|
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote And when the vanity rules changed, there was naturally a spike in application numbers - and 10 years later, a spike in expirations. We're about 30 months shy of even the leading edge of that spike. Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even if it has much of an effect at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote And when the vanity rules changed, there was naturally a spike in application numbers - and 10 years later, a spike in expirations. We're about 30 months shy of even the leading edge of that spike. Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even if it has much of an effect at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no siginificant spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or entry from long expiration). By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the arena of testing? Kim W5TIT |
|
"Brian" wrote in message om... Steve will have to try them all on to prove me wrong. He should get the white ones so he can wear them to work. Brian, IMHO, what Steve does for a living is one hell of a noble occupation. Discuss, debate, or argue about ARS related stuff all you want, but I'd cut the man some slack wrt mentioning his job in a disrespectful light while doing so. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even if it has much of an effect at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no siginificant spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or entry from long expiration). Quite possible. By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the arena of testing? That was a pool, not a poll. I just updated it in its thread. So far four predicted dates have passed. You may just wind up being the winner of that one, Kim. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Bert Craig" wrote: (snip) The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. (snip) And, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient justification - no more than the fact that vacuum tubes or circular analog tuning dials were once popular justifies a requirement that they continue to be used. There were never any test questions on circular analog tuning dials AFAIK. There used to be lots of test questions on tubes but they are almost all gone now - because most hams' rigs don't use tubes any more. But the use of Morse Code in amateur radio is very popular. It's a big part of *today's* amateur radio, not just its past. There are far more hams on the air today using Morse Code than hams using homebrew ham rigs. Yet we still test for theory knowledge even though most hams won't ever need to use most of it. Clearly, unless there is a valid reason otherwise, anyone should be free to use those if he or she wants, but there should be no government regulation mandating that. The same with Morse code. Yet in order to get a ham license today, one must pass written tests containing many questions on solid-state electronics - even though there is no requirement to use that technology. A ham who wants to get on HF in the non-General parts of the bands using only vacuum- tube equipment still has to pass 3 tests full of questions on solid-state technologies, even though there is no mandate that s/he use those technologies. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. If a person has no interest in code, the speed certainly isn't going to change that. Apply that same logic to the written test... (snip) Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS (snip) The Amateur Radio Service does not exist in a vacuum, Bert. The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." The FCC also said that BPL was a step toward "broadband Nirvana". Heck, a *commissioner* said that... They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. Sure. Did anyone think they would contradict themselves? They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." Has any communication system been designed in many years that depends on *any* special radio operator skills? And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." But that hasn't happened. Didn't happen after 1991, nor again after 2000. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. (snip) If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even fifth, most popular modes? Because none of those modes require learning specific new skills. By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today. On amateur HF/MF, it's the second most popular mode. And a code test is only needed for amateur HF/MF. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even if it has much of an effect at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no siginificant spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or entry from long expiration). Quite possible. By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the arena of testing? That was a pool, not a poll. I just updated it in its thread. So far four predicted dates have passed. You may just wind up being the winner of that one, Kim. 73 de Jim, N2EY Uh huh...and you *could* validate me as a ham by inserting my callsign on the submission. :o Kim W5TIT |
|
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: [snip] The FCC recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." That deemphasis has already occurred. The no-code tech was instituted in the late 1980s and the code for the higher classes was dropped to only 5wpm in 2000. There is no need for further deemphasis. (snip) I disagree. The reasons stated for reducing code (changes over last 50 years, no system dependant on code in many years, and so on) could just as easily be used to argue against a code test of any kind. In other words, how are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of a 13 wpm test? (snip) Morse code/CW is unique and cannot be covered by the written tests. Actually (snip) It is unique only in the level of emphasis placed on it. Without that emphasis, there would be no unique test for it. Which brings us right back where I started, pointing to what the FCC has said - "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Bert Craig" wrote:
Nobody's forcing anybody to use it, just learn it...and only for HF privies. Given another statement in your reply ("unique skill...decoded by the human brain"), that statement is rather illogical, isn't it? If the "skill" tested is the ability to decode code with the human brain, it would seem one would have to "use" that ability at some level just to pass the test. At 5-wpm, it's more a demonstration of discipline than proficiency. That is where the true crux lies. The FCC doesn't have a mandate to test discipline. And, beyond the rules and good operating practices, we shouldn't expect it either. After all, we're not the military or a karate school. They've already reduced the emphasis by creating the no-code Technician ticket and further by reducing the required code speed for the General and Extra tickets. As I told Dee, the reasons quoted in my earlier message for reducing code (changes over last 50 years, no system dependant on code in many years, and so on) could just as easily be used to argue against a code test of any kind. In other words, how are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of a 13 wpm test? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com