"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... I've worked in commercial/scientific radio communications as well as being an Amateur and there is a great deal of similarity between the operations - there are licences, How tough was the studying for a license for which there is no exam? ;-) Are you really just clueless or are you just trying to be a smart arse? In case it is the former, this page may help: http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/ I'm not under FCC regulations so it's a real shame that I appear to know more about them that you do. there are regulations, The regs aren't very much alike, are they? In fact, such point-to-point channelized communications can only be compared to amateur VHF/UHF FM operation. Radio regulations cover a truckload of licence types and the regulations are many and varied. Did you read about your regulations and not understand; or do you just make this stuff up as you go? Ignorance would be to assume that because one has experience in another service, that all of his experience in that service directly transfers to amateur radio. This is more accurate as there are some subtle differences between even very similar activities. You can bet there are and if you've read many of Leonard H. Anderson's posts over the years, you'll find that he doesn't see them. I didn't agree with him. I disagreed with you. His thoughts, past or otherwise, right or wrong, aren't relevant. Mark |
In article , "Mark Little"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Mark Little" writes: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... snip The idea that non-amateurs "not understanding" amateur radio is false and little more than an attempt at rationalization of their own ignorance. The idea that one who has no experience in using amateur radio has no real feel for amateur radio is no falsehood. Nonsense. There is nothing in life that is so insular that one cannot get a "real feel" of it by doing similar things. The question, then, is "what is a similar thing?" What would be similar to, say: - having a baby According to a woman I know, passing a kidney stone. She has done both so is probably in a good situation to know. I will take that one on faith as neither seems that appealing. Those two are similar only in the pain experienced and the relief when it's over. But the joy of a new baby is not part of the kidney stone episode. - running a marathon "Hitting the wall" and the physical tribulations associated with a marathon are not limited to running. If you have done other activities that stress the body, then you are in a position to get the "feel". In my case, that is just running to the end of the street. ;-) There's a lot more to the marathon than "hitting the wall", which doesn't happen to all marathoners anyway. (I've run two marathons and numerous shorter races, btw) - playing a musical instrument really well Anyone who has had to practice long and hard to achieve any hand skill will know the satisfaction that comes with doing something well. I can't play the guitar "really well", but I think it is safe to say I have a feel for what it would be like to be able to do so. So playing a guitar well is similar to playing a guitar really well... (others are invited to add to the list) Jumping off a cliff - Never done it, but I have a good feel for what happens - At the bottom, you go splattt!!!!! HAW! I've worked in commercial/scientific radio communications as well as being an Amateur and there is a great deal of similarity between the operations - there are licences, there are regulations, there are serious conversations, there are "rag chew" conversations, there is problem solving and information exchange. These is even a "siblinghood" (is that the PC equivalent of "brotherhood"? ;-) ) amongest the operators. There are also big differences. What exactly are you suggesting is so different in AR that it is completely alien from any other activity? Several things: 1) Hams have a level of freedom pretty much unmatched in other services. Wide variety of modes, bands, technologies, and activities. No channelization or requirement to use certain types of equipment. I suggest that you look at the FCC page and search for "experimental licence". These couple of snippets may be of interest to show its breadth: "Any person or entity--corporation, individual, etc. that is not a foreign government or representative of a foreign government may obtain an experimental license." "Any frequency allocated to non-Government or Government use in the Table of Frequency Allocations may be assigned under the Experimental Radio Service, except frequencies exclusively allocated to the passive services." Use of non-approved equipment is also permitted with this licence. Not the same thing! Each experimental license is granted for a specific purpose, isn't it? The applicant has to make application for a specific reason, not general experimentation, and the license is limited to the specific experimentation applied for. It's not a general-purpose thing like a ham license. How many experimental licenses are currently issued by FCC? There are over 682,000 US ham licenses issued to individuals. How many new experimental licenses were issued by FCC last year? FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses in 2003. 2) Hams are almost all self-funded and noncommercial, using their own equipment on their own time. Agreed, but again this is not unique. Plenty of people including CB operators and pleasure marine radio operators in the same boat (pun intended). Those services are not about "radio for its own sake" and allow only a very limited choice of channels and modes. 3) [this it the really big one] Amateur radio is, at its core, radio communication for its own sake. To other services, radio is but a means to an end, but to hams the medium really is a big part of the message. Or to put it another way, the ham's journey is as important, if not more important, than the destination. You are incorrect to assert that the medium is not important to others, especially in the scientific community. Radio propagation research by definition is interested in the medium. Only to find out how it works. It is also misleading to imply that the majority of Amateur have the medium as the primary focus of their activities. The majority of Amateurs use commercial equipment and spend the majority of their time chin-wagging. From their conversations, it is obvious that the conversation is more import than the medium. If that were true, most of those conversations would have moved to other means of communication long ago. This is why certain things from other services don't apply to hams. The person watching TV usually doesn't care how the signal gets to the set - VHF, UHF, terrestrical, satellite, analog, digital, cable, fiber, whatever. All the TV viewer cares about is how good the picture, sound and program are. While the person who watches TV may have no idea how it works, there is a complete army of people behind that tube that do know how it works and why it works. That's true, but it's not the point. The TV viewer and the ham are both the "end users", but it makes no difference to the TV viewer whether the program got to him/her by radio, wire, etc. There *is* a difference to the ham whether the QSO is by radio or landline. If one were to subtract the number of hams who cannot even fix a simple fault in their commerical rig, the odds would not be much different. That's not the "how" I was referring to. A ham cares that it's "communication by radio" - the TV viewer doesn't. The military communications folks don't care how the messages are carried, just so the messages get where they need to be, when they need to be there, without the bad guys knowing about them. I'll bet its fair to say that most Amateurs do not understand how Packet, PACTOR or even just their rigs work. I disagree. But that's not the point. They simply plug in the boxes and off they go. Again, a ham cares that it's "communication by radio" Do you know or care how your email and postings get to and from your computer? Actually, I do as I run my own servers. Exception that proves the rule. And once it leaves your servers? If you're like 99.99% of the online population, it's not an issue as long as it happens. This is also the case for many Amateurs. Most would not know how their current rig works and they would neither have the expertise or equipment to find anything but the most trivial of faults. Again, not the point. A ham cares that it's "communication by radio", but most email users don't care if the medium is wire, fiber, etc. Heck, many if not most cellphone users don't even think in terms of "radio" - the cellphone to them is a telephone without wires, that's all. (In fact I have had people tell me that a cellphone is *not* a radio!) As I said most Amateurs don't know how packet works or even how their Yaesu works. How do you know that for sure? Under this defintion, most Amateurs aren't amateurs either. If one goes into particular instances, I've fixed radios for more than one full call that could not find that the battery wire had broken. Such anecdotes may be amusing, but have little value in the big picture. Point is they at least knew it was a radio. The radio amateur does radio, for the most part, for purely emotional reasons. IOW, because it's fun, rewarding, challenging, educating, etc. "Radio for it's own sake". Certainly in the area I work, I have seen the scientists knock back very large amounts of money because it didn't have a research component that they found "fun, rewarding, challenging, educating, etc." But only as an expedient. Not as a rule. This is why modes like Morse code, AM voice and Baudot FSK RTTY continue in use in amateur radio. Hams like them. They're fun, and they work. Morse - still used commercially, in the forces and aviation (ident calls). Some will argue that point! AM voice - still used in broadcasting. FSK RTTY - still used as anyone with a communications rig can tell you. Baudot! Not just FSK None of these are unique to AR. No, they're not. But their choice in other services is driven by considerations other than what the operators like. That's the point. There is no doubt that these modes work and "fun" to some people. This is true even if you are a commercial operator. There are plenty of people who actually enjoy their work. Sure, but as a rule they are not the one making the choice. BTW, not all hams like these modes. Many people don't like Morse, many also don't like AM because of its bandwidth, especially in the lower bands and most Amateurs don't use RTTY with or without the clunking teleprinter. By choice - that's the point! Ignorance would be to assume that because one has experience in another service, that all of his experience in that service directly transfers to amateur radio. This is more accurate as there are some subtle differences between even very similar activities. And some very big differences. Much of what is done in other radio services does not transfer to amateur radio at all. For example, every other radio service I know of seeks to eliminate the need for a skill in the operation of the radio equipment. They think in terms of "user", not "radio operator". And given their constraints, it may make sense to do so, because it is usually less expensive to buy sophisticated equipment than to pay a skilled radio operator. How many Amateurs still neutralise their power amplifiers? I do. No many. Why? Because they have decided to buy (in most cases not build) more sophisticated equipment that reduces the skill required to operate the radio. I build my ham rigs, either from scratch or kits. There is no difference. Yes, there is. Neutralization is an alignment adjustment, not part of operating the rig. I don't know too many Amateurs who go to buy a rig and want the one that is the hardest to use. Not the point. Modes like ALE and conventions such as channelization have not had much acceptance in amateur radio, even though very widely used in other services. But to hams, radio operating skill is the whole point. Unsustainable if you listen to the bands. I do, and that's why I make the observation. Most people do not even comply with the statuatory requirements for identification, let alone push the envelope of operating skills. Where have you noticed that? I see just the opposite on the bands and modes I use. Are you suggesting that randomly monitoring the Amateur Bands for a few hours would show a very high level of operating skill? I wouldn't bet the farm on that one, would you? No, I'm saying that hams value operating skills, even if they don't always have the highest level of them. Someone who plays a guitar for fun usually values skill at doing so, even if they're not as good as the guy on the CD. As I said, AR is by no means "unique" in what it provides and there are many people in the radio field, even if they don't hold an AR licence that would have a "really good feel" of what the Amateur Serice is all about bases on their other experiences. Maybe. But in general I'd disagree. It concerns me when Amateurs attempt to tell others that AR is "unique" and that a non-amateur could never underestand what it is all about, because all it does is reduce credibilty. If amateur radio is not unique, why should it exist? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. Uh huh! I'll ask: Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified? Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific class of license. Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges. Let's be serious here! It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our lanyards. Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose it. Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion contrary to yours. If you don't agree with me, I really don't give a damn...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that matters is what the FCC will think and do. In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test. Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's a--well, you know the drill. Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement. I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm betting that the answer is "none". Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners? If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class license. No ifs, ands or buts. Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is something you stated that you'd never support. If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition. In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra and General. Clear enough for you? And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been forthcoming. The question keeps coming up because some people can't understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements. A few things here. IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the evil Morse code supporters. I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive system as created simply asks for passage of another test on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only" spectrum from that of a General operating in the General spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted power. So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the elimination of incentive licensing. I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements. I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. There can be no other explanation. I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and say so. Because it isn't true! If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a one-time basis, it can be done permanently. Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have stated I support? Answer - NO! I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Is that how you decide what to believe? Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances. and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of thousands. Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary to do. Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their logic. No need to repeat it again. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound disingenuous. What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free to enjoy your own beliefs. Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs. Frankly Dave, I don't give a damn. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. Uh huh! I'll ask: Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified? Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be serious here! In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test. I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. So you now support no testing whatsoever, since the priveliges have no bearing? Glad you finally got serious and admitted it. Sorry Mike, your logic is seriously lacking. My stateing the obvious about privileges vs license in no way leads to the conclusion that I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. Even Jim, N2EY has acknowledged what I have said regarding privileges vs license class based on written test knowledge. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? You are right Bill. There really is no need for qualification if you don't want there to be. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. So why make the tests more difficult after the "one shot" upgrade? If you think a technician is now qualified to be a General, then you should be consistant. The problem, is that there isn't any accepted relationship of privileges vs license to apply a truly knoweldege based upgrade system that links the additional privileges to actual written test knowlede. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. You notice? A few things here. IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the evil Morse code supporters. I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive system as created simply asks for passage of another test on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only" spectrum from that of a General operating in the General spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted power. If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The ARRL is being illogical. Then go take it up with ARRL...assuming you are a member. And I see you don't deny my assertion. Not at all...YOU refuse to see the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT. I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Doesn't make me feel good at all! Your problem, not mine. and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You're playing with my words here. No, you are incorrectly stating the aspects of the ARRL petition. A person that takes the Technician test, then becomes a General with no further retesting. A person that takes a Technician test, then a General test. Which person has done more? Unless you are suggesting that the future General test is simply the equivalent of the Tech test. I do not dispute there is a one-time difference. That is what happens when there is a one-time waiver. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Yeah I know, lifes a bitch............ By Jove I think he's got it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mark Little" wrote in message ...
I'm not under FCC regulations so it's a real shame that I appear to know more about them that you do. Awwww...fer Geezus Sakes...yet another know-it-all "I'm-Better-Than-You" antagonist who thinks that his cut-and-paste skills replace those of practical experience in the radio service he would seek to troll through. Radio regulations cover a truckload of licence types and the regulations are many and varied. Did you read about your regulations and not understand; or do you just make this stuff up as you go? Would YOU please cite what part you seem to think Dave doesn't ahve a grip on? Seems to me that you overlooked that part. You can bet there are and if you've read many of Leonard H. Anderson's posts over the years, you'll find that he doesn't see them. I didn't agree with him. I disagreed with you. His thoughts, past or otherwise, right or wrong, aren't relevant. Since that was what Dave was addressing, I'd say it was VERY relevant. You have a ".au" address...What's your VK call? Steve, K4YZ |
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: [snip] Let's get this clear right now. ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General with no additional testing. They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra with no additional testing. Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. I (N2EY) don't support it. Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? Because there's no real harm to anyone... I say there *is* real harm to the ARS. However, let's explore your claim for a bit and see where it leads. You say that the free upgrades are OK "Because there's no real harm to anyone...". I've also seen it justified by "the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large". If that's true, then what would be the harm is simply dumping the General class question pool completely and using the Technician pool in its place, with slight modifications to include General HF privs? Who would be harmed by such a change? By the same token, we could resurrect the old Advanced written and use it in place of the Extra. and if you want an incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it I disagree! It works as a disincentive. Why should anyone study for an upgrade if there's a chance for a freebie? Would you you pay $500 for a new computer if you knew that next month it would go on sale for $300? plus it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one snapshot of time. ARRL proposed similar freebies before and FCC said no, even though it would simplify the licensing and regs. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses on a certain date. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. Agreed. And that's the point: Folks like Carl who said they'd NEVER support ANY reduction are now supporting a reduction because it's a one-time thing. And ignoring the fact that it affects a huge number of hams. Free upgrades for Techs would affect about 322,000 hams. Last year we got about 20,000 new Techs, so the proposed freebie would affect as many existing hams as the new ones we might get in the next 10-15 years. THAT is the critical difference. And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as a permanent change? Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND it then continues with the incentive system as before. I say it does harm people. But if it harms no one to get the simplified scheme, why not make it permanent? Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one time thing. Time and situations change and people change. IOW, Carl's "never" didn't mean "never", it just meant "until I change my mind". You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. True. Thank you! Time and situations change and people change. Next week or next year.... But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? See prior coments on the same thing. Who would be harmed by a permanent reduction? And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands that loss. I lost privileges as an Advanced. And I had to wait 2 years to even try the Extra, even though I could have passed it the day I lost privileges. With this, no one losses anything. If the existing classes are not given free upgrades, nobody loses anything either. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. If maybe not, please point to what privileges will be lost by which license holders. Yet now I see that same person supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written* tests... As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" i a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF. Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech written is adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply dump the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool for General? If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself. No, it's not what I want. But how do we argue against those who want it? YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that. You're assuming they won't. I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens. And what will you say to them? How will you argue against making the one-time freebie permanent? After all, they can quote you and Ed and Carl saying "no one will be harmed" and "the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large" What counterarguments can be used against those quotes? Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? SWAG applied with common sense. They said the same thing in 1969. I was there. In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but not OK for future hams? As above, because it will be a one time situation. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break. If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades, is there? They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't sent in their license for cancellation - so what? I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade a new license at all. There's no need to. So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old license class. The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with their upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement: Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra). Then why wasn't it done in 2000? Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then? Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's (or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade. How do you know what FCC wants? How do you? I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is claiming to know what FCC wants. Take it as a best quess then. OK. My best guess is that FCC doesn't care. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? Different subject for a different thread. Not at all! You're saying we should just trust FCC. BPL shows what can happen.. I (personally, not as NCI) think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future. Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today. Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...) I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them. If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all? If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC. I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too. As is your right to do so. let's see....3 classes of license, no free upgrades, imporved writtens... So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the changes take place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General. Give me a break ... What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do. Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade bus to General. If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll be truly surprised. 20,000 in the past 12 months. We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations. And how many will renew in the grace period? You have to look longterm. As for the existing novices...that is now down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you suggest. 34,000 or so. minor difference in the scope of this conversation. Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to actually take (or study for) the General. Life's a [expletive deleted] and then we die. Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test. God grant us the wisdom to... Accept the things we cannot change, change those we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference. Right. So why not just accept 5 wpm and the existing classes? Same for Advanceds and the Extra. The rate at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically low already. 17% in 4 years. Gotta wonder why. Maybe the code test wasn't a problem after all.... No one said it was the only roadblock to all Advanced hams going to Extra. It has been touted as the boogieman for years. Now we see that it wasn't. And let's suppose FCC enacts the ARRL proposal, and even dumps Element 1 for Extra as well. And suppose we don't get a huge increase in the number of new hams, just as we didn't after 2000. You watch - there will be more proposals to further water down the writtens. your arguments are just plain lame How? Do you think people won't do this? Some will, but it won't be significant. How do you know? SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC implements free upgrades on a certain date? Yep. Plus a huge drop in upgrades. Why not? "We're having a one-time sale - get 'em now!" Back in 1951, there was a similar one-time sale. FCC announced that they were closing out the Advanced/class A and replacing it with the much harder to get Extra at the end of 1952. But existing Class A/Advanceds would have the same privs as Extras. There was a flood of folks upgrading to beat the price increase. and your "someone might get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I took" is REALLY showing. Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the tests I took, Carl. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Nope. Not at all. It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the qualifications, both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And that's not a good thing. And if that is your true meaning, why would you state that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl." Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same written tests if he had to? If he had to, maybe. But he didn't have to. And he couldn't pass the other tests I had to take. And he didn't do it at 16 years of age, with no professional background. I did. The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in written test requirements are the issue. The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to lower the General or Extra requirements. Not yet. But a one-time upgrade is one more step. And it paves the way. As you have said. Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests. That makes what - a dozen countries? I believe so. I wonder what HK's written test requirements are..... I don't really care. bwaahaahaa! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"Mark Little" wrote in message ...
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... I've worked in commercial/scientific radio communications as well as being an Amateur and there is a great deal of similarity between the operations - there are licences, How tough was the studying for a license for which there is no exam? ;-) Are you really just clueless or are you just trying to be a smart arse? In case it is the former, this page may help: http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/ I'm not under FCC regulations so it's a real shame that I appear to know more about them that you do. Not according to Hoyle. Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists. Not only should an amateur NOT know the rules of another country, but he MUST NOT know them! So if you should happen to know the US FCC rules, you must disregard them, i.e., you must pretend not to know them. there are regulations, The regs aren't very much alike, are they? In fact, such point-to-point channelized communications can only be compared to amateur VHF/UHF FM operation. Radio regulations cover a truckload of licence types and the regulations are many and varied. Did you read about your regulations and not understand; or do you just make this stuff up as you go? Well, there you have it! Ignorance would be to assume that because one has experience in another service, that all of his experience in that service directly transfers to amateur radio. This is more accurate as there are some subtle differences between even very similar activities. You can bet there are and if you've read many of Leonard H. Anderson's posts over the years, you'll find that he doesn't see them. I didn't agree with him. I disagreed with you. His thoughts, past or otherwise, right or wrong, aren't relevant. Mark Welcome to the jungle. bb |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message some snippage So you now support no testing whatsoever, since the priveliges have no bearing? Glad you finally got serious and admitted it. Sorry Mike, your logic is seriously lacking. My stateing the obvious about privileges vs license in no way leads to the conclusion that I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. Even Jim, N2EY has acknowledged what I have said regarding privileges vs license class based on written test knowledge. Considering that you support a plan that supposedly gives a huge chunk of hams a free upgrade, then supposedly makes it harder for hams coming into the service after this giveaway, I'll take your concerns about my logic under advisement, and with a huge grain of salt. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? You are right Bill. There really is no need for qualification if you don't want there to be. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. So why make the tests more difficult after the "one shot" upgrade? If you think a technician is now qualified to be a General, then you should be consistant. The problem, is that there isn't any accepted relationship of privileges vs license to apply a truly knoweldege based upgrade system that links the additional privileges to actual written test knowlede. Agreed. I've said for a long time that there is no *practical* need for any test regimen at all. This isn't the old days. If I were so inclined, I could buy my equipment, pay someone to put up the antenna and put the station together, and then teach me how to mash the PTT button. Then get on the air and yak away. No knowledge needed. All the knowledge we look for in a Ham OP is arbitrary and must be something we decide upon. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. You notice? A few things here. IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the evil Morse code supporters. I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive system as created simply asks for passage of another test on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only" spectrum from that of a General operating in the General spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted power. If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The ARRL is being illogical. Then go take it up with ARRL...assuming you are a member. Why yes I am a member And I see you don't deny my assertion. Not at all...YOU refuse to see the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT. Perhaps my cynicism sees this one time thing as the salesman getting his foot in the door. It's where I see the disconnect with logic. If a testing regimen is sufficient for qualification one day, it should be good enough the day after, unless there is a pressing reason to increase the qualifications. There will be no compelling need to increase the qualifications the day after the "one shot" upgrade. I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Doesn't make me feel good at all! Your problem, not mine. and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You're playing with my words here. No, you are incorrectly stating the aspects of the ARRL petition. All actions have consequences. I know exactly what the aspects of the ARRL petition are. They are allowing another agenda (IMO) to color their thinking on the issue, and are trying to shoehorn their agenda into it, along with giving some lip service to those members that still want Element 1 tested. Speculation alert Their agenda, if I am correct, is that they want lots more people with HF access. This will have two immediate effects in their view. Effect 1 is that there is a pretty big divide in the ham radio neighborhood regarding the ARRL. Hams that have only VHF and up access tend not to belong to the league, and hams that do have HF access are more likely to belong. If a ham has hf access, they will be more likely to join perhaps. They look at the possibility of a good size chunk of these 400,000 upgraded hams to join up. Effect 2 is that these upgrades hams will make a great number to trot out when fighting spectrum threats "Look at all the Hams that will be negatively affected by BPL, etc.". Double that number, and it looks all the more impressive. speculation mode off But as with all side agendas, people tend to get caught up in the agenda, and lose sight of those consequences. And the consequences here are that a powerful argument is provided to make HF access test requirements at the Technician level permanent. If it was good once, it should continue being good until circumstances force a change. And I don't see any logical way around that. Will these Tech level people be able to get on HF and work? Of course. Plenty of people are running high power rigs on 11 meters, and they haven't taken one test. So the tech's will have one foot up on them. As I've said in the past, the service is what we want it to be A person that takes the Technician test, then becomes a General with no further retesting. A person that takes a Technician test, then a General test. Which person has done more? Unless you are suggesting that the future General test is simply the equivalent of the Tech test. I do not dispute there is a one-time difference. That is what happens when there is a one-time waiver. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Yeah I know, lifes a bitch............ By Jove I think he's got it. Actually I don't, "got it", Bill. That kind of stuff is more a detriment to your arguments than a help. But hey, if you like that kind of stuff, have at it!! - Mike KB3EIA - |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com