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



hey john how are things in colorado springs???

Why you think hams are interested in what radios and antennas you use to
SWL with is beyond me.

"Telamon" wrote:

You have plenty of control. Just delete
the groups where this is OT like I did.


At which point, since you don't know which newsgroup the person is posting
from, you potentially lose contact with the person you're responding to.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc. I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap. ARRL and QST have
a short time left as the active Ham population lessens.

Well then you can't expect the magazine to be sold at outlets when you only
buy it once in a while. They've got to recoup the costs of printing and
distributing and the "once in a while" buyer just doesn't provide that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.

The irony, however, is that I would bet most people that
are dedicated QRPers are much more tehnically oriented
to begin with and more likly to upgrade. On the other hand,
IF a QRPer is content with the entry level power limits
and doesn't choose to upgrade, what's the harm? One can
look at all those that don't upgrade today...even with
spectrum privileges as the enhancement...to see folks that
are content at their current license level and are also good
hams.

And since we're supposed to use the minimum power
required by the situation anyway.....

True, but the FCC has never made a big case of checking to
see that everyone is running at the least practical power.
Additionally, I suspect the FCC concern on the "least power"
is driven more by those running "big" power rather than
anyone run a basic rig of 100 watts or less.

If we use modes as the incentive, which modes do we use for the incentive?

I don't see modes as an 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.

Yet it has been an aspect of Novice license for over 50 years.
I agree the enforcement would have its problems, but I suspect
the gross violations could be detected (e.g. if limit is 200 watts
and someone is running a kilowatt). In the end, I believe "most"
hams want to operate legally and will do so. Those that might run
double their allowed power (say 400 when limited to 200) are
only fooling themselves.

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 knowledge.
The Extra part is where the DX often goes.

Maybe we could tie some power limits to frequency
spectrum which would then create a valid reason to not allow
a lower level licesnse in that spectrum slot.

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?

I agree with Hans that power certanly can be and has been.
Also, at the risk of being stoned, how has the Canadian
entry level license been going which restricts those hams to
commercial equipment only? Perhaps an entry level USA
license could have a restriction of commercial only rigs
"OR" hmebrew transmitter "IF" the homebrew has been
checked out and signed off as OK by an Extra class ham.

Allowing "homebrew" via an Extra certification process would
foster positive relationships and Elmering (IMHO).

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....

You know I couldn't pass up the opportunity :-) :-)

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 doesn't flow or relate
at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license.

Some of the knowledge does, such as HF propagation.

Yet the "only" difference between technicians not allowed
any HF and those allowed on the "novice" segments is a code test...
no additional knowledge of HF needed for Tech with code
to operate the Novice segments.

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.

THANK YOU Jim!

I wish certain others in this newsgroup had the ability to
understand that.

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...

In hindsight, the FCC certainly should have seen it coming. The big
mistake,
in my opinion, was the failure of the FCC to take into account the
basic "plug-n-play aspect of CB, the multitude of sales outlets via Radio
Shack (Tandy), and the constantly lowering of CB set costs, especially
once they became all solid state.

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

Cheers
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
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.

Wrong. A true conservative desires the least practical government
intervention in life. Clearly a "free-for-all" no license approach
to ham radio wouldn't cut it and, as such, I and other conservative
minded individuals do support ham licensing. Where we depart from
the current approach is in the recognition that the "incentives" of
today's licensing do NOT dovetail with the knowledge needed
to pass the higher level license exams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc.

Can you "just buy" the magazines of AARP, NRA, AAA, etc.
without joining? I am always amazed at people that want the "benefits"
of an organization's efforts, in this case the publication, but don't want
to support the organization by joining. I see the same thing at times
in the antique car hobby. People that bitch about the club rules
at a car show, or otherwise want technical help from club officials
but won't part with the few bucks it takes to join.

I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap. ARRL and QST have
a short time left as the active Ham population lessens.

Is it lessening? News to me.

If they took a
real survey as to how many real active ham there are they would find
the number far less than they think. I'm not talking about members,
I'm talking about HAMS that really use a radio to transmit a signal.
Doesnt matter what band. How many transmit a signal at least once a
week? Most don't.

Please provide your survey data.

Look at your local HAM clubs, talk to the members(if you can wake them
up). Most show up and act disgusted with the club, Ham radio, life in
general. New folks are never there. Ya I know about your Skywarn in
Flint, MI. Great service! Could be run on CB, NEXTEL, GMRS.

Could be but isn't...there in lies the difference.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I'm talking about HAMS that really use a radio to transmit a signal.
Doesnt matter what band. How many transmit a signal at least once a
week? Most don't.

If that HAM is active on CB, does that count? It's a radio signal.

JEP wrote:
Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc. I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap.

Then go to your library and read it, assuming you know what a library is.

gw wrote:




hey john how are things in colorado springs???


???

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...

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.


Wrong. A true conservative desires the least practical government
intervention in life. Clearly a "free-for-all" no license approach
to ham radio wouldn't cut it and, as such, I and other conservative
minded individuals do support ham licensing. Where we depart from
the current approach is in the recognition that the "incentives" of
today's licensing do NOT dovetail with the knowledge needed
to pass the higher level license exams.

Wrong yourself Bill. I say that a person takes what is their own
political leanings, then applies their personal thoughts on the Morse
code or testing issue, and tries to apply the label.

If you are conservative, and pro code, the elimination of Morse code is
a liberal thing, and vice versa.

I think that Ham licensing is a leftover of social engineering
practices. The reason that many conservatives support it today is a
cultural inertia - it is old and status quo, so it is good. But it ain't
conservative - it's almost like having a Union card. You have your
Apprentices, you have your Journeymen...........

- Mike KB3EIA -