|
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote ..... how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! No stretch at all, since N2EY has been advocating that argument here for several months now, and is making himself the poster child for NTI (No Theory International). 73, Hans, K0HB |
|
"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement. Jim, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. 73, de Hans, K0HB (classic sour grapes) |
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net... "Bert Craig" wrote Hans, Please give me an idea of what freqs you'll frequent. Having just moved into our new QTH, I have nothing substantial really set up yet, however, I'd love to toss a wire up in one of the trees and let the autotuner in the K1 handle the rest. (Don't know if 5 Watts'll do it, but am more than game to try.) Look for W0SOC Friday evening and all day Sunday on whatever bands are open to DX. Look for W0AIH all weekend on every band 160-10 (less WARC AND 60M). Ok, I'l listen out for you, GL OM. But since this is a DX event, WA2SI is a zero-point QSO. Oops, my bad. I'm really not very contest oriented. I just wanted to add K0HB to my RRAP QSL wall. hihi I don't want to slow you down either. I'm sure I'll catch you OTA sooner or later down the road. 73, Hans, K0HB 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
What would it accomplish? At the end of a ten-year period with a learning permit, it would bottom-blow those persons who through either lack of interest or lack of aptitude had not met the qualifications for a standard ham license. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote What would it accomplish? At the end of a ten-year period with a learning permit, it would bottom-blow those persons who through either lack of interest or lack of aptitude had not met the qualifications for a standard ham license. True, although I think a large number of those would just simply not renew their licenses. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:52:26 GMT, K=D8HB wrote:
Even further back (in 1919) the old Amateur First Grade was required to= pass a 10WPM test in Continental Morse Even even further back (in 1913) the old Amateur First Grade was requir= ed to pass a 5WPM test in Continental Morse Even even even further back (in 1912) the old Amateur First Grade "must= be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, but no speed rate wi= ll be prescribed." (Presumably 1 word per fortnight was sufficient.) Wasn't "Continental Morse" the contemporary name for what we now call "International Morse", as distinguished from "American Morse" ? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Phil Kane" wrote Wasn't "Continental Morse" the contemporary name for what we now call "International Morse", as distinguished from "American Morse" ? That's correct. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
True, although I think a large number of those would just simply not renew their licenses. In this case, as in the case of the original Novice "learners permit", renewal would not be allowed. My plan is much more generous, giving the novice a 10-year period to qualify as opposed to the 1-year term of the original Novice license. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Mike Coslo wrote:
N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... btw, who is (jg)? Officer LHA. Brian Burke, LHA junior grade. Dave K8MN |
|
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the last two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this discussion. Isn't this overall discussion about the code test? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote True, although I think a large number of those would just simply not renew their licenses. In this case, as in the case of the original Novice "learners permit", renewal would not be allowed. My plan is much more generous, giving the novice a 10-year period to qualify as opposed to the 1-year term of the original Novice license. 73, de Hans, K0HB Since the uninterested would generally let it lapse anyway, it's not worth the effort to change to change the rules to have a 10 year non-renewable "learner's permit." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the last two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this discussion. Isn't this overall discussion about the code test? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) My response was to your statement that code itself was unnecessary and I made that clear that I was addressing that issue only. You elected to attempt to take it back to the code test. Taking it back to the code test does not refute the necessity of code itself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote:
Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities. (snip) Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those modes and the rules associated with them. Morse code should join those modes in that regard. In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement. Can you prove otherwise? What is there to prove? Isn't that exactly the intent of the license exams - the fundamentals of radio and electronics, safety, rules and regulations, and so on. When it comes to Amateur Radio, the FCC is not a school and nobody graduates with a degree in radio or electronics when they're handed a ham license. That license exams (and licenses) are simply entrances into the various levels of Amateur Radio - the real learning comes with what is done afterwards (operating, building, experimenting, reading, practice, and the resulting experence from any or all of that). The FCC has never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams, and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important hams have done so). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote:
As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. (snip) Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of the license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we actually do. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: ..... any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity. I'll be participating in the CQWW CW RadioSport event this weekend from W0SOC, and later from W0AIH. It is a necessity that I know Morse in order to participate. From the perspective of an FCC license requirement, is it necessary for you to participate in that event? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: In this case, as in the case of the original Novice "learners permit", renewal would not be allowed. My plan is much more generous, giving the novice a 10-year period to qualify as opposed to the 1-year term of the original Novice license. 73, de Hans, K0HB Since the uninterested would generally let it lapse anyway, it's not worth the effort to change to change the rules to have a 10 year non-renewable "learner's permit." Dee, It's not just about "interest" but about "qualifications". Hans thinks that *all* hams should be qualified (eventually) at at least the Extra class written level. The purpose of his proposed LP license is to give newbies a sample of what ham radio is like, and a 10-year opportunity to learn enough to get a full-privileges license. Just like the old 1 and 2 year one-to-a-customer Novice licenses did. IOW, upgrade or leave the amateur bands. Hans' proposal is that simple. LPs would have an 8 year window of opportunity to do so. Part of the concept is the idea that if somebody can't hack the Extra test - for whatever reason - before their 10 year LP license runs out, too bad, game over, thanks for playing. Of course at any future time after the LP license runs out, such a person could take the Extra written and get the license. The idea is that "LPs" are not really qualified hams - the license class would exist so that they could become qualified. Of course the only difference in privs would be power level - LPs would be limited to 50 watts out. No word on vanity calls, tho. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the last two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this discussion. Isn't this overall discussion about the code test? The code test is part of it, but overall it is about many of the technical issues that will shape where the ARS goes in the future. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. (snip) Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of the license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we actually do. So, "real" radio operating experience can ONLY be done in AMATEUR radio? LHA |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! You WANT absurdity? more snippage so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. DOS tip: The FCC determines what it requires in licensing of radio operators, NOT the "amateur community" or the "communities" of any other radio service that require radio operators. We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! You can always petiiton the FCC for a complete change in scope and description of U.S. amateur radio. I'd suggest you change the name to "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service" for below-30-MHz. Make morse the prime definition of HF amateur radio. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. Has anyone seen YOUR opposition to a "VEC group publishing what they want?" We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Don't try to rationalize a weak argument of yours as "more noble, logical, in the best interests of the service," etc., etc. by feigning outrage at "improper acts of others." We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Don't worry, 981 commenters on RM-10811 (largest number of respondents of the 14 petitions) have been busy stating things in public. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. WHY? You are just about to fall over the edge of the "I had to do it so everyone else has to do it in the future" non-argument. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. "Dramatic?!?!?" Only if you are a morseman is such a thing "dramatic." :-) They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Translation: You had to do something but if others in the future don't do as you did, they are getting something "free?" Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. Okay, begin with some fundamentals: 1. A radio boot camp where all "novices" have to learn to take orders from their "superior" license class holders, march in ranks to beep music determined by long-ago-dead-amateurs, know vacuum tube lore by heart, learn how to memorize all the radio ads in QST and desire each item. 2. Swear an oath of allegiance to amateur radio and the constitution of the ARRL, salute each vertical diamond logo as it passes in front of your eyes. Loyalty, fraternity, etc. 3. Wear cute little radio uniforms when operating, have shiny radio shields in a special holder giving you "authority" anyplace. Uniforms are a good place to show RANK and TIME IN GRADE while "in the (radio) service." 4. Demand immediate obeyance by all "civilians" not in your "service" as superior in the radio arts. Reject all those who do not think as you do. Remember that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does NOT apply to citizens on amateur radio matters...unless said citizen is licensed in amateur radio. 5. Petition the FCC for an immediate change of the HF amateur radio service to "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service," or perhaps "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society." That way you can keep the beloved code test and force all in the future to do exactly as you had to do. 6. Always remember that YOUR efforts in getting that amateur license were so awesome, overpowering, enobling that the individual efforts of mere "civilians" not into amateur radio are forever poor and puny by comparison. 7. Amateurs RULE. Professionals must obey the amateurs. LHA |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the last two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this discussion. Isn't this overall discussion about the code test? The code test is part of it, but overall it is about many of the technical issues that will shape where the ARS goes in the future. The CODE TEST is a MAJOR PART of every one of the 14 petitions before the Commission [RM-10781 thru RM-10787, RM-10805 thru RM-10811]. Everyone's future happens right after now. LHA "today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday..." :-) |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities. (snip) Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those modes and the rules associated with them. Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Morse code should join those modes in that regard. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement. Can you prove otherwise? What is there to prove? Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and regulations. For example, Technicians are allowed to use all authorized modes on the six meter band at up to 1500 W output. This includes all modes allowed on the HF/MF bands. Therefore, the Technician test must, by definition, be adequate to insure that those who pass it are qualified on all authorized HF/MF modes and the use of transmitters up to 1500 W output on six meters MHz. Since the hazards of RF exposure on HF/MF are less than those on 50 MHz, and the modes authorized on HF/MF are a subset of those authorized on six, it logically follows that those who pass the Tech test are *mostly* qualified to operate HF/MF. The exceptions are those few things which are specific to HF/MF, such as propagation. But the General and Extra writtens go far beyond HF/MF propagation in their technical material. Why is that stuff necessary? Isn't that exactly the intent of the license exams - the fundamentals of radio and electronics, safety, rules and regulations, and so on. Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must go beyond those basics. When it comes to Amateur Radio, the FCC is not a school and nobody graduates with a degree in radio or electronics when they're handed a ham license. That's right. And nobody with a degree is handed a ham license either. That license exams (and licenses) are simply entrances into the various levels of Amateur Radio - the real learning comes with what is done afterwards (operating, building, experimenting, reading, practice, and the resulting experence from any or all of that). Sure. So what's the point of all that written testing? Why is a General qualified to use 1500 W on 14,026 kHz but not on 14,024? The FCC has never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams, and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important hams have done so). Yet in the past there have been repeated instances where qualifed radio-electronics people were needed on short notice and they were recruited from the ranks of amateur radio. If what matters is the learning that happens *after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss about written tests? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! Exactly. more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not! It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest problem I see in his proposals are the We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or reasonable to require any code test at all. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments. We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it? We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Maybe it already has. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. How? Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace. Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the past. Etc. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for a ham license. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their pre-teen years - how hard could it have been? Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. Some would say "That's a good thing!" There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. And how do you *prove* they are necessary, in a modern-day environment where even the self-proclaimed "professionals in radio" are using or will use manufactured rigs that are virtually foolproof? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote: As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. (snip) Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of the license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we actually do. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that idea of a term limitation license makes more sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of it...but maybe there's a part of it I haven't thought of, such as your comment above. Kim W5TIT |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! Exactly. more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not! Glad you brought that up! Article 25, paragraph 6 refers to administrators verifying operational and technical qualifications. It refers to "guidance" that can be taken from Recommendation ITU-R-M.1544. Ouch! "Guidance and "Reccomendations"? What have we here? That administrations can bend the rules as they wish, with W1AW making broadcasts, (which I support, BTW) third party operations between schoolkids and the International space station, just to name a few. So if they can bend rules, imagine their needed reaction to "guidelines". I'm saying that the framework for NTI is in place, and no treaty changes are needed. Maybe that deregulation argument I brough up the other day isn't so far fetched after all. It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest problem I see in his proposals are the Misssd something there Jim! 8^) We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or reasonable to require any code test at all. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments. Sure, strong, well reasoned, loud and strong. 8^) We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it? Classic blame the messenger. We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Maybe it already has. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. How? Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace. Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the past. Etc. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for a ham license. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their pre-teen years - how hard could it have been? All I can say is that I studied over 6 months to get to 5 wpm. I have been working now for the past 4 months to get my speed up. I've tried several different methods, and am just now getting to the point where I can pick out some of the words on the air. at least an hour a day, seven days a week doing both computer and on the air, and I still suck. The only thing that keeps me working at it is the personal challenge. So while I am happy for those children that have learned 20 wpm Morse, I have to say that it just ain't the same for everybody. If those rules from long ago were still in effect, I'd probably have to have a different hobby! My Novice ticket would run out, and that would be it. Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. Some would say "That's a good thing!" HAH! Some hobby! - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
|
|
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote: As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. (snip) Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of the license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we actually do. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that idea of a term limitation license makes more sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of it...but maybe there's a part of it I haven't thought of, such as your comment above. Kim W5TIT This is where some of the OF's say that all learning must occur prior to the exam. Basically, nothing more can be learned after the Extra exam. Except when they "earned" thir commercial licenses. Except when Len brings up his commercial experience. See what I mean? I'm not buying it - never have. |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
My response was to your statement that code itself was unnecessary and I made that clear that I was addressing that issue only. (snip) But my entire message, including the argument in that sentence, was about the code test. However, within that context, it is indeed true that Morse code is not "necessary" for Amateur Radio today. The key word is "necessary," not enjoyable, not great recreation, not useful to make contacts with friends when conditions are bad, or whatever. Necessary. And, therefore, if Morse code is not uniquely necessary, it should join the other modes on the written tests without a unique testing requirement. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly obvious. Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test? Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and regulations. I've already explained the necessity of the written test in the previous message and in the paragraph above. Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must go beyond those basics. Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim? This is a discussion about the code test. I have no desire to expand that into a discussion about the written exams, including a review of those exams. Further, I think the value of the written exams is bloody obvious to all. Therefore, there is nothing to prove. If what matters is the learning that happens *after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss about written tests? Read my first paragraph above. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that idea of a term limitation license makes more sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of it...but maybe there's a part of it I haven't thought of, such as your comment above. Learning is one aspect of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, not the total sum. When discussing term limits on license class, all aspects of that should be considered. And, when it comes to those other aspects, there is no real benefit from term limits. Indeed, one could argue that it may actually harm those other things (reducing our overall numbers, for example). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote
And it has the unique characteristic that you can't take advantage of it until you have acquired a basic skill level. Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode which you can use without some basic skill level in that mode. 73, Hans, K0HB |
"N2EY" wrote:
(snip) Hans thinks that *all* hams should be qualified (eventually) at at least the Extra class written level. The purpose of his proposed LP license is to give newbies a sample of what ham radio is like, and a 10-year opportunity to learn enough to get a full-privileges license. (snip) And I think Hans is barking up the wrong tree with his idea. I don't see any benefit whatsoever. It doesn't really serve a specific need within the Amateur Radio community. It doesn't serve the regulatory needs of the FCC. And it doesn't really serve the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. Hans seems to be basing his idea on 97.1(c) and 97.1(d). The first talks about, "Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both communications and technical phases of the art." The second talks about, "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts." Neither of these even suggest the need for a requirement to advance in license class or get out. And neither suggests a need for a requirement to learn to a specific level or get out. Hans also seems to be basing his idea on the faulty premise that one must advance in license class to learn, advance skills, or increase the reservoir of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. Of course, that premise is simply untrue. For example, one can learn about satellite communications, at least all that one can learn though Amateur Radio, with a Technician license (no license advancement required). The same with digital communications. The same with microwave communications. And the same with moonbounce, SSB, FM repeaters, and a long list of other skills, abilities, and radio arts. Finally, I think Hans' idea would have a chilling effect on the Amateur Radio Service - assigning newcomers (once again) to an outside the mainstream, subordinate, sub-class with sharp limits on their participation. If I took my first look at Amateur radio, and saw that as my only option, I would probably not so politely say where you could stick it. The 'advance or get out' idea would make that almost a certainty (indeed, why even invest time, or in radio equipment, if there is even the slightest possibility of being forced out of something I know so little about at that particular moment - a potential newcomer). Luckily, I think the FCC would have enough common sense to realize this idea is absurd. Sadly, it does seem to have it's supporters within the Amateur Radio community. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
And I think Hans is barking up the wrong tree with his idea. I don't bark, and I'm not a dog. I don't see any benefit whatsoever. That bothers me not at all. It's the Commission I need to persuade. Hans also seems to be basing his idea on the faulty premise that one must advance in license class to learn..... I don't support that premise at all. Where did you read such off-target drivel? For more than 40 years I've been an outspoken critic of (dis)incentive licensing. My plan calls for a very simplified license structure of a broad-privileged learners permit to gain qualification, and a single license class after becoming qualified. Finally, I think Hans' idea would have a chilling effect on the Amateur Radio Service - assigning newcomers (once again) to an outside the mainstream...... On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at a more modest power level of 50watts. No more limited-mode isolated and restricted ghettos like the former Novice class, and greatly expanded privileges beyond those enjoyed by todays entry-level Technicians. It's clear to me that you haven't even taken the time to read the proposal I've made to the FCC. You can view a copy at my website http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb .... click on the left hand column link to 'FCC Comments'. When you've taken the trouble to actually read what I've proposed, come back here with reasoned arguments against it. Until then you are not prepared and ill-qualified to comment. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities. (snip) Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those modes and the rules associated with them. Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Which is also the reason why failing to correctly answer any one or two questions about any individual mode does not result in failing the test. Morse code should join those modes in that regard. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Certainly seems incnsitent to me....on a mode for mode comparison basis. In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement. Can you prove otherwise? What is there to prove? Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and regulations. Noneed to. The FCC rules require it and I'm content with that. If you (Jim N2EY) feel otherwise, then petition the FCC for the change. Unless you or someone else does othat, this is just academic futility. The code TEST however, has already been acknowledged by the FCC as not being needed anymore...so the burden of proof to retain a code test falls on those that wish to keep 5 wpm. SNIP of additional comparisons of license requirements vs license privileges I have also noted that perhaps it is time for some "revamping" of licensing such that the privileges bear some relationship to the level of license granted. It will, if that path is taken, be a protracted process (IMHO). Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
"Bill Sohl" wrote
I have also noted that perhaps it is time for some "revamping" of licensing such that the privileges bear some relationship to the level of license granted. It will, if that path is taken, be a protracted process (IMHO). A straightforward plan is already written and in the hands of the FCC. http://tinyurl.com/wce9 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com