"Bert Craig" wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Bert, if you're using popularity as a
justification--and the test questions
may have changed to inlcude this
since I entered ham radio--then why
are there no questions or
demonstration required during testing
for the *number 1* most popular
mode of operation?

Because for 99.9% of ARO's, speach
is a skill that's already in our toolbox
upon entry into the ARS.


I understand Kim's point. Lets try it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore any skills needed for the voice
modes (however minor), there is still some validity in Kim's argument.
Spanish is use more often the CW in this country (more popular), so perhaps
we should test all operators on the ability to speak Spanish like we test
for CW now. Or, since English is more common (popular) in this country today
than Spanish, perhaps we should test all on the ability to speak English
like we test for CW now. In other words, as Kim says, popularity alone is
not a justification for a code test unless it is equally so for voice.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Dwight, how about giving us a good
rational reason to continue testing at
all. I can break every reason with
either rationale or minor modifications
to equipment.


The FCC itself has already effectively provided that answer when they said
"the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose of the service." Clearly, the written
tests do comport with the basis and purpose of the service, and I doubt many
of us, including you, would disagree.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Irrelevant, Dwight. The amateur
community has specifed the criteria
and goals of amateurism.

First and foremost is morsemanship.
(snip)


Because so many obviously agree, your sarcasm falls flat, Len.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
And, in my humble opinion, it is not
sufficient justification - no more than
the fact that vacuum tubes or circular
analog tuning dials were once popular
justifies a requirement that they
continue to be used.

There were never any test questions on
circular analog tuning dials AFAIK. There
used to be lots of test questions on tubes
but they are almost all gone now - because
most hams' rigs don't use tubes any more.


The issue is a government requirement, not test questions.


If a person has no interest in code, the
speed certainly isn't going to change that.

Apply that same logic to the written test...


Have already done so elsewhere (in a reply to Mike Coslo, I believe).


And they said reducing the emphasis on
telegraphy proficiency as a licensing
requirement would "allow the amateur
service to, as it has in the past, attract
technically inclined persons, particularly
the youth of our country, and encourage
them to learn and to prepare themselves
in the areas where the United States
needs expertise."


But that hasn't happened. Didn't happen
after 1991, nor again after 2000.


How do you know that to be a fact? With some training in electronics,
radio, computers, and so on, I consider myself somewhat technically inclined
and I probably would have never gotten a license if the code tests remained
for all licenses. Are you so very certain I'm the only one?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

The FCC doesn't have a mandate to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character" stuff in the rules is about.

There's a local ham around here who has generated so much trouble
on various repeaters and earned himself so many warning letters
that FCC is considering not renewing his license for "character"
reasons. IOW he simply doesn't have the necessary self-discipline
to be a ham.

And, beyond the rules
and good operating practices, we shouldn't expect it either.

Agreed. But those things do constitute "discipline".

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
And, in my humble opinion, it is not
sufficient justification - no more than
the fact that vacuum tubes or circular
analog tuning dials were once popular
justifies a requirement that they
continue to be used.

There were never any test questions on
circular analog tuning dials AFAIK. There
used to be lots of test questions on tubes
but they are almost all gone now - because
most hams' rigs don't use tubes any more.


The issue is a government requirement, not test questions.

The written tests which are made from those questions are a govenrment
requirement.

If a person has no interest in code, the
speed certainly isn't going to change that.

Apply that same logic to the written test...

Have already done so elsewhere (in a reply to Mike Coslo, I believe).

And they said reducing the emphasis on
telegraphy proficiency as a licensing
requirement would "allow the amateur
service to, as it has in the past, attract
technically inclined persons, particularly
the youth of our country, and encourage
them to learn and to prepare themselves
in the areas where the United States
needs expertise."

But that hasn't happened. Didn't happen
after 1991, nor again after 2000.

How do you know that to be a fact?

Because we have not seen any significant changes
to the technology used by hams in all that time that
came from hams who aren't code tested.

With some training in electronics,
radio, computers, and so on, I consider myself somewhat technically inclined
and I probably would have never gotten a license if the code tests remained
for all licenses. Are you so very certain I'm the only one?

Not at all.

But with all due respect, Dwight - how "technically inclined" are you?
Build any homebrew rigs? Any new modes or technologies? Any
technical articles in amateur radio publications?

Please understand, there's no requirement that you or any ham do any of those
things. But what difference does it make how "technically inclined" a ham is if

they don't do any of them?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a
person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for
ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly
if they were willing to retest for the same license?


It's a learners permit, NOT a license.

What's the difference?

It's provisional, intended to assist in gaining full qualification for
an amateur license.

Just like the Tech and General class licenses are today...

Here in PA, a person with a learner's permit for driving cannot drive
alone.
Could your learner's permit hams operate their own rigs all by themselves?
If so, it's a license.

Well? Could the holder of your learners permit ham license operate a ham rig
alone?

If they couldn't/didn't learn enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

But they're qualified to have a learner's permit for 10 years.

Do you have aproblem with 10 years? Should we make it 10 weeks?

I have a problem with the idea that someone who can pass the test for the
learner's permit and who has a clean record is pushed off the amateur bands
because he/she can't or won't pass the exam for the full-privileges license. I
can see making the LP nonrenewable and requiring a retest to get another one,
but not being banned for life as your plan would do.

Can you name any other license where, if you don't upgrade within a
specified time, you lose the license you have?

There are no such amateur licenses extant, but for the majority of
it's availability the Novice license was exactly like that.

Actually just about half its existence.

But that feature ended almost 30 years ago. I've been told I'm "clinging to the
past" because I think code tests are a good idea...

Are there any licenses or learner's permits of *any* kind currently issued by
the US Govt. that are one-time-only, upgrade-or-you're-out?

That was
probably the most effective method ever devised of introducing
non-amateurs to ham radio with a "sample sized" operating permit.
Easy to get, with limited power so you didn't trash the
RF-neighborhood too badly, and of a duration long enough to decide if
you wanted to become a ham and to gain experience for the
qualification tests.

And they limited it to a few slices of a few bands. And for most of its
existence it was CW only. ;-)

Then they spoiled it by making it renewable.

Which was done because of the perception that too many newcomers were dropping
out.

There's another option. Make it nonrenewable but "retakeable", just like other
LP's. If someone reached the end of their 10 years and wanted to remain a ham,
but couldn't pass the full-privs test, they could take the then-current LP test
and get another LP. Just like for a driver's license. That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license. And FCC would not have to
maintain a database of folks banned from ever getting an LP.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/25/03 5:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Sounds like what we've inherited today. Let's do something rational
instead.

It will be interesting to see what YOU call "rational".

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, you never pay attention, do you?

I've said it many, many times. One amateur radio service, one amateur
radio license. And maybe a learners permit as Hans suggests.

How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you
really want?

You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum of
knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full
privilege license.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Jim does. His proposal.

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote

You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum
of
knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full
privilege license.

Yes. Good plan. (Toss in Novice and Advanced while we're on the topic.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

We could even make up a few more new questions, expecially The Amateur
Formerly Known As Rev. Jim trivia questions type.

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
The FCC doesn't have a mandate
to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character"
stuff in the rules is about.


I've read the rules many times, but must have missed the part or parts
about character testing.


There's a local ham around here who
has generated so much trouble on
various repeaters and earned himself
so many warning letters that FCC is
considering not renewing his license
for "character" reasons. IOW he
simply doesn't have the necessary
self-discipline to be a ham.


First, what does that have to do with testing? Second, there is nothing in
the rules about refusing a renewal based on character, so I seriously doubt
that would be the FCC's explination for any action like this (a pattern of
rule violations, yes).


Agreed. But those things do constitute
"discipline".


Only if you stretch the word to mean something beyond common usage.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

The written tests which are made from
those questions are a govenrment
requirement.


However, we were discussing the government requirement, not test
questions.


Because we have not seen any significant
changes to the technology used by hams
in all that time that came from hams who
aren't code tested.


Of course not. Radio is a mature technology, so you're not likely to see
"significant" changes in the future. But that doesn't suggest for a moment
that there are no contributions at all being made. With several hundred
thousand hams out there, neither of us are likely to know what contributions
are being made.


But with all due respect, Dwight - how
"technically inclined" are you? Build any
homebrew rigs? Any new modes or
technologies? Any technical articles in
amateur radio publications?


Are these what determines who is technically inclined? If so, I doubt 99%
of the operators today, in any license class, could be described that way. I
use modern radio equipment, far beyond what could be built easily at home.
New modes were rare even before any changes to the code tests and may be
even more rare in the future. And new technologies will obviously be small
in a mature industry. As for my own activities, I'll refrain beyond saying
I've built some lessor equipment at home, written some articles, and helped
to establish policies for the use of amateur equipment within a national
organization.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

cb and shortwave groups trimmed


Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

some snippage

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.



A test of BPL was run in Alabama. A engineer friend of mine told me it was
not coming up to what was advertised in Birmingham. Repeaters were needed
way too often, thus jacking up the expense.

Unless the FCC is totally braindead I think BPL, as proposed will die by
itself. However what they want is INCREASE the power of BPL over and above
what is presently allowed under part 15.

They may take that route. We shall see.


I think they should be told that "Ya can't polish a Turd!"

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote

That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would
be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license.

If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they
can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to
be sufficient to become qualified.

I can't imagine "one who was interested" would fail to qualify in 10 years,
but if they didn't, well I guess there are other hobbies like finger
painting which might be less challenging and not require a federal license
to pursue. The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but
life's a bitch sometimes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote

Could the holder of your learners permit ham license operate a ham rig
alone?

Of course, just like the previous learners permit, aka "Novice".

not being banned for life as your plan would do.

They wouldn't be 'banned for life'. They could take the standard
qualification test at any time.

Are there any licenses or learner's permits of *any* kind currently issued
by
the US Govt. that are one-time-only, upgrade-or-you're-out?

None that I'm aware are currently extant, but precedent exists.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote
Only on a one-time basis.

If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate,

It is.

and if the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra
Class"
would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows
rules.

Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can
reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive
than the current General discriminates against new applicants.

They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could
certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to
simplify the overall license structure.

But why is there such a need? Retaining closed-off license classes
like the Advanced and Novice simply requires that a certain field in
the FCC database have more alternatives and the retention of a few
paragraphs of Part 97 listing privs of those licenses.

Back in the days before electronic data, FCC kept the closed-off
Advanced class as a separate entity for more than a decade even though
it carried no additional privileges.

Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to
prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of
underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of
amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience.

So how come when the Generals "lost" privileges in 1968 they didn't
win that same argument...i.e. you can't take privileges
from me because the new requirements aren't justified
since I already had those privileges via a lower class
license?

Two reasons:

1) The 1968 situation involved existing hams *losing* privs, not
getting a free upgrade.

2) What is proposed, if I read it correctly, is a one-time giveaway,
not a rules change.

The closest thing to it historically isn't 1968 but instead it's the
Great Giveaway of 1953, when FCC completely reversed its restructuring
of 1951 and opened all privs to all hams except Novices and Techs.

And I'll ask again - why is there a need to eliminate the closed-off
license classes? Tech Plus will disappear automatically no later than
6 years, 3 months and 10 days from now. Novice is down by about a
third and Advanced is slowly decreasing as well. What harm do these
old classes do?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
The FCC doesn't have a mandate
to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character"
stuff in the rules is about.


I've read the rules many times, but must have missed the part or parts
about character testing.

We've had many characters testing.

One of the more memorable ones has been CB Bruce/WA8ULX, who tested on
a lark, scored 100% w/o studying, did so in less than 8 minutes, and
collected $250 from two CB-Plussers.

Shirley you recall that character?

Maybe The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim had someone else in mind.

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Irrelevant, Dwight. The amateur
community has specifed the criteria
and goals of amateurism.

First and foremost is morsemanship.
(snip)

Because so many obviously agree, your sarcasm falls flat, Len.

Irrelevant. Morse code is the entire foundation for amateur radio.

Morse code is cutting-edge technology, an advancement necessary
to use the HF spectrum for communications.

Morse code gets through when nothing else will, thus proving that
morse code modes do away with electrical power requirements.

All who are "interested in radio" are required to learn morse code
and be licensed in the amateur radio service. Non-morse modes
do not count as "interest." Non-amateur work does not count as
"interest." Professional work in radio does not count as "interest."

Learning morse code shows the self-discipline, dedication, and
commitment to the amateur community and the League.

I have been told this. I repeat it to you for the betterment of all.

LHA

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum
of
knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full
privilege license.

Yes. Good plan. (Toss in Novice and Advanced while we're on the topic.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

Well of course but that's already been done. The current Tech pool now
covers the old Novice material and the current Extra pool now covers the old
Advanced material.

Sorry, the entirety of the Tech is totally irrelevant and irreverent...they
are not tested for morse code proficiency.

Morse code is the living heart of amateur radio. Only "real" hams
have been code-tested.

Without morse code testing, all new amateur licenses are Given Away!

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Len Over 21" wrote


Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical,
inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc.


I knew you'd agree with me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

I just happen to agree with Hans' plan. Allow the amateur to
distinguish him or herself through actions rather than an FCC forced
march.

While I agree on the generality of that, such is impossible under
the present-day Class Distinction Rules of US amateur radio.

ALL perceived expertise is judged by the "amateur community"
as demonstrated by the fancy-bordered license (suitable for
framing) from the federal government.

The Amateur Extra is the epitome of excellence. Once achieved,
nothing else need be learned. Education ends. You have been
told by his Most High Excellency, the Dill Instructor.

All learning comes through having tiers and tiers of classes, of
distinctions (enforced by law) right along with the social need of
call letters written behind the name to signify a "title" all may see
(and admire, respect) as if it is a dukedom, barony, or other
noble rank. That is VERY IMPORTANT. Do not criticize any
statements of the ruling classes of the "community."

US amateur radio seems to have ceased being a hobby, an
avocational activity done for personal recreation. It has become a
LIFESTYLE...a True Belief.

cut to stock shot of Rod Serling and signpost up ahead, voice
sign-off by Rod...up theme and take black...

LHA

And poor Mike is getting beat up for saying the W1AW signal was too wide.

Newsgroup rules. Make ONE mistake and absolutely everything
else the mistaker posts is "incorrect, faulty, irrelevant!" :-)

ARRL can do no wrong. Ergo, W1AW's signal is perfect. No problem.

LHA

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license.

If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they
can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to
be sufficient to become qualified.

I can't imagine "one who was interested" would fail to qualify in 10 years,
but if they didn't, well I guess there are other hobbies like finger
painting which might be less challenging and not require a federal license
to pursue. The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but
life's a bitch sometimes.

Those who are "interested in radio" might very well go into the
electronics industry and find out the whole of the radio world...
and earn a comfortable living while they are at it.

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

I'm not gonna throw any stones at ya, Bill. But please note how
I was asked to shut up a while back when I pointed out some logical
inconsistencies in the written testing....

[nobody can realistically expect you to "shut up," jimmie...:-) ]

Nor can we expect you, Leonard H. Andserson, to heed your own
advice, ie not using belittling endearments when addressing others.

Scumbags rarely do. And you ARE a scumbag.

OK, little Stevie, you appear to be using belittling endearments when
addressing others. Again.

Stebe once passed a 20 WPM code test, answered enough questions
correct on an exam, received his federal merit badge certification
(suitable for framing) and became an amateur extra.

That gives him absolute permission to behave as an asshole off the
radio. No problem. :-)

LHA

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Could the holder of your learners permit ham license operate a ham rig
alone?

Of course, just like the previous learners permit, aka "Novice".

Then it's a license.

not being banned for life as your plan would do.

They wouldn't be 'banned for life'. They could take the standard
qualification test at any time.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. They'd be "banned for life" from getting another
learner's permit...err, Class B license. FCC or somebody would have to keep a
database of everyone who had held one and let it expire without upgrading, to
insure that someone wouldn't retest and get a second one.

Are there any licenses or learner's permits of *any* kind currently issued
by the US Govt. that are one-time-only, upgrade-or-you're-out?

None that I'm aware are currently extant, but precedent exists.

Sure - a precedent that ended almost 30 years ago. Maybe FCC will go for that
idea but I doubt it.

btw, the old nonrenewable nonretakeable Novice had one more limitation back in
those days: it was for newbies only. Anyone who had *ever* held any class of
amateur license, even one that had long since expired, could not get a Novice.
It had to be a person's first ham license.

Of course back then FCC trusted that when someone checked the box on the Form
610 that said they' never had a ham license before, they weren't fibbing.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
The FCC doesn't have a mandate
to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character"
stuff in the rules is about.

I've read the rules many times, but must have missed the part or parts
about character testing.

FCC reserves the right to deny a license to someone who has passed the tests
*if* FCC determines that said person cannot be trusted to follow the rules. In
practice this means that someone convicted of a crime (usually a felony) can be
denied a ham license, particularly if the crime was a violation of the
Communications Act.

For example, some years back a ham went to jail for hacking into computers (he
wrote a book about it in prison, btw). Ham radio had nothing to do with his
crimes
but FCC did some serious consideration of not renewing his license. I think he
finally convinced them that he was rehabilitated and trustworthy enough to have
a license.

There's a local ham around here who
has generated so much trouble on
various repeaters and earned himself
so many warning letters that FCC is
considering not renewing his license
for "character" reasons. IOW he
simply doesn't have the necessary
self-discipline to be a ham.

First, what does that have to do with testing?

It has to do with discipline and responsibility. Even though this guy could
pass the tests again, his renewal may be denied.

Second, there is nothing in
the rules about refusing a renewal based on character, so I seriously doubt
that would be the FCC's explination for any action like this (a pattern of
rule violations, yes).

We discussed the "character" issue in its own thread some time back. K2ASP gave
some good insights. A person who can't seem to follow the rules *can* be denied
a renewal based on what FCC calls "character".

Don't take my word for it - ask Phil and/or google up the old thread. I recall
the C-word was in the thread title.

Agreed. But those things do constitute
"discipline".

Only if you stretch the word to mean something beyond common usage.

Then use the word "responsibility" or the words "responsible behavior".

73 de Jim, N2EY
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote


FCC or somebody would have to keep a
database of everyone who had held one and let it expire without upgrading,
to
insure that someone wouldn't retest and get a second one.


No more than FCC or somebody kept a similar database to prevent ex-licensees
from glomming onto a Novice permit back in the 1950's. A false application
today is just as unlikely as a false application 50 years ago, and I suspect
the penalties are similar.

And why bother --- after 10 years of experience, the standard exam would be
a laugher.

73, CU in NAQP,

de Hans, K0HB

N2EY wrote:

Do you have aproblem with 10 years? Should we make it 10 weeks?


I have a problem with the idea that someone who can pass the test for the
learner's permit and who has a clean record is pushed off the amateur bands
because he/she can't or won't pass the exam for the full-privileges license. I
can see making the LP nonrenewable and requiring a retest to get another one,
but not being banned for life as your plan would do.

There lise the BIG problem with this peoposal. There will be some
people that will test the principle, that's for sure.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Brian" wrote:

We've had many characters testing.

One of the more memorable ones
has been CB Bruce/WA8ULX, who
tested on a lark, scored 100% w/o
studying, did so in less than 8 minutes,
and collected $250 from two
CB-Plussers.


LOL. Yep, if the goal is indeed to test character, there is something
clearly wrong with the process.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
The FCC doesn't have a mandate
to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character"
stuff in the rules is about.

I've read the rules many times, but must
have missed the part or parts about
character testing.

FCC reserves the right to deny a license to
someone who has passed the tests *if*
FCC determines that said person cannot be
trusted to follow the rules. In practice this
means that someone convicted of a crime
(usually a felony) can be denied a ham
license, particularly if the crime was a
violation of the Communications Act.


Good grief, Jim. Again, what does this have to do with code testing? This
has no relationship to anything being discussed.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) Morse code is cutting-edge
technology, an advancement necessary
to use the HF spectrum for
communications. (snip)

(snip) Learning morse code shows the
self-discipline, dedication, and
commitment to the amateur community
and the League.

I have been told this. I repeat it to
you for the betterment of all.


I've heard it all before, and remain a doubting heathen.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

I understand Kim's point. Lets try
it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering
this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in
this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't
in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore
any skills needed for the voice modes
(however minor), there is still some
validity in Kim's argument. Spanish is
use more often the CW in this (snip)


Wow! See what happens when you edit a sentence without checking it
afterwards. That last sentence should read "Spanish is used" and "more often
than CW."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

SNIP___SNIP


Those should be drummed out of the corps, banished to the nether
world of VHF and higher. All must show commitment and dedication
to the amateur community by maintaining a pool of trained morsemen
ready and waiting to save the world from alien invasion.

Everything good in US amateur radio is about morse code skill.

Self-discipline, dedication, committing to the olde-tyme hamme
traditions. Showing all one's hard work and efforts.

Words to live by in the amateur lifestyle, the belief system that is
the bastion of amateurism. Amen.

LHA

Very true. You have hit the nail on the head this time. Everything
that was good about amateur radio was morse code and the trained pool
of not only morsemen as you like to put it but also technically
trained people too. Amateur Radio as a service is gone. It is only
self serving now. Not a service but a high priced hobby. After all, it
is called the Amateur Radio Service. We do not have a right to our
allocated frequencies. We only use them by the grace of the FCC. So
LHA, your tounge in cheek comments ring very true indeed.
JEP

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
The FCC doesn't have a mandate
to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character"
stuff in the rules is about.

I've read the rules many times, but must have missed the part or parts
about character testing.

There's a local ham around here who
has generated so much trouble on
various repeaters and earned himself
so many warning letters that FCC is
considering not renewing his license
for "character" reasons. IOW he
simply doesn't have the necessary
self-discipline to be a ham.

First, what does that have to do with testing? Second, there is nothing
in
the rules about refusing a renewal based on character, so I seriously
doubt
that would be the FCC's explination for any action like this (a pattern of
rule violations, yes).

Agreed. But those things do constitute
"discipline".

Only if you stretch the word to mean something beyond common usage.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Unfortunately, I believe I have heard the story of which Jim speaks...or at
least one exactly like it. In fact, it seems to me that it was related to
the renewal of....hmmm, was it that Herb Schoen...something-or-other down in
the Carribean somewhere? Whatever license renewal denial it was, it was due
to character and that was the words of the FCC.

I think that's most unfortunate and don't agree with the practice at all.
Bust someone for R&R, etc., but the FCC--nor anyone and certainly not a
government--should be able to deny something because of "character."

Kim W5TIT

"JEP" wrote:

(snip) Amateur Radio as a service is
gone. It is only self serving now. Not
a service but a high priced hobby.
After all, it is called the Amateur
Radio Service.


First, you're obviously confused about the word "service." In FCC
terminology, "service" refers to a group of frequencies meant to serve a
particular purpose for the users of those frequencies, not anything done by
the users of those frequencies. As a result, we have the Amateur Radio
Service, Radio Broadcast Services, Cable TV Relay Service, Maritime Service,
Personal Radio Services, Citizens Band Radio Service, Fixed Microwave
Services, and so on through a long list of other radio services. In other
words, the word "service" in Amateur Radio Service does not refer to any
"service" we might provide to others.

Second, you're completely wrong about "service" being gone within the
Amateur Radio community. Based on what I've seen, I'd estimate as much as
75% of the current operators are involved in some form of public service
related activity in any given year. Of course, the need for our help is
high, meaning even more should become involved, but that hardly suggests the
idea of service is gone today.

The newsgroups "rec.radio.shortwave" and "rec.radio.cb" were deleted from
this reply (off-topic in those newsgroups).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

That deemphasis has already occurred. The no-code tech was instituted in
the late 1980s and the code for the higher classes was dropped to only
5wpm
in 2000. There is no need for further deemphasis. Particularly when the
stated reason was attract technically inclined people. That hasn't
happened
so the reason for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid.


Get the foul mouthed red necked yahoos off of HF and I'll consider wasting
my time to learn CW to meet and exceed your criteria.

At 5-wpm, it's more a demonstration of discipline than proficiency. That
is
where the true crux lies.


A better demonstration of discipline would be if CW trained amateurs would
stop using HF like it was 11 meters.