| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
January 3rd 04, 12:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article et, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: First off, there's bound to be disagreement about what constitutes a "rational relationship" Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive, what do we use? If we use power (as Hans suggests), there's little incentive for QRP and low power folks to upgrade. The irony, however, is that I would bet most people that are dedicated QRPers are much more tehnically oriented to begin with and more likly to upgrade. Agreed! And you can bet that most dedicated QRPers are also primarily CW ops. On the other hand, IF a QRPer is content with the entry level power limits and doesn't choose to upgrade, what's the harm? Depends on the observer, really. OK, as yourself as the observer, what's the harm? One can look at all those that don't upgrade today...even with spectrum privileges as the enhancement...to see folks that are content at their current license level and are also good hams. Yet there are those who claim that large numbers of "technically oriented" hams *would* upgrade except for the "barrier" of the code test...... And you well know I'm not one of those that make that claim. And since we're supposed to use the minimum power required by the situation anyway..... True, but the FCC has never made a big case of checking to see that everyone is running at the least practical power. Additionally, I suspect the FCC concern on the "least power" is driven more by those running "big" power rather than anyone run a basic rig of 100 watts or less. Exactly. Also there's the interference considerations. If we use modes as the incentive, which modes do we use for the incentive? I don't see modes as an incentive. Then there's not much left. There's also the question of enforcement. You can tell right away if someone is outside their allocated spectrum, but power is another issue. Yet it has been an aspect of Novice license for over 50 years. I agree the enforcement would have its problems, but I suspect the gross violations could be detected (e.g. if limit is 200 watts and someone is running a kilowatt). Depends on the antenna and conditions. On HF I have heard amazing signals from QRP stations because of really good antennas. And really poor signals from QRO stations because of poor antennas. But (IMHO) an occasional "great signal" would never be the only thing the FCC relied on for a notice of power violations. In the end, I believe "most" hams want to operate legally and will do so. That's because it's part of the tradition and culture of amateur radio to do so, not because of large amounts of enforcement. I'm all for more and better enforcement, but it's clear that those who think Riley can do it all are mistaken. Agreed. Those that might run double their allowed power (say 400 when limited to 200) are only fooling themselves. Big difference between 400 vs. 200 hp under the hood, or between 80 MPH and 40 MPH on the highway. But it's only 3 dB on the air. Tough concept for some... Exactly my point. The FCC would likly focus on 1000W vs 200W, not the cheater running 400. What is the technical competency difference between an Extra operating SSB with a TS440 in the 80m Extra voice segment vs a General operating the same rig at say 3.885Mhz? Not much! Not any as I see it. Exactly.The difference is in operating skills and knowledge. The Extra part is where the DX often goes. Maybe we could tie some power limits to frequency spectrum which would then create a valid reason to not allow a lower level licesnse in that spectrum slot. I'm not sure what you're proposing. Do you mean having some parts of a band allowed 1500 W and others only, say, 150 W, as is done now in the Novice parts of 80/40/15? Something to think about. Consider the discussion a "green-light" session. No proposal get's immediately shot down while trying to draw out as many new ideas/concepts as possible. But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional technical knowledge with more privileges. I don't oppose the concept, I oppose the illogical implementation. We can agree to disagree about the logic. But what should be used for an incentive besides spectrum? I agree with Hans that power certanly can be and has been. That's one possiblity. Also, at the risk of being stoned, how has the Canadian entry level license been going which restricts those hams to commercial equipment only? Perhaps an entry level USA license could have a restriction of commercial only rigs "OR" hmebrew transmitter "IF" the homebrew has been checked out and signed off as OK by an Extra class ham. I'm not gonna throw any stones at ya, Bill. But please note how I was asked to shut up a while back when I pointed out some logical inconsistencies in the written testing.... Who wanted to shut you down? We can discuss all we want. I'd be careful, however, with certain ideas presented officially to FCC. The problem with such an "Appliance Class" license is that it cuts off those who hold it from one of the main reasons for the ARS to exist in the USA. (Remember that the "basis and purpose" is an FCC/Part 97 thing and other countries have different ones, or none at all). Not being *allowed* to homebrew, modify or repair one's own gear is simply a bad idea. It would *encourage* new hams to become even more dependent on manufacturers rather than their own ingenuity. I'll ask again, what IS the experience in Canada. What "bad" things are happening or not happening? Some of the greatest experiences I have had in amateur radio have been in taking an idea and some parts and turning them into a working radio station, then making contacts with that station. Started doing that sort of thing as a kid and never got out of the habit. Led me to EE degrees, a career and a bunch of other things. Never would have happened if I'd had to use only "approved" gear. and But any "commercial" limitation would only apply to transmitters. That still leaves receiver circuits, etc to experiment with. In fact, no one needs any license to build and use their own homebrew receiver. Allowing "homebrew" via an Extra certification process would foster positive relationships and Elmering (IMHO). Maybe. OTOH, having to get one's projects approved by another ham slows down the process enormously and could result in all kinds of trouble. As above, not ALL projects would need approval. Also, can you give an idea about "could result in all kinds of trouble.?" Add to that the fact that the current written tests are by no means adequate to ensure that all Extras know everything they need to know in order to sign off on another's work. You just created Catch 22. Based on your perspective, even Extras today shouldn't be allowed to homebrew without some additional "certification" because the current Extra syllabus is inadequate to ensure the Extra knows enough to homebrew. And what problem does such an "Appliance Class" license really solve? Do we have lots of problems here in the USA with homebrewing hams' creations mucking up the bands and causing interference? I don't think so. I didin't say there was any problem. I merely suggested another "incentive" that could better be tied to knowledge at a certain license level. The problem, again one we agreed on before, is that granting additional frequency spectrum doesn't rationally flow from the additional knowledge required for the higher license class (e.g. Extra vs General, General vs Tech. It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter. It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doesn't flow or relate at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license. Some of the knowledge does, such as HF propagation. Yet the "only" difference between technicians not allowed any HF and those allowed on the "novice" segments is a code test... no additional knowledge of HF needed for Tech with code to operate the Novice segments. Sure - because that HF knowledge is tested in the written for Tech, and was tested for in the Novice when it was available. OK Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter, what about the General? Did I even hint at that. Not at all! The answer is basically no...although I have NO preference for or against changing license structure to a more rational basis for added privileges. My point is simply that being anticodetest does *not* necessarily mean someone wants to water dwon the writtens or eliminate license classes. THANK YOU Jim! You're welcome. I wish certain others in this newsgroup had the ability to understand that. But let's be honest about the situation, Bill. There *are* some folks who want to further reduce *written* testing. (Not me!) Just look at the "21st Century" paper for one example - particularly the attitude it projects. Those that truly want to "further reduce written testing" are but a handful and, except for W5YI, who you may put in that category, they don't speak at all for a significant majority of hams (IMHO, YMMV) One of its rallying cries is that we need more new hams at any cost, and not only is the code test scapegoated as a barrier, but also the written test. That paper came from a NCVEC committee, too, and you can bet they will push that agenda. Has that paper been submitted as official NCVEC input to the FCC? A lot of things we thought impossible have come to pass. Heck, FCC never imagined that cb would get out of their control... In hindsight, the FCC certainly should have seen it coming. Of course! But they didn't. They simply could not imagine that what happened to cb could occur. It was simply not part of their mindset, even though all of the indications were there. Water over the dam. The big mistake, in my opinion, was the failure of the FCC to take into account the basic "plug-n-play aspect of CB, the multitude of sales outlets via Radio Shack (Tandy), and the constantly lowering of CB set costs, especially once they became all solid state. All of those things were considered *desirable* by the FCC! The whole reason that service was created by FCC was so that Everyman could get on the air with inexpensive, easy-to-set-up-and-use radios for personal, short-range communications. Particularly mobile. And if that's not bad enough, lookit BPL. The main point of all this is that FCC wasn't and isn't an infallible bunch that Knows What Is Best For Radio. Let alone what is best for ham radio. They're simply the folks in charge, who have the unenviable task of balancing all the competing demands, and doing it with limited resources and under various forms of pressure. So it's up to us hams to make our case and set our path, not FCC. That's why I am in ARRL and have been so since before NCI was even created. I'll restate my position on the purpose of NCI as it relates to me. Once the code testing is actually gone, then I'll cease to be an NCI member as the goal will have been achieved. If any of the other NCI directors/members want NCI to continue on a different, expanded purpose, they will do so without me. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
| BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC | Homebrew | |||
| NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota | General | |||
| ARRL FUD about BPL | General | |||
Threaded Mode
