21st Century by looking there.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Nope ... can't get to that one either ... nor to www.qsl.net

Carl - wk3c

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c



Try this one http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/21stCentury.html

Dick




"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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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. 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,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)

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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

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. 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,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)

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


"living room"

It was one of the phrases used by Germany to justify it's expansion. Since
it's been a few years since I studies history, I don't recall if it was WWI
or WWII.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

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. 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,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)


"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.

"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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

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.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message


Hitler's justification for invading Poland, Czechoslovokia, etc. Had
to have room for all those advanced Ayrans to spread out and thrive.

I think in this case Larry is referring to all the techno-microphone
jocks.

Dick


Actually the term originated a century before Adolf did his thing. It goes
as far back as the mid 19th century. When the Kaiser used it against the
other European countries. Again in WW1 and later picked up by da fuerer.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

I re-downloaded the file and forwarded it. Anybody else have trouble? Let me
know and I'll email it to you. It did take a bit to get it downloaded.

Maybe that Emmaus BPL test site is the culprit, Carl ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

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 -

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
[snip

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.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST ... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?

[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]

Carl -wk3c

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"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 , 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

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
[snip

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.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???

Where are any facts distorted, Carl?

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST

Which means that Dick could not have been talking about you, Bill or NCI when
he wrote of a "code-banner's rulebook" - whatever the heck that was supposed to
mean.

... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.

Exactly!

This thread is meant to be about that NCVEC paper - particularly the parts that
do *not* involve the code test. Dumping the code test is a completley different
thing from widening the 'phone/image subbands.

If the 'Novice' subbands are to be 'refarmed', I say they should be reused
primarily for digital modes, unencumbered by most of the occupied bandwidth and
bit/symbol rate limitations of today's rules. Maybe have a flat rule that the
mode has to have occupied bandwidth under, say, 10 kHz. Proper documentation as
already required by FCC rules, of course. Wanna try out some digital voice
ideas, high speed data, "PSK-3100", Pactor 3, or whatever? Just fit 'em into 10
kHz and have fun.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?

Which facts? Dick didn't accuse you or NCI of anything in that post from what I
can see.

The fact remains that the NCVEC paper contains some inaccuracies like the
reference to "exclusive CW subbands". Another inaccuracy is the claim that the
General and Tech used the same written test up until the Tech lost its code
test
(the writtens were actually split almost 4 years earlier).

[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]

Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't talking about you, Carl.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

[snip

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.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???


Where are any facts distorted, Carl?

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST


Which means that Dick could not have been talking about you, Bill or NCI when
he wrote of a "code-banner's rulebook" - whatever the heck that was supposed to
mean.


... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.


Exactly!

This thread is meant to be about that NCVEC paper - particularly the parts that
do *not* involve the code test. Dumping the code test is a completley different
thing from widening the 'phone/image subbands.

The NCVEC 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 NCVEC)
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.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas. 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.

I guess the NCVEC doesn't really want me to be a ham.

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.

That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


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 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 NVCVEC)
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?


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!

And to make sure that they insult other hams who don't do things like
they think hams should do things:

Oh, pardon me – you always build everything from scratch? Great!
Who, exactly, are you going to talk to? Most of the rest of us opt
for the practical approach, and purchase a rig from one of the several
companies that cater to hams. If there are no manufacturers, then
there are no new rigs. Hard to carry on a QSO if no one is there.

What this has to do with the matter at hand is beyond me, except that I
think that they dont like homebrewers very much.

I'm very impressed that Morse code testing, by extrapolation, is going
to destroy the manufacturers. Talk about your conspiracies!!

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?

My final analysis of this piece is that the authors take a very
condescending and superior tone towards those they disagree with, take a
few gratuitous potshots at some other "outcasts" thay don't like, and
finally, support a radical simplification of the qualifications needed
to get on the air at HF frequencies.

and... and....

(last quote from the article):

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.

LIB! there is is! the door is creaking open! here comes the foot.


Back to you Jim

If the 'Novice' subbands are to be 'refarmed', I say they should be reused
primarily for digital modes, unencumbered by most of the occupied bandwidth and
bit/symbol rate limitations of today's rules. Maybe have a flat rule that the
mode has to have occupied bandwidth under, say, 10 kHz. Proper documentation as
already required by FCC rules, of course. Wanna try out some digital voice
ideas, high speed data, "PSK-3100", Pactor 3, or whatever? Just fit 'em into 10
kHz and have fun.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?


Which facts? Dick didn't accuse you or NCI of anything in that post from what I
can see.

The fact remains that the NCVEC paper contains some inaccuracies like the
reference to "exclusive CW subbands". Another inaccuracy is the claim that the
General and Tech used the same written test up until the Tech lost its code
test
(the writtens were actually split almost 4 years earlier).


[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]


Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't talking about you, Carl.

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)

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. The wheels are
already in motion.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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 , "Dee D. Flint"
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


"living room"

It was one of the phrases used by Germany to justify it's expansion. Since
it's been a few years since I studies history, I don't recall if it was WWI
or WWII.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

It was WWII, or, more accurately, pre-WWII but post WWI. Hitler used
the term "lebensraum" as his justification for the conquest of Russia in
his book, Mein Kampf. He lusted after Russia's vast expanses of land
area in order to provide "lebensraum," or "living room" (space) for what
he thought should be the rightful expansion of the German nation. His
pursuit of "lebensraum" was one of his more severe acts of hubris during
WWII, which ultimately resulted in his defeat by wasting his military
resources on the second (Russian) front. Had he been willing to settle
for the conquest and control of the whole of Western and Central Europe,
he may have had the forces in place to resist the Allied invasion, and
thus given Germany the time to develop it's own atomic weapons. This,
of course, would have quite a dilemma for the Allies, since Hitler,
madman he was, would have then most likely employed his nuclear
arsenal -- most likely on Russia, England, and possibly the U.S. We,
of course, would have had to nuke him first to prevent that from
happening. Therefore, in a way, Hitler did the rest of the world a favor
in his futile attempt to conquer Russia conventionally. A military
genius he was not. If the Austrian Corporal had been a real General
instead, a lot of us may not be here today.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(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".

Thank you for pointing that out, Hans. I apologize for the inaccuracy. I shall
refer to the paper as "the KL7CC paper" from now on, and I urge others to do
the same.

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.

The paper claims to have three authors. Have you read it?

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.

Somehow I will not be surprised if the NCVEC adopts something very similar to
the ideas and attitudes in the KL7CC paper as its official position. They have
already done so wrt code testing.

Thanks for the pointer

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Had he been willing to settle
for the conquest and control of the whole of Western and Central Europe,
he may have had the forces in place to resist the Allied invasion, and
thus given Germany the time to develop it's own atomic weapons. This,
of course, would have quite a dilemma for the Allies, since Hitler,
madman he was, would have then most likely employed his nuclear
arsenal -- most likely on Russia, England, and possibly the U.S. We,
of course, would have had to nuke him first to prevent that from
happening. Therefore, in a way, Hitler did the rest of the world a favor
in his futile attempt to conquer Russia conventionally. A military
genius he was not. If the Austrian Corporal had been a real General
instead, a lot of us may not be here today.

Nice theory but some would dispute it thusly:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically prepared.
Had the invaders gone straight for their enemy's capital (Moscow), and been
properly prepared for the winter, the result might well have been very
different.

The German atomic program would not have come up with a workable atomic weapon
for many years (but the Allies did not know that). Look at what it took for the
Manhattan project to make three weapons!. And Germany did not have a delivery
system.

Germany also messed up bigtime by not giving U-boat production and development
top priority and support. Large amounts of their limited naval resources were
wasted on superbattleships like Bismarck and Tirpitz - had they built improved
U-boats with those resources, again the result might well have been very
different.

Then there's the Enigma story...

A good thing they weren't smarter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote


The paper claims to have three authors. Have you read it?


The paper claims to have FOUR authors. Yes, I have read it,
apparently more carefully than you have.

At the very end, only three people are named - the principal author, "with
assistance from" two others. That's three, last time I checked.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

At the very end, only three people are named - the
principal author, "with assistance from" two others.
That's three, last time I checked.

Yep, it most soy-tainly am!

HAW!!

And at the beginning of the paper he names himself, W5YI, W3BE, and
W4WW. That's four, last time I checked.

Of course!

But if you read that paragraph carefully, (the one where he names the "Gang of
Four", which is his phrase, not mine), you'll see that the Four named above are
the NCVEC Rules Committee, not necessarily the authors of the paper.

I say it's three, based on the signature.

To-may-to, to-mah-to, what matters is the content. Some very good ideas and
some very bad ideas.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Maybe he's trying to confuse us.

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

At the very end, only three people are named - the
principal author, "with assistance from" two others.
That's three, last time I checked.

Yep, it most soy-tainly am!

And at the beginning of the paper he names himself, W5YI, W3BE, and
W4WW. That's four, last time I checked.

Maybe he's trying to confuse us.

Both of you seem highly confused at the moment.

Hokay, Hans Bigguy, have you figured out yet how to intelligibly
voice-modulate a spark transmitter?

Huh, huh?

Come on, show us technically how Reg Fessenden did it, sparking
up a song one Christmas night in 1906.

Rotsa ruck on dis wun naow...

In article ,
(Chuck von Klauswitz Jr) writes:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Had he been willing to settle
for the conquest and control of the whole of Western and Central Europe,
he may have had the forces in place to resist the Allied invasion, and
thus given Germany the time to develop it's own atomic weapons. This,
of course, would have quite a dilemma for the Allies, since Hitler,
madman he was, would have then most likely employed his nuclear
arsenal -- most likely on Russia, England, and possibly the U.S. We,
of course, would have had to nuke him first to prevent that from
happening. Therefore, in a way, Hitler did the rest of the world a favor
in his futile attempt to conquer Russia conventionally. A military
genius he was not. If the Austrian Corporal had been a real General
instead, a lot of us may not be here today.

Nice theory but some would dispute it thusly:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically prepared.
Had the invaders gone straight for their enemy's capital (Moscow), and been
properly prepared for the winter, the result might well have been very
different.

Go for it all about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY big guys.

Was that how it was for you at the Point, Capt Jimmie?

The German atomic program would not have come up with a workable atomic
weapon
for many years (but the Allies did not know that). Look at what it took for
the
Manhattan project to make three weapons!. And Germany did not have a delivery
system.

Gernany had no delivery system? Gosh, they should have copied
the NATIONAL TRAFFIC SYSTEM from ARRL!

Could have morse-coded all those lil neutrons quick as a flash...

Germany also messed up bigtime by not giving U-boat production and
development
top priority and support. Large amounts of their limited naval resources were
wasted on superbattleships like Bismarck and Tirpitz - had they built
improved
U-boats with those resources, again the result might well have been very
different.

Then there's the Enigma story...

Gosh, you bigguys ought to switch chat room subjects to medicine.

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

A good thing they weren't smarter.

Good thing you morsemen have a cozy lil chat room to talk all
about AMATEUR RADIO SUBJECTS, isn't it?

So, Capt. Jimmie, what outfit were you assigned to?

N2EY wrote:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically prepared.

I don't know... making "boogie men" out of the most intellectually
gifted, innovating and striving part of his population, then
spending huge amounts of money and resources to exterminate them-
that sounds like a pretty stupid move to me.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

[snip

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.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???

Where are any facts distorted, Carl?

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST


Which means that Dick could not have been talking about you, Bill or NCI
when
he wrote of a "code-banner's rulebook" - whatever the heck that was
supposed to
mean.


... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.


Exactly!

Note: The paper ("Amateur Radio in the 21st Century") in question is not
official NCVEC policy at this time, so in this post I will change all
references to "the KL7CC paper" since he is the principle author.

This thread is meant to be about that

KL7CC

paper - particularly the parts
that
do *not* involve the code test. Dumping the code test is a completley
different
thing from widening the 'phone/image subbands.

The

KL7CC

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.

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.....

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!

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?

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".

At first I thought it was a joke - after all, the licensee still did all the
work of filling out the form and mailing it. If there was something wrong, FCC
would kick it right back - but the procedure for a simple renewal is so basic
that anyone who couldn't figure it out from the instructions on the form
probably shouldn't have the license anyway.

But I did some asking around and found it was real!
I wonder how many hams thought it was some sort of official letter and ponied
up the $5.

Instead, I filled out the form and sent it to FCC. And I swore W5YI would never
get a nickel from me.

And to make sure that they insult other hams who don't do things like
they think hams should do things:

Oh, pardon me – you always build everything from scratch? Great!
Who, exactly, are you going to talk to? Most of the rest of us opt
for the practical approach, and purchase a rig from one of the several
companies that cater to hams. If there are no manufacturers, then
there are no new rigs. Hard to carry on a QSO if no one is there.

What this has to do with the matter at hand is beyond me, except that I
think that they dont like homebrewers very much.

Ahem.

I'm very impressed that Morse code testing, by extrapolation, is going
to destroy the manufacturers. Talk about your conspiracies!!

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?

My final analysis of this piece is that the authors take a very
condescending and superior tone towards those they disagree with, take a
few gratuitous potshots at some other "outcasts" thay don't like, and
finally, support a radical simplification of the qualifications needed
to get on the air at HF frequencies.

and... and....

(last quote from the article):

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.

Ya gotta wonder how much time these dudes spend on 160.

LIB! there is is! the door is creaking open! here comes the foot.

Back to you Jim

It's the old incrementalism game. A little bit here, a little bit there.

If the 'Novice' subbands are to be 'refarmed', I say they should be reused
primarily for digital modes, unencumbered by most of the occupied bandwidth
and
bit/symbol rate limitations of today's rules. Maybe have a flat rule that
the
mode has to have occupied bandwidth under, say, 10 kHz. Proper
documentation as
already required by FCC rules, of course. Wanna try out some digital voice
ideas, high speed data, "PSK-3100", Pactor 3, or whatever? Just fit 'em
into 10
kHz and have fun.

Better yet, leave 'em alone.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?

Which facts? Dick didn't accuse you or NCI of anything in that post from
what I can see.

The fact remains that the

(KL7CC)

paper contains some inaccuracies like the
reference to "exclusive CW subbands". Another inaccuracy is the claim that
the
General and Tech used the same written test up until the Tech lost its code
test
(the writtens were actually split almost 4 years earlier).


[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]


Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't talking about you, Carl.

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.

The wheels are already in motion.

They've been in motion for years and years. I put the change back about 1975.
No single change has been very big but the end result is enormous.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , David Stinson
writes:

N2EY wrote:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the
twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically
prepared.

I don't know... making "boogie men" out of the most intellectually
gifted, innovating and striving part of his population, then
spending huge amounts of money and resources to exterminate them-
that sounds like a pretty stupid move to me.

Right you are, sir! No argument from me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Chuck von Klauswitz Jr) writes:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Then there's the Enigma story...

Gosh, you bigguys ought to switch chat room subjects to medicine.

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 Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Chuck von Klauswitz Jr) writes:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Then there's the Enigma story...

Gosh, you bigguys ought to switch chat room subjects to medicine.

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

Why not give yourself an enigma, Len?

No, no Dave. It's an enema, not an enigma. He needs to give himself an enema.


Dave K8MN

w3rv

Brian Kelly wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Chuck von Klauswitz Jr) writes:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Then there's the Enigma story...

Gosh, you bigguys ought to switch chat room subjects to medicine.

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

Why not give yourself an enigma, Len?

No, no Dave. It's an enema, not an enigma. He needs to give himself an enema.

Darn! I always get those two words mixed up. I suppose I've misquoted
Churchill concerning Russia being wrapped in one of them.

Dave K8MN