Steveo wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Be an example of what you think a ham ought to be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Should a ham be like N8WWM!?

http://tinyurl.com/q3xp

No comment, Dee D? I'm in Ohio too. ;)

(replying from rec.radio.cb, where n8wwm hangs out)

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I wrote:

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

Bill Sohl blew it off with ......


Doesn't bother me.


Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to
voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and
dangerous.

I can't drive within the speed limit either :-)

Isn't it amazing no great harm was encountered when all those hams in
the 50s/60s only had to be General for full priviliges?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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, 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.

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?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"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.

If you truly mean "learner's permit" and that it is not a license, then they
really should be supervised each and every time they are on the air. If
they are allowed on the air without supervision, then in reality it is a
license not a learner's permit regardless of the limitations and whether or
not it is renewable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Jim and Steve insist they be self-taught to meet the Basis and
Purpose.

I propose that they also self-supervise, and the reduced power level
keeps them and others out of harms way.

73, Brian

Steveo wrote in message ...
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe.

Look here is Steveo trolling ham groups again why am I not surprised.

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"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.

OK, as yourself as the observer, 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.

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

And you well know I'm not one of those that make that claim.

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.

But (IMHO) an occasional "great signal" would never be the only thing
the FCC relied on for a notice of power violations.

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.

Agreed.

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...

Exactly my point. The FCC would likly focus on 1000W vs 200W,
not the cheater running 400.

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?

Something to think about. Consider the discussion a "green-light"
session. No proposal get's immediately shot down while trying to
draw out as many new ideas/concepts as possible.

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....

Who wanted to shut you down? We can discuss all we want. I'd
be careful, however, with certain ideas presented officially
to FCC.

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.

I'll ask again, what IS the experience in Canada. What "bad" things are
happening or not happening?

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

But any "commercial" limitation would only apply to transmitters.
That still leaves receiver circuits, etc to experiment with.
In fact, no one needs any license to build and use their own
homebrew receiver.

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.

As above, not ALL projects would need approval. Also,
can you give an idea about "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.

You just created Catch 22. Based on your perspective, even Extras
today shouldn't be allowed to homebrew without some additional
"certification" because the current Extra syllabus is inadequate to
ensure the Extra knows enough to homebrew.

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.

I didin't say there was any problem. I merely suggested
another "incentive" that could better be tied to knowledge
at a certain license level.

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.

OK

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.

Those that truly want to "further reduce written testing" are but
a handful and, except for W5YI, who you may put in that
category, they don't speak at all for a significant majority of
hams (IMHO, YMMV)

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.

Has that paper been submitted as official NCVEC input to the FCC?

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.

Water over the dam.

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.

That's why I am in ARRL and have been so since before NCI was
even created. I'll restate my position on the purpose of NCI as it
relates to me. Once the code testing is actually gone, then I'll
cease to be an NCI member as the goal will have been achieved.
If any of the other NCI directors/members want NCI to
continue on a different, expanded purpose, they will do so
without me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

Apparently the state DOES see a continuing need for PP or TPT...
but does NOT see any public purpose, safety issue, or licensing
ommision by not testing for manual gearboxes.

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^)

The point is that there is ZERO harm if a new ham never
passes a code test and then decides to get on the air and
jump into a code QSO to learn while doing.

The state apparently thinks the same is true for
manual gearbox driving and many other aspects of driving
which aren't tested at all. I can and do drive an extended cab PU-truck
pulling a 5000 lb trailer, combined length about 40 feet.

To the best of my knowledge, no state
tests anyone for that combination of skills.
All that is needed is a regular driver's license.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

Which standard, should there be separate licenses for 3 speed column,
4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, which shift pattern?

Apparently there is insufficient state
concern to worry about passing a license test with automatic and
then getting behind the wheel of a manual gearbox vehicle. It's
been that way for decades now with no ill results.

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.

Why wouldn't it be a good way to get anone on HF to
practice also if there's no code test at all? That's
the point, there is no rational justification for a CW
mode skill test. The FCC has addressed and dismissed
every known pro-code argument...as has the ITU also
since Code is gone now as a mandatory treaty requirment.

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.

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK