"Leo" wrote

Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

OK, if we can "make believe" that FCC would find it in their heart to set
aside all the valuable spectrum we occupy today "from scratch", then here is
my suggestion for the "New Amateur Radio Rules":

97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass
a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple
equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah,
blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you
pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when
on the air.

97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna.

97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate
and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and
launch communications satellites into space and any other cool
technical "radio stuff" you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair.
Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine
behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and
permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun.

Love always,
/signed/ FCC

"KØHB" wrote in
hlink.net:


"Leo" wrote

Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

OK, if we can "make believe" that FCC would find it in their heart to
set aside all the valuable spectrum we occupy today "from scratch",
then here is my suggestion for the "New Amateur Radio Rules":

97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass
a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple
equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah,
blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you
pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when
on the air.

97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna.

97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate
and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and
launch communications satellites into space and any other cool
technical "radio stuff" you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair.
Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine
behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and
permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun.

Love always,
/signed/ FCC




Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate
schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with
it. I'll support it.

73 de N3KIP

BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes, don't
you? It's always been that way, too.

On 24 Oct 2003 00:53:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate
schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with
it. I'll support it.

Sounds to me like the "comic book rules" (disguised as "plain
language rules") that the scholars and wonders at the then-new
Consumer Affairs Task Force of the FCC tried to institute in 1976
after their spectacular victory in rewriting Part 95 Subpart D (the
CB Rules) in the same "lowest common denominator" (also known as
"Illiteracy for Dummies") style. They tried running it up the
flagpole and it was resoundingly shot down by both the professional
regulators and the knowledgeable amateur community.

The head of that operation - who up to that time had no idea of what
and how the FCC was supposed to do for a living, much like the
recent crop of appointees and promotees - then tried coming out to
our field office and telling us how we were doing everything all
wrong. In return, we requested that our Bureau Chief do all he
could to ensure that those fools stayed out of our face and off our
property in the future. The person running that operation got the
same message from wherever she visited, and soon left the agency.

"Those who will not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it...."

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 24 Oct 2003 00:53:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate
schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with
it. I'll support it.

Sounds to me like the "comic book rules" (disguised as "plain
language rules") that the scholars and wonders at the then-new
Consumer Affairs Task Force of the FCC tried to institute in 1976
after their spectacular victory in rewriting Part 95 Subpart D (the
CB Rules) in the same "lowest common denominator" (also known as
"Illiteracy for Dummies") style. They tried running it up the
flagpole and it was resoundingly shot down by both the professional
regulators and the knowledgeable amateur community.

The head of that operation - who up to that time had no idea of what
and how the FCC was supposed to do for a living, much like the
recent crop of appointees and promotees - then tried coming out to
our field office and telling us how we were doing everything all
wrong. In return, we requested that our Bureau Chief do all he
could to ensure that those fools stayed out of our face and off our
property in the future. The person running that operation got the
same message from wherever she visited, and soon left the agency.

"Those who will not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it...."

Subpart D of 95 was rewritten to its present form way back in '76?

Gosh, that's 27 years ago!

Nobody tried to change it back to lawyerspeak since then?

:-)

LHA

Alun Palmer wrote

BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes

ITU doesn't "require", they only "recommend".

73, Hans, K0HB

(Hans K0HB) wrote in message . com...
Alun Palmer wrote

BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes

ITU doesn't "require", they only "recommend".

73, Hans, K0HB

Did they only "recommend" a "knowledge of morse code?"

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...

: BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes, don't
: you? It's always been that way, too.

If you're speaking of the ITU (nee CCITT) headquartered over here in Geneva,
their regulations reads:

S25.9 2) During the course of their transmissions, amateur stations shall
transmit their call sign at short intervals.

In your imaginations perhaps that short interval is 15 minutes. In your YL
imagination it perhaps that short interval is several weeks.

73, Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte

"All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be
construed."

Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby. Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters. Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested. To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been". To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech, even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

73, Leo

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:03:48 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote

Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

OK, if we can "make believe" that FCC would find it in their heart to set
aside all the valuable spectrum we occupy today "from scratch", then here is
my suggestion for the "New Amateur Radio Rules":

97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass
a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple
equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah,
blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you
pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when
on the air.

97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna.

97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate
and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and
launch communications satellites into space and any other cool
technical "radio stuff" you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair.
Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine
behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and
permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun.

Love always,
/signed/ FCC

In article , Leo
writes:

Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby.

Sounds reasonable, Leo. Different from the "created today" idea but worth a
look.

Devil's Advocate mode = ON

Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters.

That's one way to look at it. OTOH, in 1930 there *were* problems with
transmitters splattering, chirping, clicking and buzzing all over the bands,
and getting outside the band as well. So it could be argued that the tests were
there to try to cure a problem as well.

Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested.

Drawing schematics as part of the test (in the USA) was removed at least 40
years ago, when FCC went to 100% multiple choice. (1960 or 1961, for amateur
tests up to at least General, which had all privileges at the time.)

To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been".

At the same time, it's important to note that things which survive the test of
time often do so for very good reasons.

To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech,

I don't! ;-)

even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Sure - but what constitutes solid reasoning varies from person to person. I
think that the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of hams all over the
world use Morse on the HF ham bands is a solid reason to require at least a
test for skill in the mode at a very basic level - say, 5 wpm. Others disagree.


Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

Agreed! But experience has shown otherwise.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks, Jim - my comments are in the text below.

On 25 Oct 2003 12:29:48 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby.

Sounds reasonable, Leo. Different from the "created today" idea but worth a
look.

Guess I could have phrased it a bit better in my earlier posts - sorry
for the confusion!


Devil's Advocate mode = ON

That's the spirit!


Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters.

That's one way to look at it. OTOH, in 1930 there *were* problems with
transmitters splattering, chirping, clicking and buzzing all over the bands,
and getting outside the band as well. So it could be argued that the tests were
there to try to cure a problem as well.

That makes sense - a cause - and - effect relationship is very
possible as well. Strong justification for adding requirements to a
licence test - solving real-time problems. The success of the
additional tests can be measured by the impact on the issue.


Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested.

Drawing schematics as part of the test (in the USA) was removed at least 40
years ago, when FCC went to 100% multiple choice. (1960 or 1961, for amateur
tests up to at least General, which had all privileges at the time.)

They hung on through the mid 60s up here, according to an old licence
manual that I found recently. My point was, though, that rules like
this made sense at one time in the history of the hobby, but later on
(by the 60s, in this example) they were outdated, and retired.

To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

Here too - and that is one of the attractions for me, to be able to
try out just about anything on-the-air - experimentation at its best.
(no from-scratch projects yet - just a rebuild of an old Heathkit TX
from the 60s, and a few old military transceivers - I have a WS-19
almost ready to go!) I envy the guys who can build TX equipment from
scratch - my theory is not quite that current - yet.

The only difference up here is that building or repairing amateur
transmitting equipment is restricted to those holding the Advanced
licence (the higher of the two that we currently have). Basic licence
holders must operate commercially built transmitters designed
specifically for use on the amateur bands. The intent id to ensure
that those building or repairing TX equipment have sufficient
theoretical radio knowledge to do it right (theoretically, of course!)
and produce equipment that does not interfere with other users or
transmit out-of-band signals.


My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been".

At the same time, it's important to note that things which survive the test of
time often do so for very good reasons.

True - but some tend to hang on for no reason at all. If there is a
good reason to keep something, then by all means it should be
retained!


To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech,

I don't! ;-)

Oops - there I go generalizing again! Make that 'almost everyone'!
:*p . But even some of the most conservative among us tend to refer
to noise as QRM or QRN, or use QSL to request verification of the
contact at least. The truly devoted (?) say 'Hi Hi" when they want to
indicate laughter - oh well, to each his own...


even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Sure - but what constitutes solid reasoning varies from person to person. I
think that the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of hams all over the
world use Morse on the HF ham bands is a solid reason to require at least a
test for skill in the mode at a very basic level - say, 5 wpm. Others disagree.


I don't think that I would agree that this would be a reason for
testing CW competence - more of a solid reason for keeping CW alive as
an approved mode on the bands. I tend to view making something a
mandatory requirement in order to correct a problem, or ensure
competency to prevent a problem. If CW was not a mandatory
requirement, would people still take the time to learn it? I believe
that they would - those who are interested enough to use it anyway.


Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

Agreed! But experience has shown otherwise.

Very true, unfortunately. One can only imagine a world free of
regulators and lawyers......

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo