|
|
Not true. If so, they wouldn't argue so vehemently against what I say.
Most people just like to give you hard time because they know you dont have a Clue. Lets face it Brian, if the FCC hadnt decided to give Ham Licenses away, you will still be on 11 Meters. |
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... 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? Jim, The "When incentive licensing was re-est...." was not my statement. Agreed! It was mine! Point was you and I have been hams long enough to actually recall those times. 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 agreed before, the privileges gained do NOT relate to the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class. FCC disagrees, Bill. True for now. But if anyone is serious about a new license structure, I'd like to see rational relationship between the license class knowledge test requirements and whatever additional privileges are associated with that license. First off, there's bound to be disagreement about what constitutes a "rational relationship" Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive, what do we use? If we use power (as Hans suggests), there's little incentive for QRP and low power folks to upgrade. And since we're supposed to use the minimum power required by the situation anyway..... If we use modes as the incentive, which modes do we use for the incentive? There's also the question of enforcement. You can tell right away if someone is outside their allocated spectrum, but power is another issue. 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! Not any as I see it. Exactly.The difference is in operating skills and knoiwledge. The Extra part is where the DX often goes. But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional technical knowledge with more privileges. I don't oppose the concept, I oppose the illogical implementation. We can agree to disagree about the logic. But what should be used for an incentive besides spectrum? 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*) None and that point has been made by myself as well. The only two truly CW only sub-bands do NOT require passing any code test to be able to use them. *technical* knowledge.... 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. It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doiesn't flow or relate at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license. Some of the knowledge does, such as HF propagation. Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter, what about the General? Did I even hint at that. Not at all! The answer is basically no...although I have NO preference for or against changing license structure to a more rational basis for added privileges. My point is simply that being anticodetest does *not* necessarily mean someone wants to water dwon the writtens or eliminate license classes. 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". I hope I'm right too :-) :-) That makes two of us. 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. But, again, not at all a probable possibility. A lot of things we thought impossible have come to pass. Heck, FCC never imagined that cb would get out of their control... 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. IF the numbers of hams dropped considerably because of the proposal, I seriously doubt the service as well as ham organizations would survive. Calling for all retesting of existing hams would play right into the hands of the commercial interests that would love to get us off the air completely. We can agree on this: Neither of us wants to find out the hard way what the result would be. 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. Exactly my point. To repeat: I'm not in favor of a one-class system. I'm just pointing out where such a system would lead. I believe we both believe, if imlemented as you proposed above, the end result would be disastor. Or worse. 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. But if you get one wrong do you lose your job...or just take it again until you pass? You cannot work until you pass the test. Fail enough times and you lose your job. The last time I took any test that actually might have impacted my career was when I was first hired and tested by the personel office back in 1970. The last time for me was in August. Cheers and happy new year. All the best in '04, Bill Mega dittos to you and everyone else in RRAP Bill K2UNK 73 de Jim, N2EY |
JJ,
"Why you think hams are interested in what radios and antennas you use to SWL with is beyond me." Since this was Cross Posted to several NewsGroups: * rec.radio.amateur.policy, [ Amateur - HAM ] * rec.radio.amateur.misc, [ Amateur - HAM ] * rec.radio.shortwave, [ S H O R T W A V E ] * rec.radio.cb [ C B ] The Devil Is In The Details... So "GS" is simply communicating his 'status' as a SWL. The Question Every Amateur Must Ask Themselves is . . . Is Any Body ? ? ? L I S T E N I N G ? ? ? YES - But they may be a lowly SWL and You will Never Know; Unless the SWL sends the HAM a QCL Request and the HAM Replys in Kind. ? How many Amateurs Actively Seek QCL Reports form SWLs ? ? How many Amateurs 'send out' "QCL Cards" to the SWLs ? Exus Laxus Good Buddy ~ RHF Breaking-On-the-Low-Side - Can I Get a Radio Check ? QC? QC? BS! .. .. = = = JJ = = = wrote in message ... Gray Shockley wrote: The great majority of hams are nice people and they sure do justify more than their hobby when there's an emergency. But why they think that SWLer's are interested in /their/ hobby still puzzles me. And then he includes this. Gray Shockley ----------------------- DX-392 DX-398 RX-320 DX-399 CCradio w/RS Loop Torus Tuner (3-13 MHz) Select-A-Tenna ----------------------- Vicksburg, MS US Why you think hams are interested in what radios and antennas you use to SWL with is beyond me. |
"N2EY" wrote Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive, what do we use? Incentive? Jim, you sound like a typical eastern liberal with an agenda of social engineering. You're either qualified for a ham license or you're not qualified. This incentive notion (and Steve Robeson's 'structured occupancy' notion) are liberal ideas whose time has gone. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"BDK" wrote in message ... In article , says... Hmm, well I saw it at one place last week, along with MT, CQ, and the scanner one, I can't think of the name. Leo's bookstore has them all, they used to have the British SW Magazine and Practical Wireless too, but not lately. I haven't been to B Dalton in a long time, but Barnes and Nobles had it a couple of months ago. I guess you will have to subscribe, it's cheaper than buying it anyway. BDK Technically you don't "subscribe" to QST. You join the ARRL and receive the magazine as a result of your membership. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
RHF wrote:
The Devil Is In The Details... So "GS" is simply communicating his 'status' as a SWL. All it conveys is he owns two radios and some other stuff, it conveys nothing about his 'status' as an SWL. Just a brag list. Maybe I should list all my ham equipment with my postings, like anyone would care. |
In article et,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: "Gray Shockley" wrote: And - of the four newsgroups - two are for SWLers and CBers. May I ask for as little more care when deciding to what many newsgroups one posts to? Sadly, we don't always have much control over where messages are cross-posted, Gray. Since some Hams are CB'ers and others SWL's, the discussion itself may have actually started in one of those non-ham newsgroups. In other cases, it is trolls (in any one of the newsgroups) trying to belittle Ham radio and it's operators (posted to a number of newsgroups in an effort to get the widest possible audience for that). In still other cases, the discussion started in a ham radio newsgroup, with other newsgroups added by participants who mainly frequent those other newsgroups. Whatever the case, you're certainly not alone - we get our share of messages relating to other topics posted in the Ham radio newsgroups as well. You have plenty of control. Just delete the groups where this is OT like I did. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive, what do we use? Incentive? Jim, you sound like a typical eastern liberal with an agenda of social engineering. Thank goodness the Conservatives have NO social engineering agenda!!! You're either qualified for a ham license or you're not qualified. This incentive notion (and Steve Robeson's 'structured occupancy' notion) are liberal ideas whose time has gone. Personally I think good true conservative idea is to allow people on the air with no licencing requirements whatsoever, then cull out the ones that violate the rules. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com