Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #271   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 07:20 AM
Mark Little
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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



  #272   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 02:02 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




  #273   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 02:39 PM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



  #274   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 02:39 PM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



  #275   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 02:59 PM
Steve Robeson, K4CAP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #276   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 03:00 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #278   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 03:10 PM
Steve Robeson, K4CAP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(stewart) wrote in message . com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
There is another factor which is common to those amateurs not engaged
in a radio-specific occupation...that the state of the art of everything in
amateur remain rooted in the familiar they know. That's almost
impossible since radio is only 107 years old and the technology involved
has been advancing in large plateau jumps all the while. That is true of
all electronics-related fields of work. They want the state of the art to
be fixed so they can enjoy what they found emotionally satisfying long
ago when they reached their personal best in the hobby. Others of
the modern day are little interested in meeting antiquated standards of
entering amateur radio.


Amen, brother... you've gotten to the core of the problem. But, it is
WORSE than you state, as these people can't simply go on doing what
they've been doing, they try to STOP others from doing new things...


I'd ask you to please CITE a verifyable example of someone trying
to STOP some form of experimentation or "advancement of the art",
Skewart, but I know that woulod go unanswered...

Of course I'd not expect much in the way of facts from someone
who thinks "advancement" is the creation of channelized "Colt" class
licenses and thinks MURS is impervious to abuse.

they are actually PRO-ACTIVE in their actions. I used to think it was
simply "foot-dragging" - but it is worse than that... they are like
little children, as they are being taken kicking and screaming to
their beds for the night, they will lash out or wildly grab onto
ANYTHING they can to slow the process... but, inevitably they WILL go
to sleep, and they just end up looking all the more PATHETIC for their
TANTRUM-THROWING.


You have yet to "prove" any tantrum throwing or examples of
"kicking and screaming" as you describe it.

Like Lennie, I believe you to be misusing adjectives to create an
untruthful representation of actual events.

Down here we just call if lying.

As for "PATHETIC",....that's what I'd call YOUR "vision" of the
future of ANY radio service. Your child-like obsession with "MURS"
being an example of your own myoptic anomoly

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN

Case in point...

Steve, K4YZ
  #279   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 03:53 PM
William
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #280   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 04:00 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 -



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions Louis C. LeVine Dx 36 September 9th 04 09:30 AM
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions Louis C. LeVine General 8 September 8th 04 12:14 PM
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions Louis C. LeVine Dx 0 September 5th 04 08:30 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1412 ­ September 3, 2004 Radionews General 0 September 4th 04 08:35 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1412 ­ September 3, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 September 4th 04 08:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017