![]() |
"N2EY" wrote:
The written tests which are made from those questions are a govenrment requirement. However, we were discussing the government requirement, not test questions. 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. Of course not. Radio is a mature technology, so you're not likely to see "significant" changes in the future. But that doesn't suggest for a moment that there are no contributions at all being made. With several hundred thousand hams out there, neither of us are likely to know what contributions are being made. 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? Are these what determines who is technically inclined? If so, I doubt 99% of the operators today, in any license class, could be described that way. I use modern radio equipment, far beyond what could be built easily at home. New modes were rare even before any changes to the code tests and may be even more rare in the future. And new technologies will obviously be small in a mature industry. As for my own activities, I'll refrain beyond saying I've built some lessor equipment at home, written some articles, and helped to establish policies for the use of amateur equipment within a national organization. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
cb and shortwave groups trimmed
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message some snippage As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast. 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. I think they should be told that "Ya can't polish a Turd!" - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote 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. If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to be sufficient to become qualified. I can't imagine "one who was interested" would fail to qualify in 10 years, but if they didn't, well I guess there are other hobbies like finger painting which might be less challenging and not require a federal license to pursue. The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but life's a bitch sometimes. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"N2EY" wrote Could the holder of your learners permit ham license operate a ham rig alone? Of course, just like the previous learners permit, aka "Novice". not being banned for life as your plan would do. They wouldn't be 'banned for life'. They could take the standard qualification test at any time. 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? None that I'm aware are currently extant, but precedent exists. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"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, It is. 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. But why is there such a need? Retaining closed-off license classes like the Advanced and Novice simply requires that a certain field in the FCC database have more alternatives and the retention of a few paragraphs of Part 97 listing privs of those licenses. Back in the days before electronic data, FCC kept the closed-off Advanced class as a separate entity for more than a decade even though it carried no additional privileges. 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? Two reasons: 1) The 1968 situation involved existing hams *losing* privs, not getting a free upgrade. 2) What is proposed, if I read it correctly, is a one-time giveaway, not a rules change. The closest thing to it historically isn't 1968 but instead it's the Great Giveaway of 1953, when FCC completely reversed its restructuring of 1951 and opened all privs to all hams except Novices and Techs. And I'll ask again - why is there a need to eliminate the closed-off license classes? Tech Plus will disappear automatically no later than 6 years, 3 months and 10 days from now. Novice is down by about a third and Advanced is slowly decreasing as well. What harm do these old classes do? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(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. OK, little Stevie, you appear to be using belittling endearments when addressing others. Again. |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"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. We've had many characters testing. One of the more memorable ones has been CB Bruce/WA8ULX, who tested on a lark, scored 100% w/o studying, did so in less than 8 minutes, and collected $250 from two CB-Plussers. Shirley you recall that character? Maybe The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim had someone else in mind. |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "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. Irrelevant. Morse code is the entire foundation for amateur radio. Morse code is cutting-edge technology, an advancement necessary to use the HF spectrum for communications. Morse code gets through when nothing else will, thus proving that morse code modes do away with electrical power requirements. All who are "interested in radio" are required to learn morse code and be licensed in the amateur radio service. Non-morse modes do not count as "interest." Non-amateur work does not count as "interest." Professional work in radio does not count as "interest." Learning morse code shows the self-discipline, dedication, and commitment to the amateur community and the League. I have been told this. I repeat it to you for the betterment of all. LHA |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "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 Well of course but that's already been done. The current Tech pool now covers the old Novice material and the current Extra pool now covers the old Advanced material. Sorry, the entirety of the Tech is totally irrelevant and irreverent...they are not tested for morse code proficiency. Morse code is the living heart of amateur radio. Only "real" hams have been code-tested. Without morse code testing, all new amateur licenses are Given Away! LHA |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com