In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. ......
If you wait too long, FCC could move on to the NPRM process
before you ever get the petition sent in.

Did I miss something?

No, but I did. Thank you for clearing up your thinking on your
method of presenting your proposal, Hans.

Is this the last NPRM that FCC will issue in Amateur
Radio matters?

Of course not! But once FCC does so (probably some months after ARRL does its
proposal), it will be a while before they want to reopen that can of worms
again.

Of course I could be mistaken on that. I thought that FCC would simply dump
Element 1 via Memorandum Report and Order soon after S25.5 changed. At most I
thought there'd be a quickie NPRM. But instead it looks like we're in for a
long ride.

The current salad bowl of 14 (15?) petitions is primarily concerned with
Morse testing for HF access. I've already commented on that matter.

So did I.

Perhaps my preference for doing a job once rather than nickel-and-diming it to
death is showing in that I think a more comprehensive approach (like your
proposal) is better. But that's just me - and it's *your* proposal anyway.

The changes I'd like to see in the Amateur Radio service are only mildly
concerned with Morse Code, but primarily concerned with the fundamental
licensing structure of our service. I don't want that issue lost in the
cacaphony of noise surrounding the Morse Code testing issue, so if I do
submit a petition it will be timed to avoid being confused as a "Morse Code"
petition.

I can certainly understand and respect that approach even if I don't agree with
it 100%.

My main concern is that if you wait until the Morse Code test issue noise dies
down, it may be a long wait *and* there may be an addy-tood of "oh no, we're
not going to reopen THAT can of worms again". Meanwhile, really bad proposals
like the "21st Century" ideas may take the stage, or even be enacted. As much
as I disagree with some parts of your proposal, it is infinitely preferable to
the "21st Century" concepts.

So it becomes clear to me now that you will submit it to FCC when you know the
time is right - which is not right now.

73 de Jim, N2EY

How true.

N9PGE wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 05:23:14 -0500, Arf! Arf! wrote:

K0HB, the perfect argument against code.


KE4TEW, the perfect argument against licensing felons.

In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.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:
m

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?

The purpose of any incentive license system is to offer rewards for learning
more. More spectrum (more room to play in) is one reward that is *almost*
universal. More power, IMHO, is far less of an attraction.

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.

Of course! But NCI has long made it one of their selling points. "Bring amateur
radio into the 21st Century" et al.

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.

Of course.

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.

Yet some have tried to sell us on the idea that enforcement is the be-all
and end-all. For example, the "21st Century" authors.

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.

Or even 10,000W...

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.

Certainly an option. But you'd face lots of opposition because it would mean
hams losing privs they have now.

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?

Carl, WK3C, for one. I was pointing out that a strong case can be made that the
Tech test contains all the theory and safety knowledge needed, and that most of
the General and Extra tests can be shown to be "hoop jumping" exercises if one
cares to look at them that way. I was politely but firmly asked to shut up
about it,
lest someone actually use those arguments with FCC to get the writtens watered
down still more.

That's my recollection of the exchange, anyway.

We can discuss all we want. I'd
be careful, however, with certain ideas presented officially
to FCC.

Of course! But my main point was this: All of the arguments used against
the code test can also be reworded slightly and used against much of what's
in the written tests as well. It's already started.

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
*encouage* 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?

I don;t know that Canada's B&P are the same as ours. One thing I do know is
that there are far fewer hams per capita there.

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.

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.

True. But most manufactured ham gear these days is transceivers.
And one of the simplest practical projects for the beginner is a
simple low power transmitter. The "appliance" newcomer would be cut off
from such projects.

This isn't a minor point! One of the key factors in developing what I call
"practical radio skills" is being able to start with very simple projects and
work your way up to more complex stuff.

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.?"

Gladly. For one thing, the mere possession of an Extra license doesn't mean
the holder is necessarily qualified to judge the work of another ham *and*
said ham's ability to use a project.

For another, whose responsibility would it be if the "appliance" op got into
trouble with spurious emissions or such? Or got a shock?

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.

Not at all! A homebrewer is responsible for the performace of his/her own
station. If there's a problem, guess who is responsible. Most hams will not
attempt a project beyond their ability for just that reason.

But to be responsible for someone else's work is a different thing entirely.
Particularly when the person you're responsible for is not under your
supervision.

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.

My main concern is that we'd be setting up a new class of hams who
would be cut off from one of the main reasons to be a ham.

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)

But majority doesn't matter - remember? If they can make their case,
the mere fact that most hams oppose it won't mean a thing. Just
like with code tests....

Their argument that most hams use manufactured equipment that requires
no critical operating adjustments is pretty hard to argue against on an
"avoidance of interference" basis.

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?

Not yet. But I understand that it appeared in the December issue of CQ.

(Anybody got a copy, btw?)

The paper outlines their plan in detail. In fact they imply that we hams should
*not* offer proposals or petitions until FCC issues an NPRM!

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.

But a lesson to be learned! If it happened to cb, it could happen to ham radio.

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.

Me too. Member since 1968. When Feb QST shows up, it will be the 445th issue
I have received as a member.

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.

Understood!

But it has always been stated that once the code test goal was reached, NCI
would simply cease to function at all in those countries.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

So what is your likly timetable for submission?
After an ARRL submission?
If yes, how soon after?

Bill,

I think that the answer to all of the above questions is:

"When Hans thinks the time is right"

There is a risk of submitting beyond a point where the FCC has
already digested the 14 or probably will be 15 submissions and
then posts a NPRM. By that time any new proposals aren't
likly to get any attention...IMHO.

Agreed! But that's included in the above answer.

I'm not speaking for Hans - the above answers are IMHO.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WA3MOJ wrote in message ...

Isn't that special, a vanity call for a no code dummy.

Another class A jerk. Not so special. Plenty of 'em in amateur radio.

In article , Brian says...

WA3MOJ wrote in message ...

Isn't that special, a vanity call for a no code dummy.

Another class A jerk. Not so special. Plenty of 'em in amateur radio.

Don't call Dwight that, he is special.

There are just over 57,600 licenced amateurs here in Canda, out of a
population of around 31,000,000 - a similar ratio your US amateur
population vs. total population.

There are two licence classes in Canada: Basic and Advanced. The
Basic licence is limited to, among other things, commercially built
transmitting equipment manufactured specifically for use in the
Amateur Radio service (homebuilding of all other types of equipment is
permitted). An Advanced licence removes this restriction.

For further info, please refer to the Industry Canada Radio
Information Circulars, accessible via the following web site:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf05478e.html

RIC-3 details the licence class info above.

73, Leo

On 11 Jan 2004 21:12:42 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

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?

I don;t know that Canada's B&P are the same as ours. One thing I do know is
that there are far fewer hams per capita there.
73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

Frankly, soldering has never been
a strong point with me...yet I've been able to do quite well
technically in my career as well as ham radio. I can "get by"
but prefer to have others do some of the connector soldering
chores for me.

That argument can be applied to almost any part of any proposed test.


Additionally, a soldering test, especially a PL-259 would be
too subjective a determination. Even soldering can't be learned by
all hams. Would we then have a soldering waiver for blind hams
or other hams handicapped by some affliction that didn't allow
them to ever pass a soldering test?

Bob Gunderson, W2JIO, demonstrated that blind people could
do all sorts of radio construction. Blind himself, he devised ways
to do almost every imaginable radio task without sight - including
tasks like soldering and reading meters. And this was before WW2.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


How much Spanish do you hear on the ham bands being used by US hams?


A lot.

Not nearly as much as you hear Morse code, though...

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

btw, we *don't* test all hams for Morse skill now.

Rephrased then... we DO test all hams that have or want a license
to operate HF for morse skill... but hey, maybe we should
reinstitute waivers again since the treaty is no longer
mandating the 5 wpm which the FCC never waivered before.

Perhaps!

But by the same token, why not waivers for some of the written tests?
Since it doesn't require any more technical knowledge to operate
on, say, 3.755 than it does on 3.995....

73 de Jim, N2EY