|
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 Robeson K4CAP" wrote those who want something for nothing Ah, yes, when they can't make a reasoned argument they trot out the old "something for nothing" mantra. Sorry, but that just doesn't stand up in the light of day, Steve. My plan, for example, calls for an examination similar to the current Extra written for full privileges, yet avoids building a new set of Amateur Radio ghettos like Jim's 1968-leftover plan would do. It also avoids 'free upgrades' which we'll likely see proposed by a prominent CT radio club. Hans |
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Brian wrote: Steve, I think it has to do with the disincentive of Morse Code testing. You might want to check with Len on this. You'll pardon our confusion. You've been acting as Len's representative for a few posts now in speaking of his motivations or lack thereof. I wasn't aware that you'd turned the controls over to him. Brian Burke is not my "representative" nor am I his. You'll likely want to straighten the lad out then, Leonard. He has been speaking for you of late. We just happen to agree that the Morse Exam has to go and that the ARS is divided between folks who can accept change, and those who cannot. Perhaps Len's mistaken views can be excused. "Mistaken views?!?" :-) Yes, mistaken views. ... You, on the other hand, should know better. Why do you say that? ....because, unlike you, he has an amateur radio license and has held it for some time. Saying that as you do implies that you are a god of amateur radio who has ALL the answers. You don't. You've waffled on this issue for some time. In the past, you've held that I am a god of amateur radio. In frequent reversals, you've stated that I am not. I think I'll wait until the several of you inside the Leonard Anderson cranium come to an agreement. It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity. I'll mark that down as yet another of things we know are not your life's ambition. It'll be listed right under "amateur radio license". I think working Frenchmen out of band otta be #2. Okay, Brian, I'll do as you've requested. THINGS WHICH ARE NOT LEONARD ANDERSON'S LIFE'S AMBITION 1. It is not my life's ambition to obtain an amateur radio license. Explain to me why this is so "necessary," high holy god of ham. I didn't write that it was necessary. Pay attention. 2. It is not my life's ambition to work Frenchmen out of band. I'm not keen to work them IN band. Relax. You won't have to worry about working them at all. Why is that so necessary, high holy god of ham? I didn't write that it was necessary. Pay attention. 3. It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity. But it IS YOURS, right, high holy god of ham? The list isn't about me, Len. It is about you. Pay attention. I can deal with that. You can't deal a deck of cards...much less deal with debate on issues...you always switch to insulting each and every person who disagrees with your opinions. Did your face redden as you typed those words? C'mon, fess up. Now that all the Techs have been chased off of VHF, where do you 'spect them to go? Really? The Techs have been chased from VHF? When and how did this transpire? How would it keep Leonard from obtaining a code-free license? Why must I obtain a "code-free license?" You don't have to do anything. Let inertia be your guide. Pay attention. Why can't it be a "coded" license? It can, Len. First you'd have to overcome inertia. Pay attention. I've had a code-free license since 1956. We're discussing amateur radio, Len. Pay attention. Dave K8MN |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote those who want something for nothing Ah, yes, when they can't make a reasoned argument they trot out the old "something for nothing" mantra. Sorry, but that just doesn't stand up in the light of day, Steve. My plan, for example, calls for an examination similar to the current Extra written for full privileges, yet avoids building a new set of Amateur Radio ghettos like Jim's 1968-leftover plan would do. It also avoids 'free upgrades' which we'll likely see proposed by a prominent CT radio club. Hans Hans, if we're going to have to eat leftowvers, could we at least warm them up? The fat is all congealed on this one. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... KØHB wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote BUT, his NCI membership doesn't tie NCI to Han's personal support for an entry level license. Are you saying that NCI does not reciprocate my support for their goals? That would certainly be a strange sort of membership-organization. Sorry Hans! Only elimination of the Test! Essentually correct. NCI doesn't take positions on the wider scope of testing and opinions held by any individual member. Indeed, one could readily see where two members might have totally opposite opinions on written testing. And that is what bothers me about NCI. Why that bothers anyone makes no sense to me. Indeed, we are damned if we do, damn;ed if we don't. We formed as a "one issue" organization and now some folks are bothered by that...strange, truly strange. Well, I'm sorry about it Bill, but that is how it works. Spoils of success. In the world of politics, there is no such thing as a one issue organization. When agitating for the addition or removal of something, there must be some kind of plan for afterward. If there is no plan, then one of two things happened. Either there was an immense amount of naivety, or a concept of "no plan for the aftermath" was made". The "plan" is simple. There is NO need to replace code testing with anything else. That is and always has been the NCI objective. Anyone (NCI member or otherwise) that wants to pursue other test changes (written made harder, easier, entrylevel, etc..) are free to pursue such aims independent of the NCI banner. As Jim (N2EY) can attest to, I have made several suggestions on imprving testing to the VEC, but that was and still is seperate from the NCI "plan." I'm bothered by it now because I'm new to the ARS and didn't even know about NCI in it's early years. I would have taken NCI members to task if I was a ham then. NCI isn't really that old. Less than 10 years if my memory serves me correctly. But it is a great way to dodge responsibility! 8^) Dodge responsibilities? So exactly what does that mean? What specific "responsibility" is NCI dodging? Did I miss some unstated responsibility of NCI and/or any other ham club or organization? Yes you did miss it, IMO! What other Morse code pro/con advocacy groups are there? NCI is the one standing around when the change happened, it happened their way, and now all we hear is some people's personal beliefs when they should be at least putting together a plan for the aftermath of the ARS, post Element one. The two I have seen I'm not overwhelmed with. Well I guess NCI will just have to live with your disappointment. See again the "plan" above. So I will be yapping about what I percieve to be a *grave* error in omission. Its a free country, yap away. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: "KØHB" Date: 12/26/03 8:00 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: . net "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote those who want something for nothing Ah, yes, when they can't make a reasoned argument they trot out the old "something for nothing" mantra. Ah, yes...the "if they can't argue the argument, make fun of it" mantra. Sorry, but that just doesn't stand up in the light of day, Steve. Sure it does, Hans. The present system was set up in such a way as to encourage licensees to pursue a program of self study. The alternatives I have seen here lately suggest that potential new licensees are either idiots for whom we must dilute the test to it's least common denominator, or that we must hang a seriously big carrot out in front to get them to get involved. THAT doesn't stand up in the light of day, Hans. The current licensing strucure has already PROVEN that the tests are reasonable (when the material is sequestered) and that it provides for a structured occupancy of the bands. There was no "ghettos" from Incentive Licensing, Hans. Yes, there were hundreds of disenfranchised Amateurs who were, in fact, cheated out of something they had already been using. That was indeed unfair to say the very least. As for "free upgrades", the FCC already unleased THAT genie with thier last round of "restructuring" with no help at all from the ARRL. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. A tiered one does. Was that too difficult for you? Steve, K4YZ |
Check your local newstand or magazine rack in stores, many carry QST.
You can purchase it without membership, or check you local library, they may carry it and you can read it for free. Popular Communications (Never met a radio they didn't like) CQ QST Monitoring Times These should be easily found at any decent newstand. Don't you have any bookstores there?? Borders? BDalton? BDK Better check your local book seller your self. Barnes & Noble and Books a Million around here and no QST. NO QST anywhere. CQ always did suck. Pop Comm--ditto--SUCKS. Monitoring Times is kinda OK. 73 & Ham Radio are gone. Guess Mother Earth News it is ;-( |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 4:25:03 -0600, JEP wrote
(in message ) : Check your local newstand or magazine rack in stores, many carry QST. You can purchase it without membership, or check you local library, they may carry it and you can read it for free. Popular Communications (Never met a radio they didn't like) CQ QST Monitoring Times These should be easily found at any decent newstand. Don't you have any bookstores there?? Borders? BDalton? BDK Better check your local book seller your self. Barnes & Noble and Books a Million around here and no QST. NO QST anywhere. CQ always did suck. Pop Comm--ditto--SUCKS. Monitoring Times is kinda OK. 73 & Ham Radio are gone. Guess Mother Earth News it is ;-( If I were interested in ham radio, I'd have a ham radio license. But I'm a SWL and so I could care less about QST, CQ, 73 and Ham Radio. It's "interesting" to see so many x-posts to r.r.s about ham radio. About 45 years ago I used ta listen to hams and decided that I didn't want to be one nor continue listening to them. Most of my closest friends are hams but they've given up on "converting" me (even when I help them with tech "stuff"). The great majority of hams are nice people and they sure do justify more than their hobby when there's an emergency. But why they think that SWLer's are interested in /their/ hobby still puzzles me. There are times when there are mutual interests. When a ham goes feral and starts broadcasting as a pirate and a felon, this can connect both hobbies and such as that makes me not want to just automatically killfool all the ham newsgroups. But look at this SUBJ: "Why you don't like the ARRL". And - of the four newsgroups - two are for SWLers and CBers. May I ask for as little more care when deciding to what many newsgroups one posts to? Thanks, Gray Shockley ----------------------- DX-392 DX-398 RX-320 DX-399 CCradio w/RS Loop Torus Tuner (3-13 MHz) Select-A-Tenna ----------------------- Vicksburg, MS US |
"Gray Shockley" wrote:
And - of the four newsgroups - two are for SWLers and CBers. May I ask for as little more care when deciding to what many newsgroups one posts to? Sadly, we don't always have much control over where messages are cross-posted, Gray. Since some Hams are CB'ers and others SWL's, the discussion itself may have actually started in one of those non-ham newsgroups. In other cases, it is trolls (in any one of the newsgroups) trying to belittle Ham radio and it's operators (posted to a number of newsgroups in an effort to get the widest possible audience for that). In still other cases, the discussion started in a ham radio newsgroup, with other newsgroups added by participants who mainly frequent those other newsgroups. Whatever the case, you're certainly not alone - we get our share of messages relating to other topics posted in the Ham radio newsgroups as well. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote Ah, yes...the "if they can't argue the argument, make fun of it" mantra. ..... it provides for a structured occupancy of the bands. It's hard NOT to make fun of declarations such as the above!!!!!! Stand At Ease, Gunny! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
(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: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! You couldn't be more wrong. Again. A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. It does. Unless you believe that once you obtain Amateur Extra that all learning stops because ther is nothing new to be learned. A tiered one does. No more than a one license ARS. Was that too difficult for you? Trying hard to keep your position at the top of the hill is sooo transparent. Steve, K4YZ Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false achievements. Brian, N0iMD |
|
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: "KØHB" Date: 12/26/03 8:00 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: . net "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote those who want something for nothing Ah, yes, when they can't make a reasoned argument they trot out the old "something for nothing" mantra. Ah, yes...the "if they can't argue the argument, make fun of it" mantra. Sorry, but that just doesn't stand up in the light of day, Steve. Sure it does, Hans. The present system was set up in such a way as to encourage licensees to pursue a program of self study. The alternatives I have seen here lately suggest that potential new licensees are either idiots for whom we must dilute the test to it's least common denominator, or that we must hang a seriously big carrot out in front to get them to get involved. THAT doesn't stand up in the light of day, Hans. The current licensing strucure has already PROVEN that the tests are reasonable (when the material is sequestered) and that it provides for a structured occupancy of the bands. There was no "ghettos" from Incentive Licensing, Hans. Yes, there were hundreds of disenfranchised Amateurs who were, in fact, cheated out of something they had already been using. That was indeed unfair to say the very least. As for "free upgrades", the FCC already unleased THAT genie with thier last round of "restructuring" with no help at all from the ARRL. 73 Steve, K4YZ Know what would solve a *lot* of discontent with the current licensing system(?)--at least from the perspective of those who think the current system lends itself to "dumbed" down hams; which is absurd by the way, there a loads of dumbed down long-licensed hams. Keep the written exam, nix all CW or alternative mode testing, and increase the license fee to at least that of the GMRS fee of $75.00 (not sure for how long that $75.00 is good for). Kim W5TIT |
"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: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. A tiered one does. Was that too difficult for you? Steve, K4YZ Speaking of which, the FCC needs to update the whole section on ham radio R&R. ESPECIALLY the Basis and Purpose. That portion is so far removed from the spirit and letter of reasons why people are in ham radio these days, and that's a pity of course--but a reality nevertheless. Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Yes you did miss it, IMO! What other Morse code pro/con advocacy groups are there? NCI is the one standing around when the change happened, it happened their way, and now all we hear is some people's personal beliefs when they should be at least putting together a plan for the aftermath of the ARS, post Element one. The two I have seen I'm not overwhelmed with. So I will be yapping about what I percieve to be a *grave* error in omission. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, Why the (at least implied) premise that there will be an "aftermath" when Morse testing finally, completely goes away? What sort of doom and gloom scenario are you envisioning? How is this any different than the dire predictions of the end of ham radio when spark gave way to CW, AM to SSB, etc.??? All of these predictions have failed to come to pass ... There IS no "vacuum" to be filled, or anything necessary to "replace," Morse testing when it goes ... it's simply unecessary, so it logically follows that it is not necessary to "find something to replace it." 73, Carl - wk3c |
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: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF? -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. You couldn't be more wrong. Again. A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. It does. Unless you believe that once you obtain Amateur Extra that all learning stops because ther is nothing new to be learned. See above. A tiered one does. No more than a one license ARS. Depends on the license. Was that too difficult for you? Trying hard to keep your position at the top of the hill is sooo transparent. Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false achievements. Such as what? Number of antennas not erected? Number of details forgotten about an alleged DX operation? 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. Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more. Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges. Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals. Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air. At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed the same test to get it. Why not? |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:28:40 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:
Keep the written exam, nix all CW or alternative mode testing, So far I agree with you, with the caveat that the content of the exams at each level be of significance. and increase the license fee to at least that of the GMRS fee of $75.00 (not sure for how long that $75.00 is good for). There's where we differ. At present there is no license fee paid to the U S Treasury via the FCC. The League worked very hard to make sure that the politicians didn't have such a route to our wallets and I feel strongly that it should remain that way. Unfortunately, we were not successful in keeping the so-called "vanity call sign" program fee-free - even the sobriquet "vanity" was imposed by The Congress. I would have liked it called something else, like "selected". Note that the FCC doesn't get a nickel of license fees - they go directly into the Treasury's General Fund. The requirement for levying such fees is mandated by act of Congress and the FCC just jumps and asks "how high" on the way up. The exam fee paid to the private-sector VE teams is something else, and can only be imposed on a reimbursement level. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:30:17 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:
Speaking of which, the FCC needs to update the whole section on ham radio R&R. ESPECIALLY the Basis and Purpose. That portion is so far removed from the spirit and letter of reasons why people are in ham radio these days, and that's a pity of course--but a reality nevertheless. I have a brilliant solution for you, Kim. Draft a document called a Petition for Rule Making and in it say: I request that Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations be amended to read as follows: and then write what YOU think the exact wording of each section that you want changes should say. Add to that the reasons for each change and your standing and qualfications for them to give serious consideration to your request. Send it to the Secretary of the Commission, original and 11 copies. Then sit back and wait. I wish you luck. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
(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: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not grow the number. How much higher do you think it would have grown to if ... If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. Not even when you puff out your chest and declare, "I'm a 20wpm Extra!" There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. Are you positively sure abaout that? It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. Is that like when the General licence holder had all priveleges? And when the Tech (General written w/o 13wpm Code) had VHF only. This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. Then tell Steve about self-training. Even in the scheme of incentive licensing, the lowest and the highest licensed individuals still have a lot to learn. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Cop McDonald - SSTV. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF? Oh, I have. What I haven't done is train myself on EVERY practical antenna for HF, especially those antennas applicable to low visual impact in a restricted neighborhood, and cannot (or rather shouldn't be placed against) a house sheathed in aluminum siding. So I looked outside my personal breadth of knowledge for something new, and ran into you and Brian Kelly. What a pair. Some would call that self-training, seeking information and knowledge outside ones own experience. -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. You and Steve have a lot in common - being wrong. For Steve's assertion to be true, there would have to be a license class above Amateur Extra, and when a person achieved that, to fufill Steve's vision "self-training" there would have to be another level above that. And so on. I.E., a merit badge system. You couldn't be more wrong. Again. A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. It does. Unless you believe that once you obtain Amateur Extra that all learning stops because ther is nothing new to be learned. See above. See below your see above. A tiered one does. No more than a one license ARS. Depends on the license. Amateur License. Was that too difficult for you? Trying hard to keep your position at the top of the hill is sooo transparent. Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false achievements. Such as what? Number of antennas not erected? Number of details forgotten about an alleged DX operation? Again you try to make this personal. 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. Just don't be so jealous. You could have operated from all those places, too, if you have been in the service with all the other blessings that that entails. Besides, I don't see your name behind "Invented SSTV." So, what mode, what l/o circuit, or even soldering technique has your name on it? How many JOTA stations have you hosted? How many intro-license classes have you hosted? How many VE sessions have you hosted? Certainly you've done something other than DX and belittle you fellow hams. Not all hams will distinguish themselves - you certainly haven't. So let them just be hams, like 99% of all the other Extra class licensees. 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. No. Bury the code test. Second, close off the Tech and General to new issues. What? No learners permit? Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more. Such as operating priveleges? Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges. Just leave out "Class" and call it "Amateur License." Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals. Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air. You could even ask to have the pools FOUO, and/or increase the size to 12,000 questions. Just make the subject matter relavent. At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed the same test to get it. Why not? Why not, Indeed? Deal. You run it up the flag and I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but not mode. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et... On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:30:17 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote: Speaking of which, the FCC needs to update the whole section on ham radio R&R. ESPECIALLY the Basis and Purpose. That portion is so far removed from the spirit and letter of reasons why people are in ham radio these days, and that's a pity of course--but a reality nevertheless. I have a brilliant solution for you, Kim. Draft a document called a Petition for Rule Making and in it say: I request that Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations be amended to read as follows: and then write what YOU think the exact wording of each section that you want changes should say. Add to that the reasons for each change and your standing and qualfications for them to give serious consideration to your request. Send it to the Secretary of the Commission, original and 11 copies. Then sit back and wait. I wish you luck. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Oh, no, no, no. I didn't say I want to or would pick up the torch for change. I've got other irons in the fire dealing with things much closer to my heart than ham radio... So, I assume you're of the opinion that even if someone petitioned, it would not be worth the while? Kim W5TIT |
"Brian" wrote in message om... [major snip] I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but not mode. Supporting a "learner's permit" license contradicts the concept of not having class distinctions as discussed in the earlier part the post. Once you have more than one license class for any reason, you have a class distinction, which according to your posts is undesirable. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article ,
(Brian) 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: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not grow the number. Where did you get that idea? Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. Not even when you puff out your chest and declare, "I'm a 20wpm Extra!" When have I done that? Besides, 20 wpm isn't that fast. I can do at least 35 wpm. There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. Are you positively sure abaout that? Yep. It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. Is that like when the General licence holder had all priveleges? 1953 to 1968. Then FCC decided that it wasn't enough. And when the Tech (General written w/o 13wpm Code) had VHF only. This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. Then tell Steve about self-training. He knows. You don't. Even in the scheme of incentive licensing, the lowest and the highest licensed individuals still have a lot to learn. Of course! No one with any sense denies that. The license is just the beginning. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Cop McDonald - SSTV. 45+ years ago. I've read the original articles. That work is so old that 11 meters was a ham band. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF? Oh, I have. I don't think so. What I haven't done is train myself on EVERY practical antenna for HF, especially those antennas applicable to low visual impact in a restricted neighborhood, and cannot (or rather shouldn't be placed against) a house sheathed in aluminum siding. So I looked outside my personal breadth of knowledge for something new, and ran into you and Brian Kelly. What a pair. You wanted to be spoon-fed antenna theory and practice instead of self-training. I pointed you to several websites. It's clear you didn't even look. Some would call that self-training, seeking information and knowledge outside ones own experience. Then why didn't you find the information on your own? It became clear to me that you hadn't even tried googling. You wanted others to do the work for you, then you'd insult those who tried to help you out. -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. You and Steve have a lot in common - being wrong. How is that statement wrong? FCC set the standard. Pass the test, get the license. For Steve's assertion to be true, there would have to be a license class above Amateur Extra, and when a person achieved that, to fufill Steve's vision "self-training" there would have to be another level above that. And so on. Nonsense. I.E., a merit badge system. More nonsense. You couldn't be more wrong. Again. A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. It does. Unless you believe that once you obtain Amateur Extra that all learning stops because ther is nothing new to be learned. See above. See below your see above. A tiered one does. No more than a one license ARS. Depends on the license. Amateur License. Call it that. Was that too difficult for you? Trying hard to keep your position at the top of the hill is sooo transparent. Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false achievements. Such as what? Number of antennas not erected? Number of details forgotten about an alleged DX operation? Again you try to make this personal. You've personally refused to answer any questions on some alleged DX operations. 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? But you can't seem to tell us anything about the /T5 operation. Just don't be so jealous. I'm not. Besides, I don't see your name behind "Invented SSTV." Nor yours besides "invented anything". So, what mode, what l/o circuit, or even soldering technique has your name on it? A few articles in the amateur press. Several homebrew rigs. And some other things... How many JOTA stations have you hosted? None. How many have you hosted? How many intro-license classes have you hosted? A few. Code and theory. Plus upgrade study groups. Plus online help to many amateurs. How many have you taught? How many VE sessions have you hosted? A few. How many have you done? Certainly you've done something other than DX and belittle you fellow hams. I'm not a DXer. Where have I belittled any other hams? Not all hams will distinguish themselves - you certainly haven't. So let them just be hams, like 99% of all the other Extra class licensees. And like you? 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? Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more. Such as operating priveleges? Exactly. If there's to be one license class, it would have to be for all operating priviliges, so there's no need to test on where the old subbands-by-license-class used to be. But that's about all that would be removed. Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges. Just leave out "Class" and call it "Amateur License." Whatever. Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals. Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air. You could even ask to have the pools FOUO, and/or increase the size to 12,000 questions. Just make the subject matter relavent. What subject matter in the combined question pool that was just described is not relevant? At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed the same test to get it. Why not? Why not, Indeed? Two reasons: 1) All newcomers would have to pass a written test about equivalent to the Extra just to get on the air. 2) Existing hams would have to retest at that level or leave the air. How many US hams do you think would be left in 10 years under such a system? Deal. You run it up the flag No. It's your idea. You want it, you do the work. Self-training, remember? Learn how to write and submit a proposal to the FCC and get an RM number assigned. Then see what the amateur community thinks of your ideas in their comments. I don't want such a system - I just described what would logically be the structure of such a system. I did it to point out exactly what such a system would require, and some of the foreseeable consequences. and I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but not mode. No. You said one class of license. That means no learner's permits, no easy-to-get licenses, just one class of license. Unless you support "dumbing down", such a license would have to require roughly the equivalent written test knowledge as an Extra. Some regulations questions could be eliminated but that's all. Or were you lying about wanting one class of license? |
Brian wrote:
But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not grow the number. How much higher do you think it would have grown to if ... Huh? CW testing was implemented because when the Amateur Radio service began with the Radio Act of 1912, CW was *the* main mode of communication. The CW test was 5wpm, same as it is now. How did you ever come up with the idiotic idea it was implemented to limit the number of amateurs? |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message om... [major snip] I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but not mode. Supporting a "learner's permit" license contradicts the concept of not having class distinctions as discussed in the earlier part the post. Of course it doesn't. Once you have more than one license class for any reason, you have a class distinction, which according to your posts is undesirable. It's not a class. Its a learners permit - a temp. |
"Brian" wrote in message m... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "Brian" wrote in message om... [major snip] I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but not mode. Supporting a "learner's permit" license contradicts the concept of not having class distinctions as discussed in the earlier part the post. Of course it doesn't. Once you have more than one license class for any reason, you have a class distinction, which according to your posts is undesirable. It's not a class. Its a learners permit - a temp. Even though only temporary, it's still a separate class. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian) 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: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not grow the number. Where did you get that idea? Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years back. It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I don't think Aaron posted it, though. If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. Not even when you puff out your chest and declare, "I'm a 20wpm Extra!" When have I done that? Not necessarily you. Can you say that others don't do it? Besides, 20 wpm isn't that fast. I can do at least 35 wpm. Do I detect a little swelling of your shirt? There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. Are you positively sure abaout that? Yep. I'm not. Enough RRAPpers have abused their status to convince me otherwise. It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. Is that like when the General licence holder had all priveleges? 1953 to 1968. Then FCC decided that it wasn't enough. But didn't the FCC first decide that it was enough? Some would call this era the golden years of amateur radio. And when the Tech (General written w/o 13wpm Code) had VHF only. This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. Then tell Steve about self-training. He knows. You don't. Apparently he doesn't. Nor do you. Even in the scheme of incentive licensing, the lowest and the highest licensed individuals still have a lot to learn. Of course! No one with any sense denies that. The license is just the beginning. So how is it that having only one license class denies the basis and purpose, but in a tiered system, the top license class doesn't deny the basis and purpose - if the Extra license is "just the beginning," and ""the highest licensed individuals still have a lot to learn?" C'mon. Make some sense here. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Cop McDonald - SSTV. 45+ years ago. I've read the original articles. That work is so old that 11 meters was a ham band. So Cop didn't distinguish himself because he hasn't done anything lately? Maybe the press that ran the original articles you read is now defunct? Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF? Oh, I have. I don't think so. Then you simply don't know. What I haven't done is train myself on EVERY practical antenna for HF, especially those antennas applicable to low visual impact in a restricted neighborhood, and cannot (or rather shouldn't be placed against) a house sheathed in aluminum siding. So I looked outside my personal breadth of knowledge for something new, and ran into you and Brian Kelly. What a pair. You wanted to be spoon-fed antenna theory and practice instead of self-training. I pointed you to several websites. It's clear you didn't even look. How so? Some would call that self-training, seeking information and knowledge outside ones own experience. Then why didn't you find the information on your own? It became clear to me that you hadn't even tried googling. You wanted others to do the work for you, then you'd insult those who tried to help you out. Kelly was abusive. And because something worked in his backyard he knew it would work in everyone elses back yard. Even when I put the limitations up front. He is mentally deficient and emotionally immature. -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. You and Steve have a lot in common - being wrong. How is that statement wrong? FCC set the standard. Pass the test, get the license. Basis and purpose, remember? One license "class" satisfies as well as multiple license classes. Unless learning stops with Extra, which you say doesn't. For Steve's assertion to be true, there would have to be a license class above Amateur Extra, and when a person achieved that, to fufill Steve's vision "self-training" there would have to be another level above that. And so on. Nonsense. Not nonsense. I.E., a merit badge system. More nonsense. You just don't like it when people notice you puffing out your chest. You couldn't be more wrong. Again. A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. It does. Unless you believe that once you obtain Amateur Extra that all learning stops because ther is nothing new to be learned. See above. See below your see above. A tiered one does. No more than a one license ARS. Depends on the license. Amateur License. Call it that. It should be painfully obvious. Was that too difficult for you? Trying hard to keep your position at the top of the hill is sooo transparent. Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false achievements. Such as what? Number of antennas not erected? Number of details forgotten about an alleged DX operation? Again you try to make this personal. You've personally refused to answer any questions on some alleged DX operations. Most of your questions have been answered. You're not really interested in what I have to say, only interested character assassination. Once you discredit me, you think you can discredit what I say. 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? Not based on license class. Remember, achievements, not FCC Merit Badges. Many snicker at working huge pileups with a mere Technician license while operating SSB on the "kiddie band." But you can't seem to tell us anything about the /T5 operation. Just don't be so jealous. I'm not. Of course not. Pffft. Besides, I don't see your name behind "Invented SSTV." Nor yours besides "invented anything". So you need the tiered license system as a crutch for your non-achievements in amateur radio? So, what mode, what l/o circuit, or even soldering technique has your name on it? A few articles in the amateur press. Several homebrew rigs. And some other things... Oh? Are these amateur presses now defunct? I don't ever recall reading about the Miccolus circuit. Clue me in. Or other things. Maybe you've distinguished yourself professionally? How many JOTA stations have you hosted? None. How many have you hosted? Three. How many intro-license classes have you hosted? A few. Code and theory. Plus upgrade study groups. Plus online help to many amateurs. I've seen your on-line help. You and Kelly make a great tag-team. How many have you taught? Two. Technician. It was tough answering a lot of the theory questions. It would have been nice if more Extra's had been interested enough to help out. How many VE sessions have you hosted? A few. How many have you done? None. Certainly you've done something other than DX and belittle you fellow hams. I'm not a DXer. You should. You can actually earn waards based upon actual achievements, not just FCC Merit Badges. Where have I belittled any other hams? Good grief!!! You just belittled my antenna knowledge again, and you tag-teamed with Kelly on it a little more than a year ago. Not all hams will distinguish themselves - you certainly haven't. So let them just be hams, like 99% of all the other Extra class licensees. And like you? I've done nothing out of the ordinary. I don't claim to. I've had lots of fun being just an ordinary ham. I don't deserve ridicule because of my license class, or because someone else thinks that my fun could have been greater if my license class had been higher. 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. Did you snip something here? C'mon Steve. Stop manipulating the exchange. I said "No." What say you? 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. Nope. A person expresses and interest, get a learners permit and has access to other amateurs for mentoring. Then becomes an amateur with the "Amateur License." No renewals. You said one license. That means one class of license - no learner's permit. Learners permit is fatally temporary. Does NOT create an underclass of Amateurs. Or were you lying about wanting one class of license? Not lying. Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more. Such as operating priveleges? Exactly. If there's to be one license class, it would have to be for all operating priviliges, so there's no need to test on where the old subbands-by-license-class used to be. But that's about all that would be removed. OK so far. Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges. Just leave out "Class" and call it "Amateur License." Whatever. You wanted a one license ARS, didn't you? Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals. Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air. You could even ask to have the pools FOUO, and/or increase the size to 12,000 questions. Just make the subject matter relavent. What subject matter in the combined question pool that was just described is not relevant? Example: How many minutes it takes to send a FAX image? That's nonsense. At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed the same test to get it. Why not? Why not, Indeed? Two reasons: 1) All newcomers would have to pass a written test about equivalent to the Extra just to get on the air. It was your suggestion. I just went along with it. Why did you drop the code discussion out of the equation? 2) Existing hams would have to retest at that level or leave the air. Basis and purpose is fufilled. How many US hams do you think would be left in 10 years under such a system? Only the ones who really worked hard. Deal. You run it up the flag No. It's your idea. No, its your idea. You want it, you do the work. Self-training, remember? Learn how to write and submit a proposal to the FCC and get an RM number assigned. Then see what the amateur community thinks of your ideas in their comments. I don't want such a system - I just described what would logically be the structure of such a system. I did it to point out exactly what such a system would require, and some of the foreseeable consequences. Ah, you ran up a straw man that you really don't support. You've been doing a lot of that lately, i.e., no written exams. Welp, I guess I'll never be able to take you at your word again. and I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but not mode. No. You said one class of license. That means no learner's permits, no easy-to-get licenses, just one class of license. Unless you support "dumbing down", such a license would have to require roughly the equivalent written test knowledge as an Extra. Some regulations questions could be eliminated but that's all. Or were you lying about wanting one class of license? You certainly were. That would make you a what? |
JJ wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not grow the number. How much higher do you think it would have grown to if ... Huh? CW testing was implemented because when the Amateur Radio service began with the Radio Act of 1912, CW was *the* main mode of communication. The CW test was 5wpm, same as it is now. How did you ever come up with the idiotic idea it was implemented to limit the number of amateurs? From the pages of QST. It was quoted in here several years ago - and it does go back to that long ago era. |
"Brian" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years back. It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I don't think Aaron posted it, though. The Morse test speed for was increased to 13 wpm as a direct effort to limit the number of hams - and the moving force was the ARRL - it's documented in public records in the Library of Congress and was researched by a certified archivist. See the article at http://www.nocode.org/articles.html - scroll way down to the bottom it's the 3rd article from the bottom. 73, Carl - wk3c |
It was tough answering a lot of the theory
questions. Im sure it was for you. Thats why you done have a chance at the EXTRA. You know nothing I've done nothing out of the ordinary. We know thaT I don't deserve ridicule because of my license class, oh but the EXTRA do. Learners permit is fatally temporary. Does NOT create an underclass of Amateurs. Of course it does. Only the ones who really worked hard. I thought you CBplussers and NCI have stated numerous times, WORK had nothing do with getting a License. |
it's
documented in public records in the Library of Congress and was researched by a certified archivist. certified archivist. Probably Karl or FRED |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:29:13 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:
So, I assume you're of the opinion that even if someone petitioned, it would not be worth the while? Not in the least. I'm running over 75% of petitions granted, which is a pretty good batting average. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Brian" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years back. It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I don't think Aaron posted it, though. The Morse test speed for was increased to 13 wpm as a direct effort to limit the number of hams - and the moving force was the ARRL - it's documented in public records in the Library of Congress and was researched by a certified archivist. It may have been increased for that purpose, but it was not originally implemented for that purpose. |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years back. It's also in "200 Meters And Down" It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I don't think Aaron posted it, though. The Morse test speed for was increased to 13 wpm as a direct effort to limit the number of hams - and the moving force was the ARRL - it's documented in public records in the Library of Congress and was researched by a certified archivist. The key word is "implemented" - not increased. Here's "the rest of the story": The year was 1936. US amateur radio had grown faster than at any time before or since. The number of US hams had almost tripled since 1929, despite the Great Depression and highly restrictive new rules that went into effect in 1929. There were serious problems with interference, poor signals, out-of-band operation, and overcrowding of the bands, and rapid turnover of new hams (approaching 40% per year). The remedy was twofold: Both the written test and the code test were revised. The written test was upgraded and the code test increased from 10 wpm (where it had been since 1919)to 13 wpm. ARRL asked for 12-1/2 wpm but FCC went for 13. There was also a big redoing of the written tests, but somehow that fact is forgotten... See the article at http://www.nocode.org/articles.html - scroll way down to the bottom it's the 3rd article from the bottom. That's why the code test of 67 years ago was increased by 3 wpm from 10 to 13 - but not why it was implemented in the first place. Some folks wonder about the claim of overcrowding. In order to appreciate what amateur radio was like back then, it's necessary to understand what technologies and operating practices were in use by average hams. Consider this: The bands were crowded enough back then that as early as 1931 some enterprising hams (W6DEI, Ray Moore, and others) built and operated single-sideband transmitters and receivers. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"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: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. But, as you and I have agred before, the privileges gained do NOT relate to the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class. 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? This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. 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. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Good question. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF? -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. True under the current scheme of licensing for the USA. It could be changed and that is the point raised in this discussion. Should it be changed and if so, how? You couldn't be more wrong. Again. A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. It does. Unless you believe that once you obtain Amateur Extra that all learning stops because ther is nothing new to be learned. See above. A tiered one does. No more than a one license ARS. Depends on the license. Was that too difficult for you? Trying hard to keep your position at the top of the hill is sooo transparent. Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false achievements. Such as what? Number of antennas not erected? Number of details forgotten about an alleged DX operation? 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. Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more. Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges. Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals. Never happen. Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air. Never happen. You want a way to kill ham radio, then that'd do it in a heartbeat...a 10 year heartbeat at the longest. At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed the same test to get it. At the end of 10 years we'd have no ham service of any consequence. Retesting does NOT get any support at all. A handful of people propose retesting (I oppose retesting)...but that is all. If 1968 incentive licensing drove some folks away, you can bet the "all existing hams would need to be retested" will certainly do it. Why not? Please tell me any example of something you do in life that requires anyone to be knowledge retested...other than something in the medical field such as CPR recertification. Cheers and happy new year. Bill K2UNK |
"JJ" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Brian" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years back. It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I don't think Aaron posted it, though. The Morse test speed for was increased to 13 wpm as a direct effort to limit the number of hams - and the moving force was the ARRL - it's documented in public records in the Library of Congress and was researched by a certified archivist. It may have been increased for that purpose, but it was not originally implemented for that purpose. Fair statement. The "original" morse requirement was to enable non-amateur stations to dialog via morse with amateur stations in case of interfereing operation. The increase to 13wpm was, as the article states, intended to raise the bar of entrance criteria to limit the number of new hams. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com