"Bert Craig" wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Bert, if you're using popularity as a
justification--and the test questions
may have changed to inlcude this
since I entered ham radio--then why
are there no questions or
demonstration required during testing
for the *number 1* most popular
mode of operation?

Because for 99.9% of ARO's, speach
is a skill that's already in our toolbox
upon entry into the ARS.


I understand Kim's point. Lets try it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore any skills needed for the voice
modes (however minor), there is still some validity in Kim's argument.
Spanish is use more often the CW in this country (more popular), so perhaps
we should test all operators on the ability to speak Spanish like we test
for CW now. Or, since English is more common (popular) in this country today
than Spanish, perhaps we should test all on the ability to speak English
like we test for CW now. In other words, as Kim says, popularity alone is
not a justification for a code test unless it is equally so for voice.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Dwight, how about giving us a good
rational reason to continue testing at
all. I can break every reason with
either rationale or minor modifications
to equipment.


The FCC itself has already effectively provided that answer when they said
"the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose of the service." Clearly, the written
tests do comport with the basis and purpose of the service, and I doubt many
of us, including you, would disagree.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Irrelevant, Dwight. The amateur
community has specifed the criteria
and goals of amateurism.

First and foremost is morsemanship.
(snip)


Because so many obviously agree, your sarcasm falls flat, Len.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
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.


The issue is a government requirement, not test questions.


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...


Have already done so elsewhere (in a reply to Mike Coslo, I believe).


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.


How do you know that to be a fact? With some training in electronics,
radio, computers, and so on, I consider myself somewhat technically inclined
and I probably would have never gotten a license if the code tests remained
for all licenses. Are you so very certain I'm the only one?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

The FCC doesn't have a mandate to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character" stuff in the rules is about.

There's a local ham around here who has generated so much trouble
on various repeaters and earned himself so many warning letters
that FCC is considering not renewing his license for "character"
reasons. IOW he simply doesn't have the necessary self-discipline
to be a ham.

And, beyond the rules
and good operating practices, we shouldn't expect it either.

Agreed. But those things do constitute "discipline".

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
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.


The issue is a government requirement, not test questions.

The written tests which are made from those questions are a govenrment
requirement.

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...

Have already done so elsewhere (in a reply to Mike Coslo, I believe).

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.

How do you know that to be a fact?

Because we have not seen any significant changes
to the technology used by hams in all that time that
came from hams who aren't code tested.

With some training in electronics,
radio, computers, and so on, I consider myself somewhat technically inclined
and I probably would have never gotten a license if the code tests remained
for all licenses. Are you so very certain I'm the only one?

Not at all.

But with all due respect, Dwight - how "technically inclined" are you?
Build any homebrew rigs? Any new modes or technologies? Any
technical articles in amateur radio publications?

Please understand, there's no requirement that you or any ham do any of those
things. But what difference does it make how "technically inclined" a ham is if

they don't do any of them?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

What's the difference?

It's provisional, intended to assist in gaining full qualification for
an amateur license.

Just like the Tech and General class licenses are today...

Here in PA, a person with a learner's permit for driving cannot drive
alone.
Could your learner's permit hams operate their own rigs all by themselves?
If so, it's a license.

Well? Could the holder of your learners permit ham license operate a ham rig
alone?

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.

But they're qualified to have a learner's permit for 10 years.

Do you have aproblem with 10 years? Should we make it 10 weeks?

I have a problem with the idea that someone who can pass the test for the
learner's permit and who has a clean record is pushed off the amateur bands
because he/she can't or won't pass the exam for the full-privileges license. I
can see making the LP nonrenewable and requiring a retest to get another one,
but not being banned for life as your plan would do.

Can you name any other license where, if you don't upgrade within a
specified time, you lose the license you have?

There are no such amateur licenses extant, but for the majority of
it's availability the Novice license was exactly like that.

Actually just about half its existence.

But that feature ended almost 30 years ago. I've been told I'm "clinging to the
past" because I think code tests are a good idea...

Are there any licenses or learner's permits of *any* kind currently issued by
the US Govt. that are one-time-only, upgrade-or-you're-out?

That was
probably the most effective method ever devised of introducing
non-amateurs to ham radio with a "sample sized" operating permit.
Easy to get, with limited power so you didn't trash the
RF-neighborhood too badly, and of a duration long enough to decide if
you wanted to become a ham and to gain experience for the
qualification tests.

And they limited it to a few slices of a few bands. And for most of its
existence it was CW only. ;-)

Then they spoiled it by making it renewable.

Which was done because of the perception that too many newcomers were dropping
out.

There's another option. Make it nonrenewable but "retakeable", just like other
LP's. If someone reached the end of their 10 years and wanted to remain a ham,
but couldn't pass the full-privs test, they could take the then-current LP test
and get another LP. Just like for a driver's license. That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license. And FCC would not have to
maintain a database of folks banned from ever getting an LP.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/25/03 5:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Sounds like what we've inherited today. Let's do something rational
instead.

It will be interesting to see what YOU call "rational".

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, you never pay attention, do you?

I've said it many, many times. One amateur radio service, one amateur
radio license. And maybe a learners permit as Hans suggests.

How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you
really want?

You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum of
knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full
privilege license.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Jim does. His proposal.

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote

You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum
of
knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full
privilege license.

Yes. Good plan. (Toss in Novice and Advanced while we're on the topic.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

We could even make up a few more new questions, expecially The Amateur
Formerly Known As Rev. Jim trivia questions type.

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
The FCC doesn't have a mandate
to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character"
stuff in the rules is about.


I've read the rules many times, but must have missed the part or parts
about character testing.


There's a local ham around here who
has generated so much trouble on
various repeaters and earned himself
so many warning letters that FCC is
considering not renewing his license
for "character" reasons. IOW he
simply doesn't have the necessary
self-discipline to be a ham.


First, what does that have to do with testing? Second, there is nothing in
the rules about refusing a renewal based on character, so I seriously doubt
that would be the FCC's explination for any action like this (a pattern of
rule violations, yes).


Agreed. But those things do constitute
"discipline".


Only if you stretch the word to mean something beyond common usage.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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