"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 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


Smoking Gun!

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"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":

Gee, why am I not suprised that the complete story had been "conveniently"
edited. Thanks Jim.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"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


Says you.

Do you see career divers motoring around with a 6 month permit?

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
"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"

Oh, really? You acted as if you had never heard of such an idea just
one short post ago.

I really can't trust anything you say.

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.

You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last
post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big
secret.

I really can't trust anything you say.

Here's "the rest of the story":

Now you're an instant expert at something that just one post ago was a
huge mystery to you.

You didn't get away with it this time, Jim.

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.

But no...

What about the 12-3/4 wpm plateau?

How dare the FCC not implement the ARRL plan?

There was also a big
redoing of the written tests, but somehow that fact is forgotten...

Trivia.

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.

But that was some 72 years ago. Cop's invention was only 40 years ago
and you discount it.

Jim, I'm beginning to see a pattern of untruths and inconsistency in
your postings. And I'll not ever refer to you as Rev. Jim again, no
matter how many swear words you snip out of other peoples posts. You
are unworthy, and definitely bear watching.

In article , "Bert Craig"
writes:

The key word is "implemented" - not increased.

Here's "the rest of the story":

Gee, why am I not suprised that the complete story had been "conveniently"
edited.

bwaahaahaaa

Thanks Jim.

You're welcome.

73 de Jim, N2EY

CU SKN

In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

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.

That was one reason. Here are some others:

- To permit amateur stations to dialog via morse with each other
- To set a minimum standard of operator qualification so that newcomers would
not try to learn the code on the air. (Remember that in the early days the
effective selectivity of radio systems was not very good)
- To support hte idea of the amateur service as a training ground for
commercial and military operators
- To support the use of the most spectrum-efficient mode then available

The increase to 13wpm was, as the article states, intended
to raise the bar of entrance criteria to limit the number
of new hams.

And so was the simultaneous upgrading of the written tests.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , JJ
writes:

It may have been increased for that purpose, but it was not originally
implemented for that purpose.

My point exactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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:

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.

Bill,

Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968?

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.

FCC disagrees, Bill.

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! But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional
technical knowledge with more privileges.

For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between operating
CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that I wrote
*technical*)

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.

It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter.

Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter, what
about the General?

Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.

Such as?

Good question.

My point exactly.

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?

I wrote up a suggested three-tiered system some time back and reposted it
recently. I think it's the best compromise between all the various
considerations. YMMV.

Please note the following sentence. I'm *not* saying I want one class of
license! I'm simply describing how to do it.

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.

I hope you're right, Bill. But I learned long ago to "never say never".

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.

Exactly! But the hams who remained would all have passed the same test so
there's be no more license-based "class distinctions". That's the point.

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.

Sure we would. Just not the one you or I want. But it would be more like what
Brian wants.

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.

I think most active hams would just take the %^&#$% test and be done with it.
The problem is that many semi-active or inactive hams wouldn't, and we'd see a
drastic reduction in numbers. Bad news.Very bad news.

To repeat: I'm not in favor of a one-class system. I'm just pointing out where
such a system would lead.

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.

In my line of work, (no, I'm not going to say what it is here), employees are
constantly retested on safety and procedures. The last time I took a safety
test, the passing grade was 100%. Get *one* question wrong and you fail. And in
a year or less you have to do it all over again.

Cheers and happy new year.

All the best in '04, Bill

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
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:

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.


Bill,

Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968?

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.


FCC disagrees, Bill.

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! But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional
technical knowledge with more privileges.

And so do I! The arguments of tying technical knowledge to priveleges
is completely bogus, irritating, and eventually self defeating. That
many NCTA's used it as an argument against Morse code testing does not
make it less so. It's just that now, that bird will come home to roost.

For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between operating
CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that I wrote
*technical*)

What is the technical comptency difference between the Extra operating
in his or her segment of a HF band and an unlicensed CB'er running a
linear?

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.

It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter.

I look at it as more of a philosophy thing than specific logic. They
seem to want people to learn things. Tying knowledge to priveliges is a
good philosophy in my estimation.

Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter, what
about the General?

If we adopt the philosophy, it could be done. Insane, but stranger
things have happened.


Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.

Such as?

Good question.


My point exactly.

Maybe we could have merit badges? 8^),

rest snipped

- Mike KB3EIA -

Brian wrote:



The key word is "implemented" - not increased.


You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last
post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big
secret.

Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long
before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could
easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10
wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that)
test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to
copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of
amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code
was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of
the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part
was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed
than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt
to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented*
orginally for that purpose.
At the time, the thing which was thought would do the task of reducing,
even eleminating the amatures would be to relegate them to 200 meters.
Those wavelengths were thought to be of no use for communications and
the amatures would not be able to get a signal out of their back yards,
thus in time the amateurs would loose interest and amateur radio would,
for all practical purposes, die away.

.. . n2ey & Brainiac go at it. "Entertainment is where ya find it" . .

n2ey sez:

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.

w3rv jumps in he

I basically agree with your contention but it needs to be expanded
(particularly sincs Brainiac is on the freq). The reason the bands
were "crowded" back then was simply because of the absolutely
ferschtink selectivity even the state-of-the-art superhet rcvrs of
those days provided. On top of the problems those folk had with their
wandering oscillators.

I daresay that if the 1931 hams had any of today's cheapest
consumer-level MF/HF xcvrs they would have, on average, found a
*whole* lot of dead space between signals in the ham bands.

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.

Here comes me again:

The big trick SSB brought to the game had nothing to do with bandwidth
and/or "interfernce reduction". It had and has everything to do with
the abilty of SSB to eliminate the AM carrier which sucks up power,
equipment space and money and conveys no intelligence to the listener
whatsoever.

Brainiac responds to n2ey:

But that was some 72 years ago. Cop's invention was only 40 years ago
and you discount it.

Jim, I'm beginning to see a pattern of untruths and inconsistency in
your postings. And I'll not ever refer to you as Rev. Jim again, no
matter how many swear words you snip out of other peoples posts. You
are unworthy, and definitely bear watching.

w3rv sez pffft! Pot calling kettle black again.

.. . T5 logs. Gonna toss 'em into the LoW are ya Burke? Hmmm??

w3rv

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:



The key word is "implemented" - not increased.


You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last
post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big
secret.

Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long
before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could
easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10
wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that)
test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to
copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of
amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code
was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of
the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part
was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed
than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt
to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented*
orginally for that purpose.
At the time, the thing which was thought would do the task of reducing,
even eleminating the amatures would be to relegate them to 200 meters.
Those wavelengths were thought to be of no use for communications and
the amatures would not be able to get a signal out of their back yards,
thus in time the amateurs would loose interest and amateur radio would,
for all practical purposes, die away.


What's your callsign, JJ? Just wondering...

Kim W5TIT

JJ wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:



The key word is "implemented" - not increased.


You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last
post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big
secret.

Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long
before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could
easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10
wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that)
test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to
copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of
amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code
was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of
the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part
was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed
than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt
to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented*
orginally for that purpose.

He could have said as much in his earlier post. Instead he played it
off as if he had -never- heard of such a thing. That is dishonest.

I cannot trust what he says anymore.

I cannot trust what he says anymore.


BIG DEAL, no one cares what you think.

"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:

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.

Bill,

Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968?

Jim,
The "When incentive licensing was re-est...." was not my statement.

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 agreed before, the privileges gained do NOT relate
to
the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class.

FCC disagrees, Bill.

True for now. But if anyone is serious about a new license
structure, I'd like to see rational relationship between the
license class knowledge test requirements and whatever
additional privileges are associated with that license.

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.

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.

For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between
operating
CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that I
wrote
*technical*)

None and that point has been made by myself as well. The only
two truly CW only sub-bands do NOT require passing any
code test to be able to use them.

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.

It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter.

It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doiesn't flow or relate
at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license.

Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter,
what
about the General?

Did I even hint at that. The answer is basically no...although
I have NO preference for or against changing license structure
to a more rational basis for added privileges.

Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.

Such as?

Good question.

My point exactly.

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?

I wrote up a suggested three-tiered system some time back and reposted it
recently. I think it's the best compromise between all the various
considerations. YMMV.

Please note the following sentence. I'm *not* saying I want one class of
license! I'm simply describing how to do it.

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.

I hope you're right, Bill. But I learned long ago to "never say never".

I hope I'm right too :-) :-)

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.

Exactly! But the hams who remained would all have passed the same test so
there's be no more license-based "class distinctions". That's the point.

But, again, not at all a probable possibility.

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.

Sure we would. Just not the one you or I want. But it would be more like
what
Brian wants.

IF the numbers of hams dropped considerably because of the proposal,
I seriously doubt the service as well as ham organizations would survive.
Calling for all retesting of existing hams would play right into the hands
of
the commercial interests that would love to get us off the air completely.

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.

I think most active hams would just take the %^&#$% test and be done with
it.
The problem is that many semi-active or inactive hams wouldn't, and we'd
see a
drastic reduction in numbers. Bad news.Very bad news.

Exactly my point.

To repeat: I'm not in favor of a one-class system. I'm just pointing out
where
such a system would lead.

I believe we both believe, if imlemented as you proposed above,
the end result would be disastor.

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.

In my line of work, (no, I'm not going to say what it is here), employees
are
constantly retested on safety and procedures. The last time I took a
safety
test, the passing grade was 100%. Get *one* question wrong and you fail.
And in
a year or less you have to do it all over again.

But if you get one wrong do you lose your job...or
just take it again until you pass? The last time I took
any test that actually might have impacted my career was
when I was first hired and tested by the personel office
back in 1970.

Cheers and happy new year.

All the best in '04, Bill

Mega dittos to you and everyone else in RRAP
Bill K2UNK

You may not be aware but HAMS operate on SHORTWAVE, so do CB
operators. Doesn't matter HF, VHF, UHF. Still shortwave.


Gray Shockley wrote in message s.com...
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

BDK

Well, Barnes and Noble in upper Michigan does NOT carry it any more as
B Dalton does not either. I'm now in central Florida and B & N and
Books a Million NO GO.
QST is not available everywhere and you might find it's not available
in the Toledo area anymore.


BDK wrote in message ...
In article ,
says...
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 ;-(


Where are you anyway?? You can get MT on line. CQ and POPComm did always
suck. 73, at least Wayne's editorial, was pretty weird. You can get QST
all over the place around the Toledo/Detroit area. All the bookstores
have it, a couple of drugstores have it, and I think at least one of the
Meijer's has it too.

BDK

Gray Shockley wrote:

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.

And then he includes this.

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

Why you think hams are interested in what radios and antennas you use to
SWL with is beyond me.

Not true. If so, they wouldn't argue so vehemently against what I say.

Most people just like to give you hard time because they know you dont have a
Clue. Lets face it Brian, if the FCC hadnt decided to give Ham Licenses away,
you will still be on 11 Meters.

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:

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.

Bill,

Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968?

Jim,
The "When incentive licensing was re-est...." was not my statement.

Agreed! It was mine!

Point was you and I have been hams long enough to actually recall those times.

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 agreed before, the privileges gained do NOT relate
to
the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class.

FCC disagrees, Bill.

True for now. But if anyone is serious about a new license
structure, I'd like to see rational relationship between the
license class knowledge test requirements and whatever
additional privileges are associated with that license.

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. And since we're supposed to use the minimum power
required by the situation anyway.....

If we use modes as the incentive, which modes do we use for the incentive?

There's also the question of enforcement. You can tell right away if someone is
outside their allocated spectrum, but power is another issue.

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 knoiwledge. The Extra part is
where the DX often goes.

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?

For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between
operating
CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that I
wrote *technical*)

None and that point has been made by myself as well. The only
two truly CW only sub-bands do NOT require passing any
code test to be able to use them.

*technical* knowledge....

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.

It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter.

It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doiesn't flow or relate
at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license.

Some of the knowledge does, such as HF propagation.

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.

Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.

Such as?

Good question.

My point exactly.

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?

I wrote up a suggested three-tiered system some time back and reposted it
recently. I think it's the best compromise between all the various
considerations. YMMV.

Please note the following sentence. I'm *not* saying I want one class of
license! I'm simply describing how to do it.

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.

I hope you're right, Bill. But I learned long ago to "never say never".

I hope I'm right too :-) :-)

That makes two of us.

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.

Exactly! But the hams who remained would all have passed the same test so
there's be no more license-based "class distinctions". That's the point.

But, again, not at all a probable possibility.

A lot of things we thought impossible have come to pass. Heck, FCC never
imagined that cb would get out of their control...

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.

Sure we would. Just not the one you or I want. But it would be more like
what Brian wants.

IF the numbers of hams dropped considerably because of the proposal,
I seriously doubt the service as well as ham organizations would survive.
Calling for all retesting of existing hams would play right into the hands
of
the commercial interests that would love to get us off the air completely.

We can agree on this: Neither of us wants to find out the hard way what the
result would be.

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.

I think most active hams would just take the %^&#$% test and be done with
it.
The problem is that many semi-active or inactive hams wouldn't, and we'd
see a
drastic reduction in numbers. Bad news.Very bad news.

Exactly my point.

To repeat: I'm not in favor of a one-class system. I'm just pointing out
where
such a system would lead.

I believe we both believe, if imlemented as you proposed above,
the end result would be disastor.

Or worse.

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.

In my line of work, (no, I'm not going to say what it is here), employees
are
constantly retested on safety and procedures. The last time I took a
safety
test, the passing grade was 100%. Get *one* question wrong and you fail.
And in
a year or less you have to do it all over again.

But if you get one wrong do you lose your job...or
just take it again until you pass?

You cannot work until you pass the test. Fail enough times and you lose your
job.


The last time I took
any test that actually might have impacted my career was
when I was first hired and tested by the personel office
back in 1970.

The last time for me was in August.

Cheers and happy new year.

All the best in '04, Bill

Mega dittos to you and everyone else in RRAP
Bill K2UNK

73 de Jim, N2EY

JJ,

"Why you think hams are interested in what radios
and antennas you use to SWL with is beyond me."

Since this was Cross Posted to several NewsGroups:

* rec.radio.amateur.policy, [ Amateur - HAM ]

* rec.radio.amateur.misc, [ Amateur - HAM ]

* rec.radio.shortwave, [ S H O R T W A V E ]

* rec.radio.cb [ C B ]

The Devil Is In The Details...
So "GS" is simply communicating his 'status' as a SWL.

The Question Every Amateur Must Ask Themselves is . . .
Is Any Body ? ? ? L I S T E N I N G ? ? ?

YES - But they may be a lowly SWL and You will Never Know;
Unless the SWL sends the HAM a QCL Request and the HAM Replys in Kind.
? How many Amateurs Actively Seek QCL Reports form SWLs ?
? How many Amateurs 'send out' "QCL Cards" to the SWLs ?

Exus Laxus Good Buddy ~ RHF
Breaking-On-the-Low-Side - Can I Get a Radio Check ? QC? QC? BS!
..
..
= = = JJ
= = = wrote in message ...
Gray Shockley wrote:

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.

And then he includes this.

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

Why you think hams are interested in what radios
and antennas you use to SWL with is beyond me.

In article ,
says...
BDK

Well, Barnes and Noble in upper Michigan does NOT carry it any more as
B Dalton does not either. I'm now in central Florida and B & N and
Books a Million NO GO.
QST is not available everywhere and you might find it's not available
in the Toledo area anymore.


BDK wrote in message ...
In article ,
says...
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 ;-(


Where are you anyway?? You can get MT on line. CQ and POPComm did always
suck. 73, at least Wayne's editorial, was pretty weird. You can get QST
all over the place around the Toledo/Detroit area. All the bookstores
have it, a couple of drugstores have it, and I think at least one of the
Meijer's has it too.

BDK


Hmm, well I saw it at one place last week, along with MT, CQ, and the
scanner one, I can't think of the name. Leo's bookstore has them all,
they used to have the British SW Magazine and Practical Wireless too,
but not lately.

I haven't been to B Dalton in a long time, but Barnes and Nobles had it
a couple of months ago.

I guess you will have to subscribe, it's cheaper than buying it anyway.

BDK

"N2EY" wrote


Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive,
what do
we use?


Incentive?

Jim, you sound like a typical eastern liberal with an agenda of social
engineering.

You're either qualified for a ham license or you're not qualified. This
incentive notion (and Steve Robeson's 'structured occupancy' notion) are
liberal ideas whose time has gone.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"BDK" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Hmm, well I saw it at one place last week, along with MT, CQ, and the
scanner one, I can't think of the name. Leo's bookstore has them all,
they used to have the British SW Magazine and Practical Wireless too,
but not lately.

I haven't been to B Dalton in a long time, but Barnes and Nobles had it
a couple of months ago.

I guess you will have to subscribe, it's cheaper than buying it anyway.

BDK

Technically you don't "subscribe" to QST. You join the ARRL and receive the
magazine as a result of your membership.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

RHF wrote:


The Devil Is In The Details...
So "GS" is simply communicating his 'status' as a SWL.

All it conveys is he owns two radios and some other stuff, it conveys
nothing about his 'status' as an SWL. Just a brag list. Maybe I should
list all my ham equipment with my postings, like anyone would care.

In article et,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

"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.

You have plenty of control. Just delete the groups where this is OT like
I did.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote


Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive,

what do

we use?



Incentive?

Jim, you sound like a typical eastern liberal with an agenda of social
engineering.

Thank goodness the Conservatives have NO social engineering agenda!!!

You're either qualified for a ham license or you're not qualified. This
incentive notion (and Steve Robeson's 'structured occupancy' notion) are
liberal ideas whose time has gone.

Personally I think good true conservative idea is to allow people on
the air with no licencing requirements whatsoever, then cull out the
ones that violate the rules.

- Mike KB3EIA -

JJ wrote in message ...
Gray Shockley wrote:

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.

And then he includes this.

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



hey john how are things in colorado springs???

Why you think hams are interested in what radios and antennas you use to
SWL with is beyond me.

"Telamon" wrote:

You have plenty of control. Just delete
the groups where this is OT like I did.


At which point, since you don't know which newsgroup the person is posting
from, you potentially lose contact with the person you're responding to.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc. I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap. ARRL and QST have
a short time left as the active Ham population lessens.

Well then you can't expect the magazine to be sold at outlets when you only
buy it once in a while. They've got to recoup the costs of printing and
distributing and the "once in a while" buyer just doesn't provide that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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:

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.

Bill,

Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968?

Jim,
The "When incentive licensing was re-est...." was not my statement.

Agreed! It was mine!

Point was you and I have been hams long enough to actually recall those
times.

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 agreed before, the privileges gained do NOT
relate
to
the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class.

FCC disagrees, Bill.

True for now. But if anyone is serious about a new license
structure, I'd like to see rational relationship between the
license class knowledge test requirements and whatever
additional privileges are associated with that license.

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. 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? 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.

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.

If we use modes as the incentive, which modes do we use for the incentive?

I don't see modes as an incentive.

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). In the end, I believe "most"
hams want to operate legally and will do so. Those that might run
double their allowed power (say 400 when limited to 200) are
only fooling themselves.

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.

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.
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.

Allowing "homebrew" via an Extra certification process would
foster positive relationships and Elmering (IMHO).

For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between
operating
CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that
I
wrote *technical*)

None and that point has been made by myself as well. The only
two truly CW only sub-bands do NOT require passing any
code test to be able to use them.

*technical* knowledge....

You know I couldn't pass up the opportunity :-) :-)

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.

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.

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!

I wish certain others in this newsgroup had the ability to
understand that.

Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.

Such as?

Good question.

My point exactly.

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?

I wrote up a suggested three-tiered system some time back and reposted
it
recently. I think it's the best compromise between all the various
considerations. YMMV.

Please note the following sentence. I'm *not* saying I want one class
of
license! I'm simply describing how to do it.

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.

I hope you're right, Bill. But I learned long ago to "never say never".

I hope I'm right too :-) :-)

That makes two of us.

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.

Exactly! But the hams who remained would all have passed the same test
so
there's be no more license-based "class distinctions". That's the
point.

But, again, not at all a probable possibility.

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. 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.

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.

Sure we would. Just not the one you or I want. But it would be more
like
what Brian wants.

IF the numbers of hams dropped considerably because of the proposal,
I seriously doubt the service as well as ham organizations would survive.
Calling for all retesting of existing hams would play right into the
hands
of
the commercial interests that would love to get us off the air
completely.

We can agree on this: Neither of us wants to find out the hard way what
the
result would be.

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.

I think most active hams would just take the %^&#$% test and be done
with
it.
The problem is that many semi-active or inactive hams wouldn't, and
we'd
see a
drastic reduction in numbers. Bad news.Very bad news.

Exactly my point.

To repeat: I'm not in favor of a one-class system. I'm just pointing
out
where
such a system would lead.

I believe we both believe, if imlemented as you proposed above,
the end result would be disastor.

Or worse.

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.

In my line of work, (no, I'm not going to say what it is here),
employees
are
constantly retested on safety and procedures. The last time I took a
safety
test, the passing grade was 100%. Get *one* question wrong and you
fail.
And in
a year or less you have to do it all over again.

But if you get one wrong do you lose your job...or
just take it again until you pass?

You cannot work until you pass the test. Fail enough times and you lose
your
job.


The last time I took
any test that actually might have impacted my career was
when I was first hired and tested by the personel office
back in 1970.

The last time for me was in August.

Cheers and happy new year.

All the best in '04, Bill

Mega dittos to you and everyone else in RRAP
Bill K2UNK

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cheers
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote


Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive,

what do

we use?



Incentive?

Jim, you sound like a typical eastern liberal with an agenda of social
engineering.

Thank goodness the Conservatives have NO social engineering agenda!!!

You're either qualified for a ham license or you're not qualified. This
incentive notion (and Steve Robeson's 'structured occupancy' notion) are
liberal ideas whose time has gone.

Personally I think good true conservative idea is to allow people on
the air with no licencing requirements whatsoever, then cull out the
ones that violate the rules.

Wrong. A true conservative desires the least practical government
intervention in life. Clearly a "free-for-all" no license approach
to ham radio wouldn't cut it and, as such, I and other conservative
minded individuals do support ham licensing. Where we depart from
the current approach is in the recognition that the "incentives" of
today's licensing do NOT dovetail with the knowledge needed
to pass the higher level license exams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc.

Can you "just buy" the magazines of AARP, NRA, AAA, etc.
without joining? I am always amazed at people that want the "benefits"
of an organization's efforts, in this case the publication, but don't want
to support the organization by joining. I see the same thing at times
in the antique car hobby. People that bitch about the club rules
at a car show, or otherwise want technical help from club officials
but won't part with the few bucks it takes to join.

I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap. ARRL and QST have
a short time left as the active Ham population lessens.

Is it lessening? News to me.

If they took a
real survey as to how many real active ham there are they would find
the number far less than they think. I'm not talking about members,
I'm talking about HAMS that really use a radio to transmit a signal.
Doesnt matter what band. How many transmit a signal at least once a
week? Most don't.

Please provide your survey data.

Look at your local HAM clubs, talk to the members(if you can wake them
up). Most show up and act disgusted with the club, Ham radio, life in
general. New folks are never there. Ya I know about your Skywarn in
Flint, MI. Great service! Could be run on CB, NEXTEL, GMRS.

Could be but isn't...there in lies the difference.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I'm talking about HAMS that really use a radio to transmit a signal.
Doesnt matter what band. How many transmit a signal at least once a
week? Most don't.

If that HAM is active on CB, does that count? It's a radio signal.

JEP wrote:
Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc. I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap.

Then go to your library and read it, assuming you know what a library is.

gw wrote:




hey john how are things in colorado springs???


???

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...

KØHB wrote:


"N2EY" wrote



Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive,

what do


we use?



Incentive?

Jim, you sound like a typical eastern liberal with an agenda of social
engineering.

Thank goodness the Conservatives have NO social engineering agenda!!!


You're either qualified for a ham license or you're not qualified. This
incentive notion (and Steve Robeson's 'structured occupancy' notion) are
liberal ideas whose time has gone.

Personally I think good true conservative idea is to allow people on
the air with no licencing requirements whatsoever, then cull out the
ones that violate the rules.


Wrong. A true conservative desires the least practical government
intervention in life. Clearly a "free-for-all" no license approach
to ham radio wouldn't cut it and, as such, I and other conservative
minded individuals do support ham licensing. Where we depart from
the current approach is in the recognition that the "incentives" of
today's licensing do NOT dovetail with the knowledge needed
to pass the higher level license exams.

Wrong yourself Bill. I say that a person takes what is their own
political leanings, then applies their personal thoughts on the Morse
code or testing issue, and tries to apply the label.

If you are conservative, and pro code, the elimination of Morse code is
a liberal thing, and vice versa.

I think that Ham licensing is a leftover of social engineering
practices. The reason that many conservatives support it today is a
cultural inertia - it is old and status quo, so it is good. But it ain't
conservative - it's almost like having a Union card. You have your
Apprentices, you have your Journeymen...........

- Mike KB3EIA -