| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
What If.....
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 |
Leo wrote
If the Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and was being proposed as a new service in 2003, what would it look like? Your question requires the respondent to accept the false premise that Amateur Radio is a creation born of regulations. It is in fact a creation constantly being reborn, evolving over time by the influence of its' members, and the regulations in force at any given time are at best a reflection of that influence. Thus, the notion of creating a "new" Amateur Radio Service out of thin air without regard to its history is akin to asking "if the Mississippi River were being invented today, where would it run?" 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: 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. Heh heh heh...Guglielmo Marconi an "amateur?!?!?" Hardly. :-) He went after monetary income as well as patent control as soon as he managed to get his new radio system practical. Try looking at Real History, old-timer. If you look at Leo's proposal (discounting the fact that he still hasn't identified himself), there's nothing really amiss there. That's his opinion and he's thought a bit about it. 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. Yes, it might result in the demise of ham radio AS YOU KNOW IT! :-) 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! What in the world are you mumbling about in there, old-timer? 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. Of course, old-timer, "much" more. Perhaps even your raison d'etre (reason for being). Everything must, in your world, remain exactly as it was when you were young. Forget everything and everyone else. 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. So, old-timer, you serve the United States Morse Codists? That's the USMC, ya know. History is something that can't be cast aside just because someone has their own vision and prefers to ignore it. Hmmm...sounds like some group of royalty said the same thing in the years before 1776. Here, have a cup of tea...just in from the harbor... You know what happened that year, don't you? :-) LHA |
|
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... : Thus, the notion of creating a "new" Amateur Radio Service out of thin : air without regard to its history is akin to asking "if the : Mississippi River were being invented today, where would it run?" Hansel, you eedjit! Why does the Mississipi river run south? Because louisiana sux. BGO -- "All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be construed." |
"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 |
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. As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today. The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"! It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important! I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then OK, good point - maybe it should. OTOH, if someone proposes that CW testing should continue because thats the way its been since the beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that statement have to do with today? So what? Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency (and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the departmental VP that something is being done because it has always been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes. Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this too. Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today, without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an important service, if we believe that? Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well, what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly. But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game plan. My .02, anyway...YMMV! 73, Leo On 22 Oct 2003 22:15:06 -0700, (Hans K0HB) wrote: Leo wrote If the Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and was being proposed as a new service in 2003, what would it look like? Your question requires the respondent to accept the false premise that Amateur Radio is a creation born of regulations. It is in fact a creation constantly being reborn, evolving over time by the influence of its' members, and the regulations in force at any given time are at best a reflection of that influence. Thus, the notion of creating a "new" Amateur Radio Service out of thin air without regard to its history is akin to asking "if the Mississippi River were being invented today, where would it run?" 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"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 |
"Leo" wrote in message ... 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. As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today. Not really. That was the excuse that was used for the government to save face. They really wanted to disallow amateur activity altogether when the various radio services and regulations were initiated (see "200 Meters and Down"). It took quite a bit of organized lobbying on the part of the amateurs to maintain a place in the radio spectrum. After World War I, it took a similar lobbying effort to get the government to allow the resumption of amateur activity. They had shut it down for the war and it looked as if they intended to keep it shut down. The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"! It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important! Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today. I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then OK, good point - maybe it should. Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code themselves, look like they are going to go along with it. OTOH, if someone proposes that CW testing should continue because thats the way its been since the beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that statement have to do with today? So what? Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency (and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the departmental VP that something is being done because it has always been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes. Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this too. But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not become a reality. We always need paper documents for something. Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today, without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an important service, if we believe that? Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service. Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well, what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly. But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game plan. Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far from 20/20. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: 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. If one is already backwards, one cannot become more so. LHA |
"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. |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Leo" wrote in message .. . 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. As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today. Not really. That was the excuse that was used for the government to save face. They really wanted to disallow amateur activity altogether when the various radio services and regulations were initiated (see "200 Meters and Down"). It took quite a bit of organized lobbying on the part of the amateurs to maintain a place in the radio spectrum. After World War I, it took a similar lobbying effort to get the government to allow the resumption of amateur activity. They had shut it down for the war and it looked as if they intended to keep it shut down. Exactly, Dee. And it didn't stop there - amateurs had to fight for recognition internationally as well, all through the 1920s. Amateur radio was only recognized as a separate radio service by international regulations in 1927. The whole concept of "radio for its own sake" evolved over time, and as K0HB so rightly says, is still evolving. What it evolves into is mostly in the hands of those who choose to become radio amateurs. Note that the regulations did not contain any sort of "Basis and Purpose" statements until 1951, when FCC insisted on writing such into the regs for each service. The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"! I am convinced that all the regulators really care about wrt amateur radio is: - Noninterference with other services - Orderly on-air behavior by amateurs - Reasonable level of use of allocated spectrum Everything else is pretty much up to us. It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important! Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today. Exactly. And it's not just amateur radio that is threatened by BPL. I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then OK, good point - maybe it should. But CW *doesn't* have any *exclusive* band assignments on HF/MF! Not one Hz! There are lots of reasons to keep CW/Morse testing - and lots of reasons to let it go. All reasons basically come down to someone's opinion, one way or the other. Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code themselves, look like they are going to go along with it. Maybe. OTOH, if someone proposes that CW testing should continue because thats the way its been since the beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that statement have to do with today? So what? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency (and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the departmental VP that something is being done because it has always been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes. Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this too. Sure! But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not become a reality. We always need paper documents for something. Excellent example. Offices today use more paper, not less! Note that most of the concepts of the computerized office (mouse, graphical user interface, computer at every desk, networking) came from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) in the very early 1970s. The folks at Xerox thought their core business of copiers would wither away as computers took over..... Often when something is done a certain way, it's not just because "we've always done it like that" but because of very good reasons that are not immediately apparent to outsiders - or even insiders. Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today, without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an important service, if we believe that? Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service. Which is why any radio service continues to exist, really. Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well, what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly. But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game plan. Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far from 20/20. It's also important to monitor the actual results of changes. For example, back in April of 2000, code testing was reduced to a single 5 wpm test *and* the written tests were reduced. Did we get lots more new hams? Nope - in 3-1/2 years, the ARS in the USA has grown by less than 10,000. What we did get was lots of upgrades by already-licensed hams in the year or so following the rules changes, then a slowdown to nearly the rates before the changes. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
Dee,
Thanks for your reply - my comments are in the text below: On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:21:07 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "Leo" wrote in message .. . 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. As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today. Not really. That was the excuse that was used for the government to save face. They really wanted to disallow amateur activity altogether when the various radio services and regulations were initiated (see "200 Meters and Down"). It took quite a bit of organized lobbying on the part of the amateurs to maintain a place in the radio spectrum. After World War I, it took a similar lobbying effort to get the government to allow the resumption of amateur activity. They had shut it down for the war and it looked as if they intended to keep it shut down. Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look for a copy. However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the service. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today, and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are relevant to meet those goals. Somehow, it's not working out quite that way.... ;) The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"! It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important! Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today. That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services, then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications more easily justifiable. I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then OK, good point - maybe it should. Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code themselves, look like they are going to go along with it. Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one. Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering with their signals, and order them to stop. A secondary purpose may have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 - unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW should assume the same status as the other available operating modes - permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by practical examination. My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF. There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer quantifiable - but no hard reasons. Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! OTOH, if someone proposes that CW testing should continue because thats the way its been since the beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that statement have to do with today? So what? Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency (and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the departmental VP that something is being done because it has always been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes. Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this too. But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not become a reality. We always need paper documents for something. True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive. Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because they are the only place left to find people who share their interest in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why, however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the underlying reason, Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today, without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an important service, if we believe that? Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service. Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone. I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking, technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit. Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well, what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly. But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game plan. Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far from 20/20. Agreed - but to remain credible, we need to be careful that we don't overstate the real importance of, and the perpetuation of testing of, skills that are (outside the hobby itself) obsolete and no longer in common use. Unless we can come up with some real, tangible, meassurable benefits of doing so. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of personal preference! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 73, Leo |
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 |
N2EY wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" writes: Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far from 20/20. It's also important to monitor the actual results of changes. For example, back in April of 2000, code testing was reduced to a single 5 wpm test *and* the written tests were reduced. Did we get lots more new hams? Nope - in 3-1/2 years, the ARS in the USA has grown by less than 10,000. What we did get was lots of upgrades by already-licensed hams in the year or so following the rules changes, then a slowdown to nearly the rates before the changes. Boy, that's really misleading (though I assume unintentionally). You ask a rhetorical question about "new hams", but then quote a number (10,000) which is something else. In the 41 months since restructuring, about 70,000 new hams have been licensed. That's an average of 1670 new hams per month. About 10% of current ARS licensees obtained their license since the April 2000 restructuring. For comparison, in the 34 months prior to restructuring about 48,000 new hams were licensed in the ARS. That's an average of about 1410 new hams per month. It seems, then, that the rate at which new hams entered the ARS increased by about 20% after restructuring, and that this increase was sustained for at least 39 of those 41 months (the last couple of months are suspicious). Is a 20% increase in the number of new hams due to restructuring not "a lot", and if not then how much would it have had to increase to be "a lot" in your view? Dennis Ferguson |
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
In article , (N2EY)
writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: 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. Pennsylvania is a "province?!?" :-) Your lack of a sense of humor is obvious, Len ;-) ;-) Actually it's a commonwealth. Okay, so Pennsylvania seceeded from the Union...otherwise called the United States of America. STATES. No great loss, really... I've built-from-scratch (not including kits, no carbon copies of homebrew articles) in my home workshops, at least: 5 receivers 5 transmitters 3 transceivers 4 transmatches 12 power supplies 4 TR systems 5 pieces of test equipment various shack furniture, antennas, power cables, control systems, etc. Keep on doing that. Eventually you'll get some of them to work. The above list does not include: - surplus units converted/restored - manufactured equipment restored/repaired/modified - kits built or rebuilt Keep on doing that. Eventually some may work... I've worked several of the regulars here on rrap using my homebrew rigs. I can often be found on or around 7040 using CW. 7040 what? You have absolutely verifiable proof, iron-clad, evidenciary documentation that such RF was actually generated by this "home-built" equipment? Keep at it old-timer. Eventually you can get to changing frequency and work some other bands... And my transmitters have all been legally used in the service for which I am licensed. So you say...because the FCC was too busy with other monitoring. All of MY transmissions and transmitters have been legally used in the services for which I am licensed...and in the radio services and government contract work which did NOT require any civilian license. You got the scratch, Elecraft has the KIT you can build. All by yourself. I built one of those back in 2001. Kits are not homebrew. So, you built it someplace else other than your residence. Now explain to us again about your 1948 unlicensed operations... Why? Those were within the regulations of unlicensed RF emitters at the time. AM broadcast band "wireless phonograph adapters." :-) You are welcome to retain an attorney to bring legal action to bear on alleged felonious radio emissions of 55 years ago! :-) Have him show us his cute legal briefs. Contact Riley Hollingsworth immediately! Let loose the legal hounds. Sound the Hue & Cry on the NTS! Bring the might of the US government LAW down on me! Are you erecting a new statute of limitiations or are you just erecting? Tsk, tsk, tsk...in 1953 I was transmitting 4 KW PEP SSB ON some amateur bands. Legally. Sue the United States Army for that. [remember what happened to "Tail Gunner Joe" when that senator tried to "get" the U. S. Army on another matter...] Your time machine isn't set properly. Get to work and FIX it. We are now on Standard REALITY time, not the daylight savings time of your fantasyland of long ago. LHA |
In article , Leo
writes: Devil's Advocate mode = ON That's the spirit! Still ON, too... 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. That was one reason for the content of the writtens, at least here in the USA. If you look at the old "study guides" of the 40s/50s/60s, they are quite focused on issues like band edges, harmonic/spurious emissions, rectifiers and filters, modulation and measurements - all sorts of things one would need to have some familarity with to operate a properly adjust a transmitter of those times. Receivers and antennas, OTOH, got relatively little attention. "Incentive licensing" was (in part) a move by the FCC to increase the technological know-how of hams by requiring them to know more theory. 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. I don't think that sort of thing was retired in the US because it was "outdated" but simply because it made less work for FCC to go with only multiple choice questions. Multiple choice also removes all subjectivity from grading - either you picked the one right answer and get 100% credit for that question, or you picked one of the wrong answers and get 0% credit. It can also be argued that being required to draw diagrams does not really indicate anything other than the ability to memorize a drawing, with little or no understanding of what it really represents or how the device functions. Schematic and block diagrams are still part of the US exams, btw. For example, a block diagram will be shown, with all of the blocks except one labeled as to function. The question will be something like "The block diagram of a superheterodyne FM receiver is shown - what is the function of the unlabeled block?". And the person being tested has to pick the correct choice. Or a schematic is shown, and one component identified, and the question asks what that component does. I recall questions on my exams back in the '60s where an incomplete drawing was shown, and the question asked what was needed to complete it (1 - capacitor from Point A to Point B, 2 - Inductor from Point C to Point A, ...) How much radio knowledge should new hams be expected to learn before they get the license? Beyond the basic rules, regs and safety, that's purely a matter of personal opinion - just like the code test. 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. I've been doing it since Novice days back in 1967. Not that hard if you start off with simple projects and work towards more complex ones. What mode permits the most results from the simplest equipment? Hint: It's not SSB. 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. Wow! There's never been such restrictions on US hams. What's the ratio of Advanced to Basic hams in Canada, anyway? 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! A story: There's an old story (various versions exist) about how someone's Grandma made the best brisket in the world. Before she passed away, one of the grandkids made one with her and wrote down every single instruction. And the first step was to cut off an inch or two from the end. The recipe and procedure was passed down for generations and everyone in the family cut off an inch or two from the end as the first step. Then someone discovered an old, old letter from Grandma in which she described the procedure to a long-dead relative. Grandma writes: "First thing I do is to cut off an inch or so from the end - because the briskets the butcher gives me are always a little bigger than the pan I like to use" (!) 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. I'm not "conservative" - I do the radical thing of saying "noise" or "interference". The truly devoted (?) say 'Hi Hi" when they want to indicate laughter - oh well, to each his own... I found an article in a QST from the 1930s decrying such things, so they aren't new at all. My theory is that some hams use CW abbreviations on 'phone in an attempt to portray themselves as somehow so steeped in CW practices that they "forget". Oddly enough, the most proficient CW ops I know don't do such things. 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. Then would you want to wipe out most of the written exams? Because, after all, most hams don't cause problems - nor do most hams build their own rigs. Which do you think is more common in today's amateur radio - a homebrew station or a ham that uses Morse code? 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. Sure, some would. If we took out most of the theory questions from the written test, would people still take the time to learn it? 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...... :) They would arise again out of necessity. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Len Over 21" wrote
N2EY wrote: Actually it's a commonwealth. Okay, so Pennsylvania seceeded from the Union...otherwise called the United States of America. STATES. No great loss, really... Dear Mrs. Anderson, Leonard is failing in geography class. As a means of bringing his grade up to "passing", please have him list the 48 states and the 2 commonwealths which make up our great Nation. 73, K0HB PS: Rhode Island is NOT a commonwealth, but neither is that the name of a state. For extra credit, what is the name of the place we commonly call Rhode Island? |
|
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote N2EY wrote: Actually it's a commonwealth. Okay, so Pennsylvania seceeded from the Union...otherwise called the United States of America. STATES. No great loss, really... Dear Mrs. Anderson, Leonard is failing in geography class. As a means of bringing his grade up to "passing", please have him list the 48 states and the 2 commonwealths which make up our great Nation. Ancient mariner, let not the fumes of that rotting albatross around your neck affect your brain so much. CIVICS AND GOVERNMENT classes would study the governmental structures and organization of the states. GEOGRAPHY goes for the land itself, may touch on the human names and government structures for identification. You can't keep that straight, either. Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's NOT an amateur radio policy thing, is it? Somewhere close to general old radio subjects you claimed as "fact" that ol' Reggie Fessenden made his historic 1906 Christmas Eve voice broadcast with a SPARK transmitter. [nope, rotary alternator] You've not admitted to any error of factual statements, but you should as a long-time "leader" in ham radio, presenting a good attitude and all that ("unique ability of amateur's good will," etc.). Now you've made another wrong "fact" but this time NOT about radio subjects, about grade-school level academic things. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Both wrong. Two strikes. Third time and you are out. Better luck at "radiosport." [harf..."sport"... :-) ] The light at the end of the carpal tunnel is the surgeon's little fiber optic imaging probe trying to separate your dits from your dahs... LHA PS: PLEASE try to remember the general subject of this newsgroup, quit trying to dumb everyone down to chat room nonsense. |
In article , Leo
writes: On 26 Oct 2003 19:00:14 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: Responses below: In article , Leo writes: snip Schematic and block diagrams are still part of the US exams, btw. For example, a block diagram will be shown, with all of the blocks except one labeled as to function. The question will be something like "The block diagram of a superheterodyne FM receiver is shown - what is the function of the unlabeled block?". And the person being tested has to pick the correct choice. Or a schematic is shown, and one component identified, and the question asks what that component does. I recall questions on my exams back in the '60s where an incomplete drawing was shown, and the question asked what was needed to complete it (1 - capacitor from Point A to Point B, 2 - Inductor from Point C to Point A, ...) Pretty much the same here - block diagrams and 'fill in the blanks'schematics, with multiple choice answers. It could be argued that having to identify what a particular component in a schematic actually does is at least as much an indication of knowledge about that schematic as is simply being able to draw it. snip I've been doing it since Novice days back in 1967. Not that hard if you start off with simple projects and work towards more complex ones. What mode permits the most results from the simplest equipment? Hint: It's not SSB. Well, the Heath SSB transceiver was the most complicated piece of radio equipment that I've tackled so far for restoration. Which one? If I was going to try a 'designed by me' homebrew project, it would be a QRP tansmitter - fairly simple to construct and troubleshoot...comparatively, anyway! And it would be a transmitter for which mode? Consider that one of the primary goals of the amateur radio service is technical education - or perhaps I should say, self-education. 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. Wow! There's never been such restrictions on US hams. What's the ratio of Advanced to Basic hams in Canada, anyway? Over 50% are qualified at the Advanced Level (requirement: examinations consisting of the Basic 100 multiple-choice questions, plus an additional 50 on advanced radio theory). Any requirements as to experience with a Basic or can a raw newbie just walk in and take the Advanced exam straightaway? I pulled a quick count of the total licence stats from the RAC website this afternoon, and the (rough) totals are as follows: Total licences issued: 57, 188 Basic Qualification: 28, 047 Advanced Qualification: 29, 141 So we have almost exactly 50-50 split Basic/Advanced. Interesting to know. And VE amateur radio licenses total a little more than 8% of those in the USA. (Of course the populations are different too). In addition, the total number of Canadian hams with Morse endorsements on their licence is 31,557 - approximately 55%.. let's see - in the USA before the recent changes it was 470,000 out of 675,000 - just under 70%. Looks like Canada may be the next to simply drop Morse testing, though. 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! A story: There's an old story (various versions exist) about how someone's Grandma made the best brisket in the world. Before she passed away, one of the grandkids made one with her and wrote down every single instruction. And the first step was to cut off an inch or two from the end. The recipe and procedure was passed down for generations and everyone in the family cut off an inch or two from the end as the first step. Then someone discovered an old, old letter from Grandma in which she described the procedure to a long-dead relative. Grandma writes: "First thing I do is to cut off an inch or so from the end - because the briskets the butcher gives me are always a little bigger than the pan I like to use" (!) Good story! There's a matching story about railroad trains and hot boxes which proves the other point. 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. I'm not "conservative" - I do the radical thing of saying "noise" or "interference". No disrespect intended, Jim - poor choice of words on my part here. None taken! The point was to illustrate the carryover of common CW abbreviations into the spoken communications of the hobby. I can remember some hams back in the '60s doing such things as saying "Kay" instead of "over" at the end of a voice transmission. This was on 6 meter AM, of all things. The truly devoted (?) say 'Hi Hi" when they want to indicate laughter - oh well, to each his own... I found an article in a QST from the 1930s decrying such things, so they aren't new at all. Interesting - do you recall the specific issue? I'd like to read that! Late 1930s - 38 I think. IIRC it was by K.B. Warner, who was one of the key (pun intended) figures in amateur radio from the mid' 20s until his death about 1948. KBW was second only to HPM in this regard, but is not nearly so widely known. There was also a column in the late '40s and early '50s called "Phone Band Phunnies" that described and decried certain bad habits some 'phone ops tended to acquire. My theory is that some hams use CW abbreviations on 'phone in an attempt to portray themselves as somehow so steeped in CW practices that they "forget". Oddly enough, the most proficient CW ops I know don't do such things. Think you hit the nail on the head there! "Say it with words". Heck, "Cue Ess Ell" is three syllables, while "Roger" or "OK" is two. snip 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. Then would you want to wipe out most of the written exams? Because, after all, most hams don't cause problems - nor do most hams build their own rigs. Absolutely not - the writtens are intended to ensure that everyone operating an amateur station is aware of the rules and regulations, similar to the written driving tests that must be passed before allowing folks out on the road. OK, fine - the written exams must include the regulations. And perhaps some safety (RF exposure rules) to protect others. But what about the rest of the writtens? Which do you think is more common in today's amateur radio - a homebrew station or a ham that uses Morse code? Morse code would be the hands down winner here. Sadly, the number of homebrew guys is quite small these days.... It's that way for a number of reasons, the primary one being economic. Some of us, however, still design and build our own rigs. Note how we are sometimes met (not by you, Leo) with disbelief and ridicule for doing so....... 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. Sure, some would. If we took out most of the theory questions from the written test, would people still take the time to learn it? Good question - but removal of the theoretical questions would likely have a much more dramatic effect on the overall technical competence level within the hobby than the removal of code testing would. Is that really true? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of Advanced vs. Basic hams in Canada? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of the various license classes in the USA? Without an understanding of radio theory, operators would be limited in their potential to grow into new areas of the hobby! Sure - but is it the function of the license exams to force that understanding on everyone? In the Canadian system, if I understand it correctly, a ham who wants to homebrew has to learn more theory, and a ham who only wants to use manufactured gear can stick with the Basic. Or are there more privileges than the ability to homebrew granted with the Advanced? In the USA, every ham can homebrew, but to get access to more HF spectrum, one must jump through the hoop of additional written testing, even if one has no intention of building anything. 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...... :) They would arise again out of necessity. They sure would.... :) All regulations start out simple. Then real life gets hold of them. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 27 Oct 2003 01:30:02 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
snipped at various parts below... Pretty much the same here - block diagrams and 'fill in the blanks'schematics, with multiple choice answers. It could be argued that having to identify what a particular component in a schematic actually does is at least as much an indication of knowledge about that schematic as is simply being able to draw it. True enough - although the exam I took centered almost exclusively on tank circuits and calculation of resonant component values.. snip I've been doing it since Novice days back in 1967. Not that hard if you start off with simple projects and work towards more complex ones. What mode permits the most results from the simplest equipment? Hint: It's not SSB. Well, the Heath SSB transceiver was the most complicated piece of radio equipment that I've tackled so far for restoration. Which one? SB-400. Cosmetically OK, but a disaster inside - corroded rotary switches, poor solder joints, wiring errors (17 of them - including one which shorted out the LSB crystal - somebody must have been less than happy with this set ...) and of course a complete set of high-ESR electrolytics. Almost 50 hours on the bench to get it up and running.... If I was going to try a 'designed by me' homebrew project, it would be a QRP tansmitter - fairly simple to construct and troubleshoot...comparatively, anyway! And it would be a transmitter for which mode? CW, most likely - I would prefer to start with something relatively simple. Any requirements as to experience with a Basic or can a raw newbie just walk in and take the Advanced exam straightaway? No experience requirements (they were dropped years ago) - it is possible to write the Basic and Advanced exams concurrently on the same day. So we have almost exactly 50-50 split Basic/Advanced. Interesting to know. And VE amateur radio licenses total a little more than 8% of those in the USA. (Of course the populations are different too). 33 Million in Canada, approximately 1/10 of the US, I believe... In addition, the total number of Canadian hams with Morse endorsements on their licence is 31,557 - approximately 55%.. let's see - in the USA before the recent changes it was 470,000 out of 675,000 - just under 70%. Looks like Canada may be the next to simply drop Morse testing, though. Haven't heard much on this so far! I posted the results of the survey condusted by the Radio Amateurs of Canada a while back - it has been submitted to Industry Canada (the FCC equivalent), but nothing since then. No idea how long a decision will take - we have a system of NPRMs here as well, and we're waiting for some indication one way or the other. I'm not "conservative" - I do the radical thing of saying "noise" or "interference". No disrespect intended, Jim - poor choice of words on my part here. None taken! Glad to hear that! There was also a column in the late '40s and early '50s called "Phone Band Phunnies" that described and decried certain bad habits some 'phone ops tended to acquire. Have a look at the following web site - a humourous view of this sort of thing gone wild....entitled "How To Sound Like A Lid"... http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/search...D=1750&ID=1750 Some of us, however, still design and build our own rigs. Note how we are sometimes met (not by you, Leo) with disbelief and ridicule for doing so....... And I really am incapable of understanding this behaviour. The ability to visualise, design and implement amateur radio equipment is a gift - one that the amateur community should hold in the highest regard. Anyone could purchase and operate a modern HT, with minimal training - it takes a great deal of skill to create something from nothing. And, for those who enjoy the traditions of the hobby, homebrewing harkens right back to day one! If we took out most of the theory questions from the written test, would people still take the time to learn it? Good question - but removal of the theoretical questions would likely have a much more dramatic effect on the overall technical competence level within the hobby than the removal of code testing would. Is that really true? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of Advanced vs. Basic hams in Canada? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of the various license classes in the USA? Not as much as there was years ago, I suspect - testing has become very much simplified over the last 40 years... The Advanced level, like the Extra, does require a fair amount of additional radio knowledge to pass. Is it enough? It depends - I'm not aware of a study that would indicate whether the goals of the testing were being met! Without an understanding of radio theory, operators would be limited in their potential to grow into new areas of the hobby! Sure - but is it the function of the license exams to force that understanding on everyone? In the Canadian system, if I understand it correctly, a ham who wants to homebrew has to learn more theory, and a ham who only wants to use manufactured gear can stick with the Basic. Or are there more privileges than the ability to homebrew granted with the Advanced? In the USA, every ham can homebrew, but to get access to more HF spectrum, one must jump through the hoop of additional written testing, even if one has no intention of building anything. Here, an amateur with a Basic licence has access to all bands above 30 MHz. Add on a Morse Code test, and full access to the bands under 30 MHz is granted. The Advanced kicence, aside from providing the ability to homebrew transmitting equipment, provides a couple of other perks - high power TX operation, the ability to operate a repeater, and the ability to apply to become a volunteer examiner. There are a couple of other minor ones as well, but I don't recall them at the moment! No annual renewal fees are due (these were dropped in 2000). Those with a Basic licence are encouraged to homebrew as well - only transmitters are legally excluded from that licence class. Modems, receivers, antennas - no problem. I suppose that a basic requirement for entry into this hobby is, and always has been, an interest in the technical aspects of radio communications. And, for the level of freedom to experiment that this hobby provides, I don't feel that it is unrealistic to expect new licencees to be required to demonstrate technical competency, in the form of written exams. I would assume that those whose desire to become a ham is strong enough would also be the type of folks who would want to continue to learn and grow. Perhaps I'm wrong - but the people that I have met so far (for the most part) follow this model. 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...... :) They would arise again out of necessity. They sure would.... :) All regulations start out simple. Then real life gets hold of them. 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
In article , Leo
writes: On 27 Oct 2003 01:30:02 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: It could be argued that having to identify what a particular component in a schematic actually does is at least as much an indication of knowledge about that schematic as is simply being able to draw it. True enough - although the exam I took centered almost exclusively on tank circuits and calculation of resonant component values.. The ones I took 30+ years ago were as described. snip I've been doing it since Novice days back in 1967. Not that hard if you start off with simple projects and work towards more complex ones. What mode permits the most results from the simplest equipment? Hint: It's not SSB. Well, the Heath SSB transceiver was the most complicated piece of radio equipment that I've tackled so far for restoration. Which one? SB-400. That's a transmitter, not a transceiver. ;-) Cosmetically OK, but a disaster inside - corroded rotary switches, poor solder joints, wiring errors (17 of them - including one which shorted out the LSB crystal - somebody must have been less than happy with this set ...) and of course a complete set of high-ESR electrolytics. Almost 50 hours on the bench to get it up and running.... That's probably more time than it took to build it in the first place! If I was going to try a 'designed by me' homebrew project, it would be a QRP tansmitter - fairly simple to construct and troubleshoot...comparatively, anyway! And it would be a transmitter for which mode? CW, most likely - I would prefer to start with something relatively simple. And *there's* the connection between CW skill and technological development and self education in the ARS. Without code skill, that transmitter would be almost useless to you. With code skill, you could use it to work the world. For hams, code skill *is* another tool in the toolbox. Any requirements as to experience with a Basic or can a raw newbie just walk in and take the Advanced exam straightaway? No experience requirements (they were dropped years ago) - it is possible to write the Basic and Advanced exams concurrently on the same day. Same thing happened to Extra 25+ years ago. So we have almost exactly 50-50 split Basic/Advanced. Interesting to know. And VE amateur radio licenses total a little more than 8% of those in the USA. (Of course the populations are different too). 33 Million in Canada, approximately 1/10 of the US, I believe... More like 1/8 of US, but fairly close correlation. In addition, the total number of Canadian hams with Morse endorsements on their licence is 31,557 - approximately 55%.. let's see - in the USA before the recent changes it was 470,000 out of 675,000 - just under 70%. Looks like Canada may be the next to simply drop Morse testing, though. Haven't heard much on this so far! I posted the results of the survey condusted by the Radio Amateurs of Canada a while back - it has been submitted to Industry Canada (the FCC equivalent), but nothing since then. No idea how long a decision will take - we have a system of NPRMs here as well, and we're waiting for some indication one way or the other. Check out the RAC website.. There was also a column in the late '40s and early '50s called "Phone Band Phunnies" that described and decried certain bad habits some 'phone ops tended to acquire. Have a look at the following web site - a humourous view of this sort of thing gone wild....entitled "How To Sound Like A Lid"... http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/search...http://www.dxz one.com/cgi-bin/search/jump.cgi?ID=1750&ID=1750 I'll take a look.. Some of us, however, still design and build our own rigs. Note how we are sometimes met (not by you, Leo) with disbelief and ridicule for doing so....... And I really am incapable of understanding this behaviour. Perhaps it's because I'm also in favor of code tests. You'll have to ask Len and Brian why they do it. The ability to visualise, design and implement amateur radio equipment is a gift - one that the amateur community should hold in the highest regard. I don't see it as a gift, just a set of skills built up over the years. There are others much better at it than I. Anyone could purchase and operate a modern HT, with minimal training - it takes a great deal of skill to create something from nothing. And, for those who enjoy the traditions of the hobby, homebrewing harkens right back to day one! Perhaps that's why they criticize it so much. It's old, it's traditional... If we took out most of the theory questions from the written test, would people still take the time to learn it? Good question - but removal of the theoretical questions would likely have a much more dramatic effect on the overall technical competence level within the hobby than the removal of code testing would. Is that really true? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of Advanced vs. Basic hams in Canada? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of the various license classes in the USA? Not as much as there was years ago, I suspect - testing has become very much simplified over the last 40 years... Same down here. The Advanced level, like the Extra, does require a fair amount of additional radio knowledge to pass. Is it enough? It depends - I'm not aware of a study that would indicate whether the goals of the testing were being met! Exactly Without an understanding of radio theory, operators would be limited in their potential to grow into new areas of the hobby! Sure - but is it the function of the license exams to force that understanding on everyone? In the Canadian system, if I understand it correctly, a ham who wants to homebrew has to learn more theory, and a ham who only wants to use manufactured gear can stick with the Basic. Or are there more privileges than the ability to homebrew granted with the Advanced? In the USA, every ham can homebrew, but to get access to more HF spectrum, one must jump through the hoop of additional written testing, even if one has no intention of building anything. Here, an amateur with a Basic licence has access to all bands above 30 MHz. Add on a Morse Code test, and full access to the bands under 30 MHz is granted. That was necessary because of old S25.5. The Advanced kicence, aside from providing the ability to homebrew transmitting equipment, provides a couple of other perks - high power TX operation, the ability to operate a repeater, and the ability to apply to become a volunteer examiner. There are a couple of other minor ones as well, but I don't recall them at the moment! OK - thanks No annual renewal fees are due (these were dropped in 2000). Annual fees? Wow! Amateur license fees here were dropped in the '70s. VE fees are for testing only. One fee can, in principle, be used to go from no license to Extra. Those with a Basic licence are encouraged to homebrew as well - only transmitters are legally excluded from that licence class. Modems, receivers, antennas - no problem. Interesting concept! I suppose a Basic could homebrew a transmitter, but not use it until the Advanced license was in hand... I suppose that a basic requirement for entry into this hobby is, and always has been, an interest in the technical aspects of radio communications. For some, yes, but for others the public service and communications aspects are dominant. Should someone be excluded from amateur radio because they're more interested in what the radios can do rather than how they work? And, for the level of freedom to experiment that this hobby provides, I don't feel that it is unrealistic to expect new licencees to be required to demonstrate technical competency, in the form of written exams. I agree - but what level of competency is reasonable? And why isn't it reasonable to require a very basic level of Morse competency, given how popular Morse is in amateur radio vs. how popularity homebrewing is? I would assume that those whose desire to become a ham is strong enough would also be the type of folks who would want to continue to learn and grow. Perhaps I'm wrong - but the people that I have met so far (for the most part) follow this model. Same here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Leo wrote:
some snippage Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look for a copy. Very interesting reading, Leo. It should be part of the testing regimen! However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the service. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today, and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are relevant to meet those goals. Somehow, it's not working out quite that way.... ;) Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted one post - mine. The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"! It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important! Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today. That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services, then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications more easily justifiable. It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing. Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO. I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then OK, good point - maybe it should. Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code themselves, look like they are going to go along with it. Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one. The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing. I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the same thing as the core. Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering with their signals, and order them to stop. This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out of the picture. So what's left? A secondary purpose may have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 - unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW should assume the same status as the other available operating modes - permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by practical examination. My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF. There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer quantifiable - but no hard reasons. you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions. Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about satellite operations!!!! 8^) The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive schools" where the student made up their own curriculum OTOH, if someone proposes that CW testing should continue because thats the way its been since the beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that statement have to do with today? So what? Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency (and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the departmental VP that something is being done because it has always been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes. Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this too. But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not become a reality. We always need paper documents for something. True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive. Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because they are the only place left to find people who share their interest in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why, however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the underlying reason, Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today, without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an important service, if we believe that? Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service. Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone. Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies. I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking, technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit. But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators. Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 |
Thanks, Mike - my responses are in the text below.
....whole lotta snippage goin' on..... On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:49:04 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted one post - mine. Yup, I remember that one well! Wonder why that happens....this thread went a bit farther, but keeps branching out into other topics, with the requisite bashings of the participants. It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing. Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO. Good point - the ability to use the hobby for community service is pretty unique to amateur radio. (try that with R/C model planes, or Civil War re-enactment!.....). The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing. I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the same thing as the core. ....the only difference is that the written testing consists of a question or so on satelite operation - Morse continues as a complete syllabus and test in its own right. I'm not convinced that it is quite that important anymore to warrant this. I do see your point, though - we'll have to 'agree to disagree', I suppose...(a rare achievement in this newsgroup 8*p ) Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering with their signals, and order them to stop. This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out of the picture. So what's left? Here's the way I understand this one: Agree that there most certainly was a time when CW was all that was available to amateur operators (and was heavily used for commercial radio as well as landline operations too). Then, if an amateur were to be allowed to go on the air with no code training, what would the impact to amateur radio be? You would have a guy sending signals out that no one could understand, or answer. A very frustrated operator, most likely - but no real damage to the service itself. However, if that guy was interfering with commercial or governmental traffic, and did not know enough code to understand their signals to clear off the band immediately, major problems would be possible. Multiply this by the number of amateurs playing around with radio, and it would be a huge problem. CW proficiency testing pior to licence issuance would be a big step towards preventing situations like this one. Now, with virtually no one using code except amateurs, and all of that strictly within the amateur bands, this problem seems to be a thing of the past. Just like a guy who sets up an improperly-functioning RTTY setup (like I jusy did, a couple of nights ago...) - no major problem - and no two way communications, either :) A secondary purpose may have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 - unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW should assume the same status as the other available operating modes - permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by practical examination. My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF. There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer quantifiable - but no hard reasons. you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions. Agree, to a point. There don't seem to be any logical reasons to keep CW testing (I was hoping that this thread would flesh them out...). OTOH, there is a reason to discontinue CW testing - the reason being that CW is (for all practical purposes) no longer any more important than any other available operating mode, today, in 2003. As such, is it fair to compel people to learn and pass a practical test on one mode in deference to all others? I don't see it! Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about satellite operations!!!! 8^) Don't know - I think that's one of the ones I got wrong anyway.... The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive schools" where the student made up their own curriculum Likewise, if the school board decided that "The Adz, Plane , Bow Saw And Other Pioneer Tools" was to become a seperate mandatory subject, which must be studied and passed prior to gaining a trade certification in Carpentry - that would be equally wrong. It is interesting to some (and at one time, the only way to build a log cabin), but not relevant enough to be given its own course today. Still, there are those who enjoy building with these types of tools - more power to 'em! Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies. You're right - for me, at least so far, it is only a hobby . Since I'm relatively new to the avocation (a year and a half, so far), I'm still in learning mode - I am interested in getting involved with ARES, and may do so in the next few months or so, time permitting. BTW - grinding mirrors? Now there's something that requires a lot of patience! Wow! I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking, technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit. But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators. Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? But there is a technolgical reason in continuing to teach longhand division - and that is, without knowing how it works, how will you know when the calculators' answer is incorrect? (My kids have demonstrated this concept to me many times.....they tend to believe whatever answer the thing displays, without applying logic to see if they entered something wrong - grrr) And for that reason, I think that the current level of testing that we do to become an amateur is not enough - as I have explained in previous threads, the level of technical knowledge has dropped considerably over time. Longhand is the check-and-balance for the answer presented by the calculator. I don't quite see the analogy to CW, though - sure, if SSB communications are not possible CW could be used to get through. But the rest of the world is moving away from it (first the commercial and government users, and now amateur administrations all over the world) - I'd suggest that if there was any value to retaining it even as a back-up mode of communications, it would have been retained by someone. I'd think, anyway. - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Leo wrote: some snippage Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look for a copy. Very interesting reading, Leo. It should be part of the testing regimen! Only problem with "200" is that it stops at 1936 and there was never a followup book. If you want a really good history of US amateur radio from the very beginning to almost the present day, google up W2XOY's "Wayback Machine". Excellent history in many chapters. Free for the download. (extra bonus question: what is the significance of that callsign?) However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the service. That phrase was added in 1951. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today, and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are relevant to meet those goals. Somehow, it's not working out quite that way.... ;) Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted one post - mine. Hey! The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"! It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important! Regulators *do* deal in historic preservation, history, and tradition, however. Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today. That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services, then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications more easily justifiable. It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing. Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO. One of the good things about amateur radio is that it defies a simple definition. That's also one of the bad things! What is a core purpose of the service to one person may be of minor interest to another. For example, are technical smarts more important than public service? I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then OK, good point - maybe it should. Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code themselves, look like they are going to go along with it. Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one. The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing. Most hams do only a small fraction of the activities open to them, in part because most of us haven't anywhere near the time or money to do all of them or even most of them. Yet almost all of them are on the test. I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the same thing as the core. As you said, it all comes down to opinions. That one question on satellites could be the one that causes a ham to fail. Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering with their signals, and order them to stop. This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out of the picture. So what's left? The anti-interference thing was just *one* reason - there are lots more. And it really wasn't that much of a reason because hams had their own frequency allocations and the government/commercial folks had theirs. In fact, there was no international requirement for hams to pass code tests until 1927. A secondary purpose may have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 - unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW should assume the same status as the other available operating modes - permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by practical examination. There *are* new reasons, as well as other, old ones. But whether they are sufficient is a matter of opinion. My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF. There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer quantifiable - but no hard reasons. you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions. bingo. Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! I thought it was dropped because so few applied for it. I recall something like 150 in 4 years. Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about satellite operations!!!! 8^) The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive schools" where the student made up their own curriculum Exactly. OTOH, if someone proposes that CW testing should continue because thats the way its been since the beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that statement have to do with today? So what? Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency (and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the departmental VP that something is being done because it has always been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes. Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this too. But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not become a reality. We always need paper documents for something. True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive. They're still selling those cameras, however. And merely because something is old doesn't make it bad. Look at the way words are spelled... Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because they are the only place left to find people who share their interest in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why, however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the underlying reason, Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today, without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an important service, if we believe that? Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service. Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone. Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies. Try telling the hams who searched for shuttle pieces, or who are right now helping fight the wildfires in California, that it's "a hobby". They might not agree. I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking, technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit. Looking through the anti-code-test petitions, though, we could also be seen as a bunch of folks making a really big deal out of eliminating a test that requires only the most basic level of skill in a mode widely used in the Amateur Radio Service. Does it not seem odd to require lots of theory testing for a license to use manufactured radios, yet to claim that a simple 5 wpm Morse code receiving test is a "burden" and a "barrier" to a license? But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators. Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? Exactly! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"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." |
|
Leo wrote:
On 28 Oct 2003 01:17:46 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: Only problem with "200" is that it stops at 1936 and there was never a followup book. If you want a really good history of US amateur radio from the very beginning to almost the present day, google up W2XOY's "Wayback Machine". Excellent history in many chapters. Free for the download. Great articles - thanks! (extra bonus question: what is the significance of that callsign?) Found this reference on Google: Feb. 1, 1939. Broadcasting reports General Electric engineers recently set up two experimental frequency modulation transmitters at Albany and Schenectady, operating on the same frequency. They drove a test car between the two cities and found almost no areas of interference between the stations. The stations were W2XDA Schenectady and W2XOY New Scotland Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! I thought it was dropped because so few applied for it. I recall something like 150 in 4 years. Haven't seen those stats - but seperate testing for Digital modes died out with it! And merely because something is old doesn't make it bad. Look at the way words are spelled... Certainly wasn't connecting 'old' with 'bad', Jim - just an observation that as times change, priorities tend to shift as well. Try telling the hams who searched for shuttle pieces, or who are right now helping fight the wildfires in California, that it's "a hobby". They might not agree. It's a unique hobby - one where the skills learned and practised within it can be taken out into the community in times of need, to augment the 'professional' emergency services. Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? Exactly! Not quite - longhand is still required to be understood before relying on calculators, as it teaches the underlying principles of division (and works without batteries!). It is simply a more rigorous method of accomplishing the identical task - but without competence in it, how would you know if the answer the calculator gave you was correct? How would you check it? You would not really understand the mechanics of division. Indeed, why should anyone learn longhand? (substitute Morse CW or abacus) Calculators (substitute Yeacomwood boxes) are so available and inexpensive, that there is no need to learn longhand mathematics (Substitute Morse CW) any more. I have personally seen little children crying over their difficulties with learning longhand math. If they just used calculators they wouldn't be so frustrated, and perhaps even learn to love math. Longhand math is keeping potential mathematicians from getting their degrees and infusing the field with their fresh ideas! 8^) CW, in this analogy, is a different animal - more like comparing an abacus to a calculator. In skilled hands, an abacus can give you the same answer as a calculator (faster, too - watched a guy do it once!) - but it is outmoded, in a world where calculators are cheap and common.....one would be hard pressed to devise a compelling arguement for teaching the abacus nowadays! Actually, if you at all buy the argument about longhand vs a calculator, you can hardly toss out CW by calling it an abacus (BTW, I learned how to use an abacus in grade school) Toss 'em both out or accept them both. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com