|
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years back. It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I don't think Aaron posted it, though. The Morse test speed for was increased to 13 wpm as a direct effort to limit the number of hams - and the moving force was the ARRL - it's documented in public records in the Library of Congress and was researched by a certified archivist. See the article at http://www.nocode.org/articles.html - scroll way down to the bottom it's the 3rd article from the bottom. 73, Carl - wk3c Smoking Gun! |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Brian" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years back. It's also in "200 Meters And Down" It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I don't think Aaron posted it, though. The Morse test speed for was increased to 13 wpm as a direct effort to limit the number of hams - and the moving force was the ARRL - it's documented in public records in the Library of Congress and was researched by a certified archivist. The key word is "implemented" - not increased. Here's "the rest of the story": Gee, why am I not suprised that the complete story had been "conveniently" edited. Thanks Jim. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message m... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "Brian" wrote in message om... [major snip] I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but not mode. Supporting a "learner's permit" license contradicts the concept of not having class distinctions as discussed in the earlier part the post. Of course it doesn't. Once you have more than one license class for any reason, you have a class distinction, which according to your posts is undesirable. It's not a class. Its a learners permit - a temp. Even though only temporary, it's still a separate class. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Says you. Do you see career divers motoring around with a 6 month permit? |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: The key word is "implemented" - not increased. Here's "the rest of the story": Gee, why am I not suprised that the complete story had been "conveniently" edited. bwaahaahaaa Thanks Jim. You're welcome. 73 de Jim, N2EY CU SKN |
In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes: It may have been increased for that purpose, but it was not originally implemented for that purpose. Fair statement. The "original" morse requirement was to enable non-amateur stations to dialog via morse with amateur stations in case of interfereing operation. That was one reason. Here are some others: - To permit amateur stations to dialog via morse with each other - To set a minimum standard of operator qualification so that newcomers would not try to learn the code on the air. (Remember that in the early days the effective selectivity of radio systems was not very good) - To support hte idea of the amateur service as a training ground for commercial and military operators - To support the use of the most spectrum-efficient mode then available The increase to 13wpm was, as the article states, intended to raise the bar of entrance criteria to limit the number of new hams. And so was the simultaneous upgrading of the written tests. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , JJ
writes: It may have been increased for that purpose, but it was not originally implemented for that purpose. My point exactly. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. Bill, Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968? If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. But, as you and I have agred before, the privileges gained do NOT relate to the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class. FCC disagrees, Bill. What is the technical competency difference between an Extra operating SSB with a TS440 in the 80m Extra voice segment vs a General operating the same rig at say 3.885Mhz? Not much! But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional technical knowledge with more privileges. For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between operating CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that I wrote *technical*) This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. The problem, again one we agreed on before, is that granting additional frequency spectrum doesn't rationally flow from the additional knowledge required for the higher license class (e.g. Extra vs General, General vs Tech. It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter. Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter, what about the General? Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Good question. My point exactly. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF? -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. True under the current scheme of licensing for the USA. It could be changed and that is the point raised in this discussion. Should it be changed and if so, how? I wrote up a suggested three-tiered system some time back and reposted it recently. I think it's the best compromise between all the various considerations. YMMV. Please note the following sentence. I'm *not* saying I want one class of license! I'm simply describing how to do it. You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it: First, put aside the code test issue and concentrate on the writtens. Second, close off the Tech and General to new issues. Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more. Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges. Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals. Never happen. I hope you're right, Bill. But I learned long ago to "never say never". Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air. Never happen. You want a way to kill ham radio, then that'd do it in a heartbeat...a 10 year heartbeat at the longest. Exactly! But the hams who remained would all have passed the same test so there's be no more license-based "class distinctions". That's the point. At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed the same test to get it. At the end of 10 years we'd have no ham service of any consequence. Sure we would. Just not the one you or I want. But it would be more like what Brian wants. Retesting does NOT get any support at all. A handful of people propose retesting (I oppose retesting)...but that is all. If 1968 incentive licensing drove some folks away, you can bet the "all existing hams would need to be retested" will certainly do it. I think most active hams would just take the %^&#$% test and be done with it. The problem is that many semi-active or inactive hams wouldn't, and we'd see a drastic reduction in numbers. Bad news.Very bad news. To repeat: I'm not in favor of a one-class system. I'm just pointing out where such a system would lead. Why not? Please tell me any example of something you do in life that requires anyone to be knowledge retested...other than something in the medical field such as CPR recertification. In my line of work, (no, I'm not going to say what it is here), employees are constantly retested on safety and procedures. The last time I took a safety test, the passing grade was 100%. Get *one* question wrong and you fail. And in a year or less you have to do it all over again. Cheers and happy new year. All the best in '04, Bill 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article et, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. Bill, Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968? If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. But, as you and I have agred before, the privileges gained do NOT relate to the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class. FCC disagrees, Bill. What is the technical competency difference between an Extra operating SSB with a TS440 in the 80m Extra voice segment vs a General operating the same rig at say 3.885Mhz? Not much! But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional technical knowledge with more privileges. And so do I! The arguments of tying technical knowledge to priveleges is completely bogus, irritating, and eventually self defeating. That many NCTA's used it as an argument against Morse code testing does not make it less so. It's just that now, that bird will come home to roost. For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between operating CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that I wrote *technical*) What is the technical comptency difference between the Extra operating in his or her segment of a HF band and an unlicensed CB'er running a linear? This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. The problem, again one we agreed on before, is that granting additional frequency spectrum doesn't rationally flow from the additional knowledge required for the higher license class (e.g. Extra vs General, General vs Tech. It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter. I look at it as more of a philosophy thing than specific logic. They seem to want people to learn things. Tying knowledge to priveliges is a good philosophy in my estimation. Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter, what about the General? If we adopt the philosophy, it could be done. Insane, but stranger things have happened. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Good question. My point exactly. Maybe we could have merit badges? 8^), rest snipped - Mike KB3EIA - |
Brian wrote:
The key word is "implemented" - not increased. You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big secret. Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10 wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that) test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented* orginally for that purpose. At the time, the thing which was thought would do the task of reducing, even eleminating the amatures would be to relegate them to 200 meters. Those wavelengths were thought to be of no use for communications and the amatures would not be able to get a signal out of their back yards, thus in time the amateurs would loose interest and amateur radio would, for all practical purposes, die away. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com