(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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....

[nobody can realistically expect you to "shut up," jimmie...:-) ]

Nor can we expect you, Leonard H. Andserson, to heed your own
advice, ie not using belittling endearments when addressing others.

Scumbags rarely do. And you ARE a scumbag.

A few hundred thousand EEs have made career paths WITHOUT
getting a ham license first. IEEE has a bunch of them in their
membership. Are they in the "never would have happened" category?

And a few hundred thousand HAVE....

Your point?

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

Nobody can operate on HF without morse code knowledge and
skill. "Everyone knows that."

I'd ask you to please cite where "morse code knowledge" was
mentioned, but I hate to rub your nose in little details...

That's why all the other radio services on HF demand their ops
learn, love, honor, and obey morse code.

NONE of the other "radio services on HF" have the same Basis and
Purpose as the Amateur Service.

Don't they?

No, but then "other radio services" are not the Amateur Radio
Service.

Absolutely. Unlike the olde tyme hammes the FCC is "obviously"
deficient and certainly was in 1958.

It was in regards to placing what was supposed to be a "low
power, short range personal communications service" on to an HF
allocation known to propagate globally...And THEN tell the licensees
to not take advantage of it.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...how dare the FCC allow "civilians" on HF without
the morse test? And on an old, underused ham band, too!

That's not the point, but then you know that.

Lennie's trolling, trolling, trolling...

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.

God forbid that "Everyman" should get on HF without being morse
tested! Sacrilege! Heresy!

It wasn't about being "on HF", Your Scumminess...

It was about a SHORT RANGE radio service. The FCC screwed up.
The Amateur Service lost out, the FCC made fools of themselves, and
the intended market for the service lost out since that "service" is
completely useless for the intended application.

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

"lookit?" [a kit for a toilet? :-) ]

How does BPL get into this? That's a WIRED communications
thing.

A "WIRED" communications service that has the potential to create
havoc to ALL high frequency spectrum users...code or no code.

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.

Only tried and true HF morsemen "Know What Is Best For Radio!"

Don't know morse? Shove them in the back of the EM bus up
on VHF and higher. HF belongs to morsemen!

You're still waving that "morsemen" flag, Lennie, and Morse Code
is not germane to this post.

Why are you doing that? To look foolish? You succeeded.

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.

In civil radio in the USA, the FCC is THE LAW.

Seems you convieniently FORGET that when trying to lay blame for
the state of Amateur Radio testing, Lennie.

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

Only tried and true HF Morsemen Know What Is Best For Ham
Radio!

Then why are YOU still here, Your Putziness?

Mama Lennie take your therapy couch away from you?

Steve, K4YZ

(Brian) wrote in message om...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...

No more than...Ahhhh, never mind, you'll never get the point.

Make your point rational and I'll get it.

Many of us have tried to get YOU to be rational, Brain, but you
defy logic and, well, rationality.

You make unsubstantiated assertions you cannot or will not back
up, then ask us to just accept it without the proof.

You're starting off the New Year on the wrong foot, Brain...By
making assertions that are not substantiated by factual evidence.

Welcome to 2004, MinnieLennie.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, you said that the Basis and Purpose of self-learning cannot be
achieved after a person has achieved their first license in a
one-license system. That the Basis and Purpose can only be achieved
in a multiple-license system.

A "one license" system does not promote learning.

A "one license" system promotes stagnation and mediocrity. Look
what a "classless" society did to Central Europe for 70+ years.

As deftly pointed out by Jim, N2EY, the TRUE stagnation of the
Amateur Radio Service occured BEFORE Incentive Licensing.

Was the way the FCC implemented it wrong? Sure it was. But the
system worked.

I asked if self-learning occurs after the Extra license is achieved.

Sure it does. And there are some cases where the licensee brings
his "self-learning" with him/her from an engineering
point-of-view...but thsoe folks are few and far between.

Give me a rational answer why it cannot occur after someone achieves a
license in a one-license system.

Can it occur? Sure it can. Does it usually or routinely occur?
Nope.

Now, here's one for YOU, Brain...cite for me some grand example
of "one size fits all and promotes learning" example from ANY aspect
of our society...One that can't be refuted at some level.

I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

I've built HF and VHF antennas,
some from a box, some from a reel of wire and bamboo poles. And I've
operated on HF from Nebraska, ROK, Guam, Illinois, Somalia, Florida,
and Ohio, in that order.

Who is puffing out his chest now?

BAM!

The hammer on THAT nail HAD to hurt!

Stebe, put your rubber mallet away. You might hurt yourself.

But you can't seem to tell us anything about the /T5 operation.

Just don't be so jealous.

I'm not.

...Jealous of what? Fantasizing?

You do live in a fantasy world.

Besides, I don't see your name behind "Invented SSTV."

Nor yours besides "invented anything".

BAM AGAIN!

The hammer falls again and accurately so!

But, but, but... you Extras are the ones in the hot-seat for pushing
the ARS into the future.

You have all of the Merit Badges.

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.

What? No learners permit?

Nope. You said you want one class of license, no class distinctions, no merit
badges. A learner's permit would mean a two-tiered structure.

You said one license. That means one class of license - no learner's permit.

Or were you lying about wanting one class of license?

It wasn't "lying", Jim...it was Creative Rhetorical Alternative
Posting. I'll let you enjoy the acronym.

At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have
passed the same test to get it.

No, we wouldn't. Regardless of how many times we re-invent the
wheel, those of us currently licensed will never have gone through the
same "drill" to get where we are.

Ahhh. There's that Merit Badge puffing out on your chest again.

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net...
"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?

It must have been just awful, all those undeserving Generals just
helping themselves to those frequencies and modes.

There shoulda been a law!

If only Sen McCarthy had been aware...

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

There can be no fun in the ham SERVICE.

Says who?

The Field First Sergeant of your SERVICE company when you
fall out for roll call at 0530.

Answer "here" as your name is called...sound off like you got a
pair...

Hup, too, tree, foah...

LHA

He's still out there, somewhere, marching and calling cadence all by hisself.

Bill, I trimmed the cb and shortwave groups out of this reply. We should
all give those folk a break.

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

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
e.com...


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

arthlink.net...


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
.cv.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?

No argument there, Bill.



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.

You know what I think about the rationality of any testing regimen. We
are at the point that we can do away with any testing whatsoever. I
don't want to tho'. Others may differ.


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?

Who sed that?

- Mike KB3EIA -

I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about
BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet
out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I'm in rec.radio.cb, Mike. That's pretty much what I'm hearing
about BPL also.

Thanks.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -


A test of BPL was run in Alabama. A engineer friend of mine told me it was
not coming up to what was advertised in Birmingham. Repeaters were needed
way too often, thus jacking up the expense.

Unless the FCC is totally braindead I think BPL, as proposed will die by
itself. However what they want is INCREASE the power of BPL over and above
what is presently allowed under part 15.

They may take that route. We shall see.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , Mike Coslo says...

I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Will it wipe out my 2 meter handheld?