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

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JEP" wrote in message
e.com...
SNIP

YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe

it

is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA.

However,

there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with
some
pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."


Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I
have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or
truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned
vehicles. Who knows more?

Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is
no reason for states to test on manual gearbox
autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those
that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing
intervention needed from the state.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive
toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?
The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with
CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as
if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the
requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 01 Jan 2004 14:56:22 GMT, N2EY wrote:

And the question remains - was that bailout a "conservative" or a "liberal"
action?

I define a "conservative" as someone who wants the government to
stay out of his/her life but to be on call to squash any opponent of
his/hers.

I define a "liberal" as what I was in 1955...... ggg

Neither have any bearing on what those labels are applied to today.

HAW! Well, those are two definitions. Here are some mo

In general,

- A "conservative" wants the govt. to control individuals' behavior more than
organizations' behavior.

- A "liberal" wants the govt. to control organizations' behavior more than
individuals' behavior.

Of course there are exceptions (like gun control).

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"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:

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.

Agreed!

And you can bet that most dedicated QRPers are also primarily CW ops.

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?

Depends on the observer, really.


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.

Yet there are those who claim that large numbers of "technically
oriented" hams *would* upgrade except for the "barrier" of the
code test......

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.

Exactly. Also there's the interference considerations.

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

I don't see modes as an incentive.

Then there's not much left.

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).

Depends on the antenna and conditions. On HF I have heard amazing
signals from QRP stations because of really good antennas. And
really poor signals from QRO stations because of poor antennas.

In the end, I believe "most"
hams want to operate legally and will do so.

That's because it's part of the tradition and culture of amateur
radio to do so, not because of large amounts of enforcement. I'm all
for more and better enforcement, but it's clear that those who think
Riley can do it all are mistaken.

Those that might run
double their allowed power (say 400 when limited to 200) are
only fooling themselves.

Big difference between 400 vs. 200 hp under the hood, or between 80
MPH and 40 MPH on the highway. But it's only 3 dB on the air. Tough
concept for some...

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.

I'm not sure what you're proposing. Do you mean having some parts of a
band allowed 1500 W and others only, say, 150 W, as is done now in the
Novice parts of 80/40/15?

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.

That's one possiblity.

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.

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....

The problem with such an "Appliance Class" license is that it cuts
off those who hold it from one of the main reasons for the ARS to
exist
in the USA. (Remember that the "basis and purpose" is an FCC/Part 97
thing
and other countries have different ones, or none at all). Not being
*allowed* to homebrew, modify or repair one's own gear is simply a bad
idea. It would
*encourage* new hams to become even more dependent on manufacturers
rather
than their own ingenuity.

Some of the greatest experiences I have had in amateur radio have been
in
taking an idea and some parts and turning them into a working radio
station, then making contacts with that station. Started doing that
sort
of thing as a kid and never got out of the habit. Led me to EE
degrees, a
career and a bunch of other things. Never would have happened if I'd
had
to use only "approved" gear.
and

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

Maybe. OTOH, having to get one's projects approved by another ham
slows
down the process enormously and could result in all kinds of trouble.
Add
to that the fact that the current written tests are by no means
adequate
to ensure that all Extras know everything they need to know in order
to
sign off on another's work.

And what problem does such an "Appliance Class" license really solve?
Do we have lots of problems here in the USA with homebrewing hams'
creations mucking up the bands and causing interference? I don't
think so.

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.

Sure - because that HF knowledge is tested in the written for Tech,
and was tested for in the Novice when it was available.

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!

You're welcome.

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

But let's be honest about the situation, Bill. There *are* some folks
who
want to further reduce *written* testing. (Not me!) Just look at the
"21st Century" paper for one example - particularly the attitude it
projects.
One of its rallying cries is that we need more new hams at any cost,
and not only is the code test scapegoated as a barrier, but also the
written test. That paper came from a NCVEC committee, too, and you can
bet they will push that agenda.

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.

Of course! But they didn't. They simply could not imagine that what
happened to cb could occur. It was simply not part of their mindset,
even though all of the indications were there.

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.

All of those things were considered *desirable* by the FCC! The whole
reason
that service was created by FCC was so that Everyman could get on the
air with inexpensive, easy-to-set-up-and-use radios for personal,
short-range communications. Particularly mobile.

And if that's not bad enough, lookit BPL.

The main point of all this is that FCC wasn't and isn't an infallible
bunch that Knows What Is Best For Radio. Let alone what is best for
ham radio.
They're simply the folks in charge, who have the unenviable task of
balancing
all the competing demands, and doing it with limited resources and
under
various forms of pressure.

So it's up to us hams to make our case and set our path, not FCC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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. 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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is a
learners permit. Class "A" is a license.

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Just like you should! I'm amazed by the number of hams that seem to
thing that the ARRL has to agree with all their personal opinions. I
wonder how many of those type are married! 8^)



I wouldn't say they should have to agree 100% but logic would dictate that
at least about 1/2 of all or so should be in agreement.


I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for
granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL.


Prove it. Prove it without circumstantial or coincidental evidence.

Well, the first thing would be getting back on the air after WW1. Some
might disagree on the particulars, but ARRL had a big part in it. I read
that in "200 Meters and Down".

But remember I said I wonder. Wasn't really claiming anything. 8^)

Ryan KC8PMX

--
"The Pope has issued a proclamation on Michael Jackson. If he hears any
more allegations about little boys, the Pope says he'll have no choice but
to make him a priest."

I love the quotes, Ryan!!! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:
"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. 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.

I might just buy that if it was something like 2 years.


73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is a
learners permit. Class "A" is a license.

Sure enough!! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
v.net...


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


"JEP" wrote in message
gle.com...
SNIP


YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe

it


is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA.

However,


there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with

some

pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."


Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I
have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or
truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned
vehicles. Who knows more?


Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is
no reason for states to test on manual gearbox
autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those
that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing
intervention needed from the state.

My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also
doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the
test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things
a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent
of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up.

Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you
shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

hlink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
v.net...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive

toward

higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?


The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.


So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?
The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with
CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I
think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be
allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it.
2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as

if

it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the

requirements

we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!


So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

one of two answers:

1. It's a goofed up rule

2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code.

Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning
on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all,
and there are plenty of goofed up rules.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also
doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the
test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things
a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent
of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up.

Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you
shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


In Michigan, you will fail your driving exam if you can't parallel park and
do a 3 point turn. They are mandatory test elements. You can fail one but
not both.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE