In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Paul W. Schleck writes: In (N2EY) writes: In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea? Here's your options: We currently have essentially a 6 license system in place (even though several licenses are no longer issued). To go from that system to the one proposed by ARRL leaves three options as I see it: 1. The one-time free upgrade process as put forth by ARRL which takes nothing away from anyone Hold on a sec. Right now there are about 105,000 Extras. And we have a few slices of choice kHz on 4 HF bands. In my experience, QRM in these subbands is usually less than elsewhere in the same band because relatively few US hams have access to them. If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Same situation for Generals. elsewhere in the same band and immediately gets everyone into the new 3 license system, But nobody says why that is such a big priority, when it wasn't 4 years ago. or 2. Go to the new system but "grandfather" those on current but no longer to be issued license classes which takes nothing from anyone but presents a dual system of licenses, rules and regulations which would likly exist for decades until those with licenses no longer being issued as new ended up SK or otherwise dropped from our ranks or upgraded! Have you forgotten that any of the closed off classes can upgrade with the required tests? The fact that so few Advanceds have upgraded in almost 4 years is quite interesting, don't you think? Number of Advanceds is down by only about 16%, and that includes both upgrades and expirations. or, 3. Implement the ARRL 3 licnense system and downgrade some folks to new Novice (i.e. the Techs) or General (i.e the Advanced). This last scenario takes away privileges and we all know how well that went down in the late 60's Incentive Licensing implementation. Or 4. Do something else. To me the answer is clear...and, I suspect so is it also to ARRL which is why the proposal includes free upgrades. Why should FCC allow free upgrades today, when they said no in 1999? What has changed? Rather, it is just one of the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official, but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer, is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading. I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or bad idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000? More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such a burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element 3, in order to get the next higher grade of license? See options 2 and 3 above. The rules for the 6 license classes are already in place. So what's the problem? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote | | - Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not | taken is not necessary for the privileges. | Here we go again! Where, Hans? [expletive deleted] it Jim, that is patently false and you know that it is, yet you keep dragging it out as a fact. What is false? Here's the quote: "Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not taken is not necessary for the privileges." How is that patently false? Perhaps it would be clearler stated thusly: "If a free upgrade is allowed, some will say that such an upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not taken is not necessary for the privileges." Allowing a free upgrade isn't "proof" of anything except that a free-pass was given, sort of like a day of amnesty when all overdue library books can be returned without fees. Not the same thing at all! Fee-amnesty is a forgiveness of a violation. Free upgrade isn't. Consider this scenario: FCC says new rules will go into effect on R-day (R for Restructuring) Our Hero gets Tech on R-day minus 1 Our Hero gets free upgrade to General on R-day. General written test not needed by Our Hero. QED Yes, it's a really bad idea, but it doesn't disprove the need for proper qualification examinations. *IF* the free upgrades are actually done, don't you think some will say there's no reason for the General test? It's called logic, Hans. Try it sometime. Go join Carl Stevenson and Ed Hare in the NTI sign-up queue. (I'd mention them by call sign, but I wouldn't want to risk compromising your "standards".) You mean WK3C and W1RFI? Why are you so afraid of dissenting opinions, Hans? What are you so afraid of? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Alun writes: It has worse S/N performance than SSB That depends entirely on the type of encoding and modulation used, doesn't it? Can you categorically say that digital voice can *never* outperform SSB? No. One day it might. But not yet. Even if the data rate is slowed down? If there's anything that deserves spectrum space for experimentation, it's digital modes, not analog voice modes. DId you read the review in QST about the digital box you attach to your HF rig? It sounded like a pretty good thing, until they pointed out it's fatal deficiency near the end. I shouldn't b that harsh - if it is a fixed frequency application, then it won't be too bad. You just have to be listening at the right frequency at the beginning of a transmission, or it's no hearee! My guess is that anything that will allow you to pick up a transmission in the middle of a transmission will boost the bandwidth requirements up quite a bit. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Paul W. Schleck writes: In (N2EY) writes: In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea? Here's your options: We currently have essentially a 6 license system in place (even though several licenses are no longer issued). To go from that system to the one proposed by ARRL leaves three options as I see it: 1. The one-time free upgrade process as put forth by ARRL which takes nothing away from anyone Hold on a sec. Right now there are about 105,000 Extras. And we have a few slices of choice kHz on 4 HF bands. In my experience, QRM in these subbands is usually less than elsewhere in the same band because relatively few US hams have access to them. If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break. 83,000 advanced today who are either SK, inactive or just don't see the need to upgrade and you expect even a measurable increase in QRM because some of them may suddenly start operating in the Extra only segments. Same situation for Generals. elsewhere in the same band and immediately gets everyone into the new 3 license system, But nobody says why that is such a big priority, when it wasn't 4 years ago. I suspect the FCC four years ago (5 years ago now) expected change over time. You are free to voice your own thoughts on need or not. or 2. Go to the new system but "grandfather" those on current but no longer to be issued license classes which takes nothing from anyone but presents a dual system of licenses, rules and regulations which would likly exist for decades until those with licenses no longer being issued as new ended up SK or otherwise dropped from our ranks or upgraded! Have you forgotten that any of the closed off classes can upgrade with the required tests? The fact that so few Advanceds have upgraded in almost 4 years is quite interesting, don't you think? Number of Advanceds is down by only about 16%, and that includes both upgrades and expirations. Repeat my comment above about the unlikly QRM from former advanced being in Extra segments...if freely upgraded. or, 3. Implement the ARRL 3 licnense system and downgrade some folks to new Novice (i.e. the Techs) or General (i.e the Advanced). This last scenario takes away privileges and we all know how well that went down in the late 60's Incentive Licensing implementation. Or 4. Do something else. I identified the ONLY three options on a general basis. You propose something else but do not specify what that is. Either there is nothing else as an option and you know it or, there is another option but you don't wish for anyone to know what it is. The ball is in your court. Only three options exist unless you can provide a real 4th option. To me the answer is clear...and, I suspect so is it also to ARRL which is why the proposal includes free upgrades. Why should FCC allow free upgrades today, when they said no in 1999? What has changed? I don't care. In the end the FCC will decide. There's no need for me to explain or even understand why the FCC might allow it. Rather, it is just one of the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official, but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer, is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading. I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or bad idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000? More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such a burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element 3, in order to get the next higher grade of license? See options 2 and 3 above. The rules for the 6 license classes are already in place. So what's the problem? Which requires enforcement authorities to keep tabs on 6 different sets of spectrum authority. You can disagree that it isn't significant, but I'd bet it IS an issue in the FCC and other government mindsets. YMMV. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote | | - Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not | taken is not necessary for the privileges. | Here we go again! Where, Hans? We are "going" to irritate Hans again! 8^) it Jim, that is patently false and you know that it is, yet you keep dragging it out as a fact. What is false? Here's the quote: "Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not taken is not necessary for the privileges." How is that patently false? Perhaps it would be clearler stated thusly: "If a free upgrade is allowed, some will say that such an upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not taken is not necessary for the privileges." Jim, it is the truth as plain as can be. "Wanna be a general class ham?" "Sure." "You have three choices:" "1. Study and become a General class ham now 2. Study to become a Technician now, and wait a few months, then you'll be a General. 3. Wait until after those few months, and take a General test and then be a General class Ham." "Is the technician class test more difficult than the General? "Nope, it's easier." "Wait a second! Is the Technician a higher class than the General?" "Nope, General is one grade higher than Technician." "So by taking an easier test now, I can get more privileges, and all I have to do is wait a few months?" "Yup!" "But if I wait, I'll have to take a harder test for the same thing?" "Yup." "Hold on a second! If I can take an easier test now, and get the same privileges as a harder test later, WHY should the later test be harder? Why should those who come later have to take a more difficult test when the test I take now is sufficient? Isn't the Technician test we take now qualification enough? "I don't really know!" Allowing a free upgrade isn't "proof" of anything except that a free-pass was given, sort of like a day of amnesty when all overdue library books can be returned without fees. Not the same thing at all! Fee-amnesty is a forgiveness of a violation. Free upgrade isn't. Consider this scenario: FCC says new rules will go into effect on R-day (R for Restructuring) Our Hero gets Tech on R-day minus 1 Our Hero gets free upgrade to General on R-day. General written test not needed by Our Hero. QED Yes, it's a really bad idea, but it doesn't disprove the need for proper qualification examinations. *IF* the free upgrades are actually done, don't you think some will say there's no reason for the General test? It's called logic, Hans. Try it sometime. If they are done this way, those who want lesser testing will have a powerful tool. "Look at all the people who are now Generals and only took a Technician test. Give logical and compelling reasons that this should not be a permanent thing." How on earth are we going to argue against THAT? Go join Carl Stevenson and Ed Hare in the NTI sign-up queue. (I'd mention them by call sign, but I wouldn't want to risk compromising your "standards".) You mean WK3C and W1RFI? I always thought your opinion differed quite a bit from those two Jim! 8^) Why are you so afraid of dissenting opinions, Hans? What are you so afraid of? Just cabin fever, Jim. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote | | - Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not | taken is not necessary for the privileges. | Here we go again! Where, Hans? We are "going" to irritate Hans again! 8^) it Jim, that is patently false and you know that it is, yet you keep dragging it out as a fact. What is false? Here's the quote: "Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not taken is not necessary for the privileges." How is that patently false? Perhaps it would be clearler stated thusly: "If a free upgrade is allowed, some will say that such an upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not taken is not necessary for the privileges." Jim, it is the truth as plain as can be. "Wanna be a general class ham?" "Sure." "You have three choices:" "1. Study and become a General class ham now 2. Study to become a Technician now, and wait a few months, then you'll be a General. 3. Wait until after those few months, and take a General test and then be a General class Ham." "Is the technician class test more difficult than the General? "Nope, it's easier." "Wait a second! Is the Technician a higher class than the General?" "Nope, General is one grade higher than Technician." "So by taking an easier test now, I can get more privileges, and all I have to do is wait a few months?" "Yup!" "But if I wait, I'll have to take a harder test for the same thing?" "Yup." "Hold on a second! If I can take an easier test now, and get the same privileges as a harder test later, WHY should the later test be harder? Why should those who come later have to take a more difficult test when the test I take now is sufficient? Isn't the Technician test we take now qualification enough? "I don't really know!" That really says it all. Allowing a free upgrade isn't "proof" of anything except that a free-pass was given, sort of like a day of amnesty when all overdue library books can be returned without fees. Not the same thing at all! Fee-amnesty is a forgiveness of a violation. Free upgrade isn't. Consider this scenario: FCC says new rules will go into effect on R-day (R for Restructuring) Our Hero gets Tech on R-day minus 1 Our Hero gets free upgrade to General on R-day. General written test not needed by Our Hero. QED Yes, it's a really bad idea, but it doesn't disprove the need for proper qualification examinations. *IF* the free upgrades are actually done, don't you think some will say there's no reason for the General test? It's called logic, Hans. Try it sometime. If they are done this way, those who want lesser testing will have a powerful tool. "Look at all the people who are now Generals and only took a Technician test. Give logical and compelling reasons that this should not be a permanent thing." How on earth are we going to argue against THAT? Simple: We're not! We can say all we want that it was a one-time thing, that it was needed in order to close the books on licenses no longer issued, that time-in-grade is worth something, yada yada yada. But in the end, they'll be able to pick out a few dozen/hundred/thousand who got their licenses X days before the freebie, and say, "why can't I get the same deal?" This sort of thing is probably why FCC didn't just grandfather all existing Generals and above to Extra in 1968. And it also explains the Great Giveaway of December 1952. The newbies would have a legitimate-sounding gripe. Go join Carl Stevenson and Ed Hare in the NTI sign-up queue. (I'd mention them by call sign, but I wouldn't want to risk compromising your "standards".) You mean WK3C and W1RFI? I always thought your opinion differed quite a bit from those two Jim! 8^) On some things, yes. But on other things (like BPL), the three of us are in complete and perfect agreement. Why are you so afraid of dissenting opinions, Hans? What are you so afraid of? Just cabin fever, Jim. Maybe. Or maybe, like some other rrap denizens, he resorts to anger when lacking a logical counterargument. wait till the RM comments.... Which brings up an interesting point.... Back in the ancient time, FCC essentially said they weren't going to do anything until the amateur community came to a consensus on changes. That all changed with the NPRM for 98-143. It appears that folks in the ARRL BoD and Hq, as well as a few others, knew that something was brewing at FCC, and put out proposals just before the NPRM hit the streets. But most of us did not know what was brewing until proposals and the NPRM started to fly. Then came all the comments, etc, and finally the Report and Order in December 1999. This time, it's quite a bit different. S25.5 is essentially gone, and FCC does...nothing. 14 petitions from various groups, some of them almost exactly identical (NCI and NCVEC), hit FCC, and they assign RM numbers in batches of 7, and take comments. Now comes the ARRL proposal. And maybe more, like Hans. Been over six months since folks came home from Geneva and.....no rules changes. See the difference? The first ARRL website/QST story said the process would take 2 years. I scoffed - now I'm wondering if they might be right! Wanna do a proposal, Mike? Everybody else is! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
The first ARRL website/QST story said the process would take 2 years.
I scoffed - now I'm wondering if they might be right! Wanna do a proposal, Mike? Everybody else is! 73 de Jim, N2EY Not a Bad Idea Jim, maybe if everyone just keeps dumping hundreds of Proposals on the FCC, they might just drag it out forever. |
N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... some snippage Just cabin fever, Jim. Maybe. Or maybe, like some other rrap denizens, he resorts to anger when lacking a logical counterargument. I'd hope not. But it is possible. There is an interesting debate style for sure. I've only been called stupid by two people here. Lenover21 and Hans..... Umm, yes, your point! wait till the RM comments.... Which brings up an interesting point.... Back in the ancient time, FCC essentially said they weren't going to do anything until the amateur community came to a consensus on changes. That all changed with the NPRM for 98-143. It appears that folks in the ARRL BoD and Hq, as well as a few others, knew that something was brewing at FCC, and put out proposals just before the NPRM hit the streets. But most of us did not know what was brewing until proposals and the NPRM started to fly. Then came all the comments, etc, and finally the Report and Order in December 1999. This time, it's quite a bit different. S25.5 is essentially gone, and FCC does...nothing. 14 petitions from various groups, some of them almost exactly identical (NCI and NCVEC), hit FCC, and they assign RM numbers in batches of 7, and take comments. Now comes the ARRL proposal. And maybe more, like Hans. Been over six months since folks came home from Geneva and.....no rules changes. See the difference? The first ARRL website/QST story said the process would take 2 years. I scoffed - now I'm wondering if they might be right! Wanna do a proposal, Mike? Everybody else is! My proposal would not be anywhere near as radical as the others going around. And yes, I do think that ARRL's proposal is radical. Hans' proposal, with all its quirks, is much more consistent and rewarding of knowledge than the league's idea. If it were a choice between the two, I'd choose Hans' proposal in a second. Maybe I'll write something up, and bounce it off you. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Even if the data rate is slowed down? If there's anything that deserves spectrum space for experimentation, it's digital modes, not analog voice modes. DId you read the review in QST about the digital box you attach to your HF rig? It sounded like a pretty good thing, until they pointed out it's fatal deficiency near the end. I shouldn't b that harsh - if it is a fixed frequency application, then it won't be too bad. You just have to be listening at the right frequency at the beginning of a transmission, or it's no hearee! My guess is that anything that will allow you to pick up a transmission in the middle of a transmission will boost the bandwidth requirements up quite a bit. It's just one try at it. There are other ways. For example, listen to people talk sometime and notice how many pauses most people insert in their speech. Some folks' speech is full of umms and ahhs because they are mentally trying to "hold the VOX". (I'm not making this up - listen to *how* people speak, rather than what they are saying, and note how the odd patterns!) Suppose that before modulation the digitized signal compressed the pauses and on the receive end they were expanded. Or maybe left out if they were over a certain length. The digital signal could be sent at a slower pace and yet catch up during the pauses. Maybe simply trade bandwidth for speech rate. You stop talking and the rig takes a few seconds to finish sending - no problem! Point is, a lot of experimentation in this area is hampered or discouraged by the current rules. That's why folks like Hans and I commented *against* ARRL's "novice refarming" proposal some time back, saying the kHz would be better reused as a digital sandbox rather than simply more SSB space. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com