"Mike Coslo" wrote


HF privileges would in the future be granted by taking the equivalent
of a Technician test?


HF privileges were granted in the past by taking a test far less demanding
than the current Technician test.

And Technicians of the past took the General written test AND a Morse test,
but were not allowed on HF, but they could get a (simultaneous) Novice
license and operate on HF (even though the General written they'd taken for
Technician didn't allow them on HF or 2 meters).

And you new kids think MY licensing proposal is strange!

Merry (whatever god you worship) Feast,

73.5, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


HF privileges would in the future be granted by taking the equivalent
of a Technician test?



HF privileges were granted in the past by taking a test far less demanding
than the current Technician test.

True, but they were pretty limited otherwise.


And Technicians of the past took the General written test AND a Morse test,
but were not allowed on HF, but they could get a (simultaneous) Novice
license and operate on HF (even though the General written they'd taken for
Technician didn't allow them on HF or 2 meters).

And you new kids think MY licensing proposal is strange!

Hey, I think everything is strange, Hans!


Merry (whatever god you worship) Feast,


The same to you, be s/he vengeful thunderer or cosmic muffin.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

HF privileges were granted in the past by taking a test far less demanding
than the current Technician test.

The old Novice written plus 5 wpm code was "far less demanding"? OK....

And Technicians of the past took the General written test AND a Morse test,
but were not allowed on HF, but they could get a (simultaneous) Novice
license and operate on HF (even though the General written they'd taken for
Technician didn't allow them on HF or 2 meters).

And you new kids think MY licensing proposal is strange!

Even stranger is the fact that there was a period of time (1970s?) when FCC did
not allow the simultaneous possession of both the Novice and Technician
licenses, so when a ham passed the written test for Tech, he/she lost all HF
privs - even though both licenses required the same code test.

Merry (whatever god you worship) Feast,

Happy Solstice

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Well, there you have it. Element 1 is easier than 5 questions on the
written test.

No, you don't "have it" at all, Jim.

Then what am I missing?

Question for question, the Technician examination questions are noticeably
more difficult than those on the old Novice examination, and there are more
of them.

OK, fine. 5 more of them to be exact.

Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees!

Do you think they're right?

Nope. But they're the "expert agency"...

And I also disagree with them on code testing serving "no regulatory
purpose"...

(1) FCC thinks that 35 question Tech test is adequate.
(2)The same FCC that sees "no regulatory purpose" in code tests.

Is FCC mistaken?

They are mistaken on point one. They are correct on point 2.

I think they're worng on both points. YMMV

But the main point is that they *can* be wrong.

Have the changes of 2000 resulted in more tinkerers entering the ARS in a
given time period (say, per year) than before the changes were made?

I have no way of knowing for sure. Neither do you.

That's true. But we can have impressions and opinions.

It is my belief,
however, that the diminished emphasis on technical issues in the test, along
with the 'Ham Press' lack of emphasis on technical matters, is making the
Amateur Radio service less effective in recruiting those of an experimental
and tinkering bent.

Agreed!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

But others will argue that an easier entry-level license will attract more
new
hams, and therefore more who will want to *understand radio*. After all,
isn't
education one of the B&Ps of the ARS?

It boils down to the old argument of:

"Become a ham to learn about radio"

vs.

"Learn about radio to become a ham"



What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence
is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn
and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other.

I agree 100%!

But what constitutes "the basics" is a question that will get all kinds of
responses. And whether there should be just one level of license, or several,
is another wide-open question.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
e.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is?

That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make
the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may
be right, but not overwhelmingly popular).

But ultimately it comes down to popularity, because if the "leader" makes
unpopular-enough decision(s), he/she may not be a "leader" anymore. This
happens in government, in business (if a decision isn't popular-enough with
customers and/or stockholders), and in almost all voluntary organizations.

For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?

No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance
operators.

Agreed!

But the leaders of the NCVEC committee disagree with us.

Such is forbidden!

By whom?

You need no consensus.

Lack of consensus never stopped you from spreading your blatherskite all over,
Len, including your voluminous commentary to the FCC.

You KNOW the true way.

I know what I think is the best way for the ARS' future. WK3C knows what he
thinks is the best way for the ARS' future. On some things we disagree and on
some things we agree.

All else are ignorant, incapable of the correct decisions.


"That is your problem and you continually foul this newsgroup with arrogant
remarks against the person of those of opposite opinions. Not my problem but
certainly yours in attitude."

It boils down to the old argument of:

"Become a ham to learn about radio"

vs.

"Learn about radio to become a ham"

NO ONE can be "interested in radio" without getting a ham
license!

Says who?

Know morse and one knows all.

Not true.

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?

I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in
"leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call,
then it might as well devolve to that ...

They *do* have the intestinal fortitude to make the "right" call. But
there's
disagreement about what that call is. There are honest people on all sides
of
most disagreements.

But...you KNOW the true way already.

I know what I think is the best way for the ARS' future.

There can be NO disagreement then.

More untruths from Len.

Of course there can be disagreement.

It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?

Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior
knowledge,
insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch
of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the
best
choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term.

Others describe the ARRL leadership as "self appointed gods of radio" who
claim
to "know what is best". And they use that description as a reason not to
join.

Gasp...you mean to imply they DON'T know what is best?!?!?

Do YOU know what is best, Len?

Or do you only know what you want, regardless of what others think?

Like it or not, it's ultimately a popularity contest. And the long term is
hard
to gauge because things aren't left alone long enough. Even when they are,
there is often little agreement with what the results mean.

You need NO consensus. You KNOW.

You've never needed a consensus, Len. Why should anyone else?

If the bulletins and code practice were done online instead of on-air, what
would be left of W1AW?

It's a MEMORIAL station. Remember?

A memorial to a great man, who you denigrate with childish snide remarks.

The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're
going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag
chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting......

I've always said that the ampr.org domain should be come a much more
integrated, vibrant part of the internet as a whole ...

But what have you *done* to make that a reality except for talking about it?

Just for starters, Carl was IN Geneva helping to get all of S25
redone.

WK3C was in Geneva for his work. His employer paid the way. No secret about
that, he told us all about it here on rrap.

It got redone. Reality. Love it or leave it.

"Administrations are free to impose morse code testing for all
amateur licensees if they so wish, or partial morse code
testing for privileges above 30 MHz. It is all up to each nation's
administrations."

That's reality, Len, as stated by you.

Some day I might hear W1AW out here 3000 or so miles away.

That would require a half-decent receiver and antenna, Len. Of course if you
choose to live in the shadow of a mountain, refuse to build or buy suitable
equipment, and refuse to inform yourself of when and where to listen, that's
not my problem.

Have you ever actually listened for W1AW, on a time and frequency where there
would be a reasonable chance of hearing it?

W1AW is about 200 miles northeast of here. I frequently contact west coast
amateurs on 80 and 40 meters using my homebrew and kit stations, with antennas
far inferior to W1AW's and much less power. If you can't receive W1AW where you
are, the problem is obviously at your end.

What we call "a short circuit between the headphones" or "cockpit trouble" ;-)

It doesn't reach Hawaii very well, or Alaska.

How do you know?

Obviously us in the
west don't exist as states of the Union.

More untruths. Gee, Len, you seem bent on spreading untruths and
misinformation.

Nobody can possibly be "interested in radio" without testing for
morse code and then Acceptance of the True Way via ARRL.

Another falsehood from Len. Anyone can be "interested in radio". But being
"interested in amateur radio" requires a license and active participation.

You're not interested, Len. You're not even interesting.

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 19 Dec 2003 16:05:28 -0800, N2EY wrote:

The "c-word" came into use because FCC said some years ago that they
weren't going to do any serious restructuring until the amateur radio
community came up with a consensus on what they wanted. That policy
was quite visibly abandoned in 1998 when FCC issued an NPRM without
any consensus being evident.

I wasn't there (Dayton?) when Bill Cross said "the C word" but my
understanding was that unless the ham community came with a consensus,
it (we) were liable to get things that we may not like from the FCC
if we back them into a corner.

I wasn't there either, Phil, but I got basically the same message.

And its not a new message, either. Remember the Eye Bank Net?

Perhaps - I hope - that was Bill's personal opinion and not "the
official policy" of the FCC (we've differed on things before).

I hope so, too. But after all, we hams are a "legacy" service that doesn't
provide much revenue, has huge pieces of spectrum set aside for it, and is
quite anarchic in some ways (no channelization, licensees building their own
equipment, etc.) Indeed, the very concept of "radio operator" is considered
archaic in most services - or they are going in that direction.

With the latest Bureau restructuring, he now reports through another
layer of supervision, and I understand that his immediate supervisor
is now someone who is a ham, which was not the case before.

Which could explain a lot of things.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence
is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn
and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other.

The ONLY way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

You could say that you have an interest in amateur radio, Len. It isn't
true, but you could say it.

I haven't. I don't.

Actually, you're quite the fibber. You have said it, and more than
once.

The only way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

You can be interested in radio all you want without obtaining a ham
license. You can even be interested in *amateur* radio without
obtaining a ham license. That doesn't mean that you know much about it
or that your interest runs very deep. After all, you've declared a
decades-long interest in amateur radio and you've posted here for seven
years or so without acting on that "interest".

To you it doesn't count at all that "interest in radio" can result in
a half century of professional work...including design in radio.

I didn't write about "interest in radio". I wrote about "interest in
amateur radio". What counts is the convenience you find in leaving out
certain key words.

To you it doesn't count that "interest in radio" AND electronics
can lead to very enjoyable hobby activities in building, testing,
designing new electronics things ('electronics' includes radio).

Wrong again. You can build, test, design or smash all the radio and
electronics items you like. That has nothing to do with the fact that
you've yet to act on your supposed interest in amateur radio.

No, FIRST one "must" get an AMATEUR license according to
Herr Robust.

Wrong, yet again, Doctor Evil. To join the fun in amateur radio, you've
first got to obtain a license. You have to put your declared interest
into motion. You have yet to do that.

You could say that you have an interest in gardening, but if your
interest extends only to walking past someone's garden and advising that
they're not properly caring for their climatus, you aren't a gardner.

I've been into "gardening" for over 40 years. At this same address.

No amateur license required. No LICENSE required to garden.

Wooooooosh! That was an analogy zipping over your forehead. I didn't
write anything about licensing gardeners.

Not a problem. I can discuss gardening with any neighbor and they
don't take offense. We share ideas, experiences, help each other
out.

Bully for you.

In here, the arrogant officious ones DICTATE as to how all shall
behave according to their holy rules.

What holy rules would those be? You seem to be an arrogant, officious
type of guy. Are you one of those who dictate how you'll behave or are
you somehow a slave of the N2EY profile, unable to resist the outline of
your likely actions?

You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but
if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you
aren't an aviator.

I don't have a great interest in flying an airplane now. Too expensive.

I understand how it can be when you're on a budget.

I was once a student pilot. Still no license required for that. Not
even to operate a radio...already had the First Phone, so no 3rd
Class Restricted permit necessary.

Woooosh! Look out for those analogy strafing runs.

An amateur radio license isn't legal to use on civil airways frequencies,
is it?

Don't you know?

I am into flying R/C model aircraft on a casual basis...and have on
and off for 40+ years. NO license required there to use the 72 MHz
band channels. I've been into flying model aircraft for 60 years and
even worked as a professional at Testors before they got into the
plastic model side of that hobby. I was an International contestant
in that some time ago.

Good for you. Maybe that's just the place for you. Are there any R/C
aircraft newsgroups for you to haunt?

Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur
radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation
in which you take no part.

Reality points to the fact that you CANNOT accept any opinions
contrary to your own with grace or gentle manner...you constantly,
beligerantly go after any person who can stand up to you and show
where your ideas aren't valid.

Oh, you're a fine, fine fellow to write of grace and gentle manner when
it comes to differences of opinion. When you're busy standing up to me,
do you think you'll ever get the spelling of "belligerent" or its
variants down pat?

The FCC accepts ALL input on ALL radio services, Herr Robust.
They don't need "licenses" in any radio service to accept comments.
I know that is a very foreign thought to your proud, arrogant holiness,
but that IS true.

Having the FCC accept your comments doesn't mean that you are a
participant in amateur radio. I've already acknowledged that you've
made comments to the Commission so the concept must not be at all
foreign to me. Get your facts straight.

I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you
address others. Good luck on that one now!

Why didn't you address the FCC in the same manner you've used here? Did
you call anyone "Colonel Klunk" or make any nifty S.S. references? Did
you include comments about "morsodism" or "the Church of St. Hiram"?
This looks like another "do as I say and not as I do" on your part.

Dave K8MN

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

It's often helpful to have insight into the past and past systems to come
up with the future proposals.

If you can persuade me that a transmitter comprised of 2 obsolete 1930's
tubes cobbled together on a wooden chassis gives insights which lead to
future breakthroughs in the radio art, then I'll owe you a lobster dinner at
Dayton.

I doubt anyone could convince you, but...

The publication of actual homebrew equipment in today's ham mags may just get
some folks to actually start tinkering. The fact that a 21st century had
restored *and used* a ~50 year old homebrew rig says that it's not just
something hams used to do years and years ago.

The technology isn't nearly so important as the mindset that homebrewing is a
viable alternative.

And if the signal is up to modern requirements and the ham has fun, what's the
problem?

Couple months back there was a homebrew 17 meter DSB transceiver article in
QST. Not exactly bleeding edge technology but it worked and the ham learned
things and had a ton of fun. So it ain't just vintage stuff in QST.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:


"Dee D. Flint" wrote


It's often helpful to have insight into the past and past systems to come
up with the future proposals.

If you can persuade me that a transmitter comprised of 2 obsolete 1930's
tubes cobbled together on a wooden chassis gives insights which lead to
future breakthroughs in the radio art, then I'll owe you a lobster dinner at
Dayton.


I doubt anyone could convince you, but...

A person can learn a lot MORE from the older technology. It is a lot
closer to the theory by virtue of simplicity.

What would do a better job of teaching a newbie about antenna matching,
a simple L or T network tuner, or an LDG tuner?

What would teach a newbie the technical ins and outs of transcievers, a
rock mite or a FT1000MP-Mark V? Or to keep within the bet, that wooden
chassis three tube thing.

And the newbies of today may become the bloody edge pro's of tomorrow.



The publication of actual homebrew equipment in today's ham mags may just get
some folks to actually start tinkering. The fact that a 21st century had
restored *and used* a ~50 year old homebrew rig says that it's not just
something hams used to do years and years ago.

The technology isn't nearly so important as the mindset that homebrewing is a
viable alternative.

And if the signal is up to modern requirements and the ham has fun, what's the
problem?

Hear Hear! There is not thing one wrong with old technology, and the
pursuit of that part of the hobby is every bit as valid as the latest
gee whiz techno-marvel.

Too many people seem to think that a ham can only enjoy one facet of
the hobby, it would seem. I like and use the latest technology, but I
just love the old stuff too.

Couple months back there was a homebrew 17 meter DSB transceiver article in
QST. Not exactly bleeding edge technology but it worked and the ham learned
things and had a ton of fun. So it ain't just vintage stuff in QST.

I'm homebrewing a high power tuner right now that will double as a
piece of art. Bleeding edge technology? Heck no! if other hams don't
like it, thay can just ignore my CQ!!


- Mike KB3EIA -