"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Leo wrote:
A different approach:

Abstract: Much of the current operating practice and licence
requirements for amateur radio appear to be the way that they are
because of the evolution that has taken place over many years since it
was first established. Politics and tradition seem to have had immense
influence over the current state of affairs - with technological
developments coming in a poor third at best. Artifacts of the past
remain 'on the books' for no other reason than things have always been
that way.

Perhaps the most critical way to look at the current code / no code /
easier tests / harder tests deadlock is to ask the question: If the
Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and was being proposed as a new
service in 2003, what would it look like?

Assuming that the same ham bands that we really do have today have
been set aside for the new service:

- What is the overall mandate for the service? (pure hobby, civilian
radio expertise development, emergency services augmentation,
experimentation, etc.)
- What modes would be allowed? (e.g. DSB AM, FM, SSB, CW, Digital
data, Digital audio, etc.)
- Would any modes be restricted or banned? Why?
- What licence classes would be created? Why?
- What privileges would each licence class be granted? Why?
- What theoretical and operating knowledge would be tested? Why?
- What modes would be practically tested? Why?

In each case above, the question 'Why?' pertains to the overall goal
that is being aimed at. If 3 licence classes are proposed, for
example, then what are the specific objectives? (example: higher level
licence can establish and sponsor a club repeater, or build and repair
their own transmitting equipment, etc. - tasks requiring a higher
level of technical and operating knowledge than a lower level
operator).

Vanity, personal preference, tradition and history should not enter in
to the equation - just technical requirements. Think analytically -
its a service being created to fulfil a mandate, the framework is
structured simply to meet that goal. Nothing more. What was
acceptable technical practice in 1910, or 1950, or 1999 is immaterial
for the purpose of this analysis - the benchmark is today, 2003. For
example - if the service was created this year, would we test CW
proficiency? And for what purpose? How about SSTV, or Amtor?

Maybe, by building a model of the service from the ground up using
2003 as a starting point, a picture of what the current service should
become may emerge?

And, in the spirit of Mike's earlier thread, let's try and keep the
mud slinging and name calling out of the equation - please!

73, Leo



It won't work, Leo. You can't summarily dismiss over a hundred years
of evolution to blithely "construct" a totally new and ostensibly
improved ARS with the wave of a magic wand. Ham radio has been around
for entirely as long as ANY radio had been here, and even the venerable
Marconi himself often stated that he considered himself to be a ham, and
certainly he was, as was every other individual who experimented on the
with the amazing new science of radio in those times.

A newly-constructed ham radio, built entirely from the ground up with
no regard to what has gone before, would look far more like MURS, FRS or
some legimatized version of CB than anything else, with whatever bit of
advanced digital involvement you could find anyone willing to assume.
For the most part it has become clear that most of tne "new age"
advocates would give a pretty small nod to any other than voice modes
that are the main interest of almost everyone who wishes to take that
route. When you know nothing about (or ignore) what's already
there, spread throughout the human race around the planet, how would you
construct anything that took advantage of what is already present and in
wide use, both hardware and operator knowledge/skill? What a collosal
waste!

So that puts your proposal in the same inbasket with KL7CC's "vision"-
Nothing from the past means anything and don't let's waste our time
pretending it does. At least that conclusion can easily be drawn from
his paper. To follow such a course is to abandon 100 years of MUCH more
than just tradition.

I'd like to see anyone tell the US Marines they had to disregard
their entire history and start all over again from scratch. Something
on the same order applies here. History is something that can't be
cast aside just because someone has their own vision and
prefers to ignore it.

Dick


Correct Dick. Just because its new, does not make it better. And I'm not
saying go backwards. Im saying to consider the past progress and learn from
it. Keep history in mind. If our politicians would do that....well, thats
too off topic. But you get my drift.

Dan/W4NTI