Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #301   Report Post  
Old February 17th 04, 12:40 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul W. Schleck wrote in message ...
In (N2EY) writes:

This is Part Two - previous stuff removed to save space)

You might argue that not every existing ham has obtained the same degree
of experience, or even a minimum necessary level of experience to be
given a free upgrade. That would be true, but ultimately would be
self-limiting, as experience would correlate with participation. An
inactive ham using no privileges today would be using no more privileges
if the FCC gave him a free upgrade tomorrow. Free upgrades are not a
perfect solution, ideal in all cases, but are a good solution overall.


I disagree. What's wrong with simply allowing Techs, Tech Pluses and
Advanceds to upgrade in their own time?


What is the sudden need to eliminate those license classes? The Novice and
Advanced have been closed off to new issues for almost 4 years, and their
numbers have declined. And from 1953 to 1967, no new Advanceds were issued.
Did any of that cause problems?


What's the rush?


Are the written tests too hard?


Well? The current Extra was recently earned by a bright seven year old - can
we really say that it's unreasonable to expect others to do what she did for
the same privileges?


As others have pointed out in other threads, the 7-year old Extra is a
statistical outlier, one of a handful in amateur radio history, and not
a typical example.


It's true that there have only been a few hams younger than about 10
years of age. And in most cases these young hams were in somewhat
exceptional circumstances.

Add a few years, however, and the numbers explode. Tens of thousands,
if not hundreds of thousands of present-day hams started as preteens
or young teenagers, often with no other hams in the family and no real
parental support other than "don't electrocute yourself or burn the
house down". So we still have the nagging question of why it's
unreasonable to expect others to do what they did for the same
privileges?

The more typical, and meaningful, example of an
entry-level ham would be one who was high school or college-age.


Why?

I got my first ham license at the beginning of 7th grade. What is now
middle school. No other hams in my family or neighborhood. There were
many like me,
limited mostly by lack of money and transportation.

The
greater numbers of these typical entry-level hams would mean that they
would have a more profound impact on the shaping of the future of
amateur radio, anyway.


Agreed! But note this: When the ARRL paid READEX to do a survey back
in 1996, the most strongly procodetest age group was the *youngest*
group - 15 and under. 85% were in support of code testing, only 15%
opposed. Time after time, when Morse code is demonstrated to young
prospective hams, they *like* it and are eager to learn it. The idea
that a 5 wpm code test is somehow a barrier to young people is not
borne out by actual experience.

Why do the Advanced class subbands have to be "refarmed" at all? Who or what
would they be "refarmed" to? What's the longterm plan?

If you do agree that the Advanced phone bands should be refarmed at some
point in the future, at what point would you have it done? Would you
leave it to Extras, give it to Generals, or would you otherwise split it
up in some way?


Why does it need to be done at all? Is the Extra written that hard?


Why do you avoid these simple questions?


Because sometimes simple questions are loaded with built-in assumptions


Mine aren't.

(e.g., "Why won't you join me in voting to ban COP-KILLER bullets?" or
even the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?").


I am simply asking why it is so urgent to get rid of closed-off
license classes. Where is the "loading" in such a question?

Furthermore, you see simplicity where I see complication, and vice-versa.


I don't see what the problem is with simply keeping the Advanced and
Tech. Allow those who hold them to upgrade in their own time.


So you would argue that any refarming would be done at some asymptotic
point in the far future, indistinguishable at present between "decades"
and "never."


I'm *asking* what the problem is with leaving some things alone.


The question has been asked and answered, though I have given you an
answer you disagree with. Asking the question repeatedly will not
result in a different answer from me. Put away the rhetorical bludgeon.


All I see is the answer that "we need to simplify!" but not *why* that
simplification is so needed right now, when it wasn't needed 4 years
ago.

Alternatively, avoids opening up the
Advanced class phone bands to General-class hams (an effective downgrade
in privileges for Advanced, and crowding out DX users with more
U.S. hams in those bands) or opening up the Extra class phone bands to
Advanced-class hams (which would be a "free upgrade" in all but name).


Again, why not just leave those subbands as they are now?

In this day and age, regulatory agencies seem more eager to simplify
regulations. Removing regulations that are obsolete, or cover too small
an intended audience to be justified on a cost basis, is likely a top
priority for such agencies. Again, what is your timeline for change?
Decades in the future, or never?


I don't see any reason to "refarm" them at all. Not at this time, anyway.


Note that in 4 years, the number of Advanceds has dropped by only about 16%.


Seems to be a pretty popular license even today.

Note also that several Advanceds have said they *don't* want an upgrade, free
or not.
I don't understand why, but that's what they've said.


It sounds to me like you want all Advanceds to become Extras so that the
Advanced subbands can become General bandspace. That's not part of the ARRL
proposal, though.

No, I never said that.


No, you didn't. That's why I wrote "sounds to me".


My first draft of my reply said, "No I never said nor implied that." I
edited it to achieve economy of words, because even if I somehow implied
that I supported the entire ARRL proposal, adoption of that proposal
would not giving the entire Advanced phone subbands to the Generals.


The word "refarmed" was used, which is a euphemism for "reallocated".

If all Advanceds get Extras, but Generals get no more bandspace, then
what is actually "refarmed"?

I would combine Advanced and Extra phone bands
into just Extra phone bands, and leave the General bands as they are.


That's the status quo! It's not "refarming" at all.


It still removes one color bar from the frequency allocation charts (for
Advanced), so is not strictly a "status quo" solution like you have
advocated.


The point is that by using the word "refarming", you implied that
Generals would get more bandspace.

I suppose a definition of refarming is necessary for this context. Even
the ITU seems to struggle with the meaning of this word (search for
"definition of refarming" on Google). A commonly-accepted definition
is:

"Moving one service out to make way for another that would use the
spectrum more optimally."

So, really, neither of us are using the word entirely according to this
definition. Even if we substitute "class" for "service" above, no
General, Advanced, or Extra is being moved out to make way for anyone
else under the two alternatives offered in this discussion (mine, and
the ARRL's). Even Novice and Tech Plus hams only face a "lose some, but
gain a lot more" prospect under the ARRL proposal. You would define
refarming as making different license classes within the same service
either gain or lose spectrum. I would agree that this would constitute
one kind of refarming. I would also assert that the elimination of
license classes within a service to simplify spectrum allocation is
another kind of refarming.

I say it would be clearer to avoid such euphemistic words and be more
direct. "Reallocate" or, better yet, "widen the phone bands". Because
that's what it comes down to.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't support frequency shifting, such as
that proposed to make 40 meters a primary amateur allocation, or part of
Novice band refarming. Just that I would keep the proportional amounts
roughly the same. I realize that the current ARRL proposal splits up
the Advanced phone bands, giving proportionally more to the General than
the Extra phone bands on 80 and 40 meters, and proportionally less on 15
meters (no changes on 20 meters). I do not strongly support that, but
even that proposal isn't giving the entire Advanced phone bandwidth to
the Generals.


And if nothing at all is done, the results are almost the same as what you
propose.


Emphasis on "almost." One of my motivations in this extended discussion
is to determine our agreements and disagreements, what are hard-and-fast
beliefs, and what might be open to compromise.


Good idea.

In case you haven't
figured it out, I'm gathering verbage for a draft of my comments on any
future NPRM. You seem to be alternating between active opposition to,
and fatalistic acceptance of, the possibility that Element 1 will be
deleted.


That's one way to look at it.

The fact is that there are more issues to be addressed than just the 5
wpm code test. It's important to not lose sight of the fact that
whether the code test stays or goes, those other issues should not be
forgotten.

Perhaps you want to "go down fighting" on this issue with the
ARRL and the FCC.


Why not? If those of us who support code testing don't ask, we'll
never get.

Is the current 5 wpm test, with all its accomodations, *really* too
much to
ask of new hams? The ARRL proposal writeups wax nostalgic about the
old Novice license, but carefully avoid mentioning that
part-and-parcel of the old Novice was the 5 wpm code test.


Your ideal-world position of no changes allows me to
rebut with the continued complications that it implies.


My ideal-world position isn't one of no changes. I've outlined it here
before, and can dig it up again if you want to see it.


On the other
hand, I too believe that Element 1 being dropped is likely, but I also
believe that changes to license classes and band allocations are still
very much up in the air at this point. Because of this, I will happily
play "what-if" with the various scenarios (as the FCC might do them in
any combination) while also indicating which ones that I favor.

So that there is no further confusion about what I favor, I support
dropping Element 1 (which would merge Technician with Technician-Plus),


For all license classes or just Tech Plus?

giving present Advanced-class licensees a "free upgrade" to Extra, and
keeping General and Extra-class phone bands substantially and
proportionately the same (save for some small shifting/resizing for
Novice-band refarming and making all of 40 meters a primary amateur
radio allocation).


So the Tech would remain the entry level license?

Also avoids having to accommodate a license class (Tech Plus) that isn't
even carried in the FCC database anymore, which is a records/
enforcement problem for the FCC, and requires the licensee to keep
documentation forever.


If the current rules are left alone, all Tech Pluses will be Techs in six
years, two months and 20 days or so.

If by saying, "If the current rules are left alone..." you really meant
leaving alone everything *except* the 5 WPM Morse code requirement
(which would be eliminated for these General and below under the ARRL
proposal), then, and only then, Technician-class hams will assume the
HF privileges of Technician-Plus.


Whatever. I don't see why the 5 wpm code test is such a big deal as a
requirement.

Does your "Whatever" answer above mean that you support 5 WPM Morse code
for all HF license classes, or just for Extra?


I support a code test for all amateur licenses, period. I think the dropping of
the
code test for the Tech back in 1991 was a mistake. I argued and commented
against it then, and much of what I said would happen has come to pass.


The FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (EFCS) only goes back to 1992
and your callsign doesn't appear in Google Groups until 1997. Would you
mind elaborating on what you thought would happen, and what you think
has come to pass?


OK, here's the short list:

First off, dropping the code test from the Tech in 1991 re-created a
ham license that was VHF-UHF centric. New hams were funneled to start
off on VHF/UHF FM phone with new manufactured equipment, rather than
HF CW, where homebrew, kit and used equipment were more prevalent.
This created a divide between those hams who had some or all HF and
those who had none, centered around the code test. Such divisions are
not a good thing. The resulting division has diverted attention from
other, more important issues such as publicity, antenna restrictions,
and limits to growth.

Second, the change brought about a surge in new hams (good) but not
sustained growth (bad).

Third, one of the things promised back in 1991 was that there would be
more and more "technical people" becoming hams if the code test were
dropped for VHF/UHF. Did not happen.

Most of all, the continual tinkering with the license system has
perpetuated and expanded the myth that the license tests are "too
hard", and that all will be well if we just make this change or that
change. Yet history tells a very different story. Look at the growth
in US ham radio from 1991 to the present, and compare it to an
identical length of time before 1991. Was there a big, sustained
increase in the number of new hams because of the Tech losing its code
test?

Look at the growth since April 2000. Mostly existing hams getting
upgrades, but not a huge jump in the number of new hams.

And the issue isn't just code tests. The *written* tests have been
reduced in number, size and complexity, too. Is that really a good
thing?

If the former, then
there is a very real distinction that will continue to exist in the
license ladder whether or not it continues to be recorded in the
database. If so, then the expiring of Tech-Plus license in 6 years is
not a simplification, it is a complication.

That's still a long time in FCC
enforcement (and VEC administration) years.


Why? It's been almost 4 years since the last restructuring took effect. Look
at the enforcement letters - Techs without code masquerading as Tech Pluses
isn't a big problem, from what I see.

You argue that it's not an enforcement problem because few or none have
been caught. I would argue that it is an enforcement problem because it
would be very hard to catch someone, especially if confirming who has
what privileges requires documentation that is no longer in the FCC
database, and might no longer be retained by hams or VEC's. The FCC's
limited staff time is probably being aimed at big fish, such as Advanced
and Extra-class scofflaws engaging in power and interference violations.


You might want to read the letters. They're pretty evenly distributed, license
clas wise, except for Novices.


I have read them. Even if they are evenly distributed in numbers, they
are not evenly distributed according to number of licensees in each
class. If they were, then there would be approximately one Extra-class
violator for every three Tech/Tech-Plus violators, or every 1.5
General-class violators. I stand by my original argument.
Specifically, that the FCC's enforcement agenda is mostly aimed at
high-yield (easier to catch/more serious punishment, aka "big fish")
violations "such as" (i.e., not limited to) power and interference
violations at higher classes of license. Such licensees are being
subject to proportionately more enforcement scrutiny than other classes
of license.


What about the new ham who was found transmitting false distress calls
on a marine VHF frequency using a modified ham rig? As I recall,
intentional false distress is one of the most serious infractions
possible.

There is also the factor of enforcement being complaint-driven.
Someone who acts up on a 2 meter repeater can be heard over a radius
of perhaps a few dozen miles, and the repeater control ops can shut
down the machine. But on HF, a single bad apple can be heard for
hundreds or thousands of miles, and there's no way to "shut down the
machine".

Please note, too, that the enforcement actions for on-air behavior are
almost entirely directed against those using voice modes. Enforcement
actions against hams using Morse code in the CW/data parts of the
bands are almost nonexistent. The disparity is far more than can be
explained by the relative popularity of the modes.

Out of time again. More to come in Part Three

73 de Jim, N2EY
  #303   Report Post  
Old February 20th 04, 10:47 PM
Dave Heil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Sohl wrote:

"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.


The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of
RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the
exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular
band segments.

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.


I'm not confused about who produced it and I'm not confused about your
support for it, though I believe such support is unwise.

Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion
contrary to yours.


Where was that written? You surely don't expect me to sit mute while
you lead the cheering section for something I believe to be wrong, do
you?

If you don't agree with me, I really don't
give a damn...


That much is evident. Let me quote you: "Seems you don't like anyone
giving an opinion contrary to yours".

...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.


We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current
regulations.

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.


If that is your view, then it applies equally to you non-refutations of
earlier statements. After all, you're the guy who used those exact
responses.

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?


The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians being
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.


That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing
to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making
the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering
down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole
shebang.

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.


I didn't agree with it when I read it and I don't agree with it when you
say you support it.

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?


I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be
able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't
deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to
justify it as being necessary any time.

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.


I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the
difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some
unintended consequences.

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.


Nice waffle.

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.


You must. You must. You support permitting those who have not passed
certain elements being granted a freebie upgrade. Such an upgrade is at
odds with 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!


That thing which looks like a duck is quacking and swimming.

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.


"If it feels good, do it".

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.


Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't
want it repeated.

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.


I fully understand the difference. It does not make me happy to believe
that your support of a "just this once" freebie constitutes a reduction
in requirements, I still see it happening.

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.


That has long been apparent.

Dave K8MN
  #304   Report Post  
Old February 20th 04, 10:49 PM
Dave Heil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

William wrote:

Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists.


You left out "his running dogs and lackeys".

Dave K8MN
  #305   Report Post  
Old February 21st 04, 01:05 AM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"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.


The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of
RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the
exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular
band segments.


If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time"
waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades...which then means
that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed,
constitute fully qualified hams for those license
classes.

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.


I'm not confused about who produced it and I'm not confused about your
support for it, though I believe such support is unwise.


Your free to hold whatever opinion you wish.

Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion
contrary to yours.


Where was that written? You surely don't expect me to sit mute while
you lead the cheering section for something I believe to be wrong, do
you?


Whatever floats your boat.

If you don't agree with me, I really don't
give a damn...


That much is evident. Let me quote you: "Seems you don't like anyone
giving an opinion contrary to yours".


Your point? That is my opinion of how I read your comments...which
is certainly my right.

...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.


We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current
regulations.


Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it
isn't in sync with what you think.

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.


If that is your view, then it applies equally to you non-refutations of
earlier statements. After all, you're the guy who used those exact
responses.


Whatever floats your boat.

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?


The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians being
beginners.


Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners....
but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old hands"
are allowed 1500 watts.

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.


That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing
to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making
the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering
down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole
shebang.


Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades.
If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down"
then you have a lapse of logic somewhere.

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.


I didn't agree with it when I read it and I don't agree with it when you
say you support it.


Fair enough.

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?


I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be
able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't
deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to
justify it as being necessary any time.


Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC
can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it
jeopardizes all future requirements. Governments often waive
criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering
special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over,
if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the
courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once
they should be permanently waived?

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.


I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the
difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some
unintended consequences.


And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government
as already noted.

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.


Nice waffle.


No waffle at all. THAT is my specific position and I do wish that
licensing privileges did have a 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.


You must. You must. You support permitting those who have not passed
certain elements being granted a freebie upgrade. Such an upgrade is at
odds with incentive licensing.


Yawn. Tellit to the FCC then. Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't
accept your argument. Seems to me I'm in good company then.

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!


That thing which looks like a duck is quacking and swimming.


Yawn. Your perceptions do not make it so.

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.


"If it feels good, do it".


Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision
to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car
with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on
that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions?
Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or
her you're taking a vaction day?

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.


Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't
want it repeated.


Repeat it all you want. I've neither the time nor inclination to
cut and paste it in here just to make you happy. If anyone else
is curious...go to www.arrl.org.

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.


I fully understand the difference. It does not make me happy to believe
that your support of a "just this once" freebie constitutes a reduction
in requirements, I still see it happening.


There's that Twilight Zone music again.

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.


That has long been apparent.


Cheers,
Bill K2UNK





  #306   Report Post  
Old February 21st 04, 02:41 AM
Dave Heil
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"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.


The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of
RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the
exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular
band segments.


If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time"
waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades


No kidding?

...which then means
that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed,
constitute fully qualified hams for those license
classes.


Yeah, I know that. I'm trying to keep that part of the ARRL proposal
from taking place.

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.


I'm not confused about who produced it and I'm not confused about your
support for it, though I believe such support is unwise.


Your free to hold whatever opinion you wish.


You're correct.

Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion
contrary to yours.


Where was that written? You surely don't expect me to sit mute while
you lead the cheering section for something I believe to be wrong, do
you?


Whatever floats your boat.


Non-response noted.

If you don't agree with me, I really don't
give a damn...


That much is evident. Let me quote you: "Seems you don't like anyone
giving an opinion contrary to yours".


Your point?


....went right over your head.

That is my opinion of how I read your comments...which
is certainly my right.


I'll hold in reserve my opinion of how you read my comments.

...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.


We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current
regulations.


Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it
isn't in sync with what you think.


That should have become obvious to you a little earlier.

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.


If that is your view, then it applies equally to you non-refutations of
earlier statements. After all, you're the guy who used those exact
responses.


Whatever floats your boat.


Non-response noted.

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?


The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians being
beginners.


Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners....


Did you think I wrote anything about such a thing?

but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old hands"
are allowed 1500 watts.


Yep. No one seems to have had a problem with that in the past.
Beginners aren't likely to run 1500 watts on 2m or 6m and "old hands"
are more likely to know what they're doing.

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.


That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing
to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making
the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering
down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole
shebang.


Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades.
If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down"
then you have a lapse of logic somewhere.


On the contrary. If such material is not needed by thousands and
thousands on a one-time basis, why would it need to be tested at all,
ever?

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.


I didn't agree with it when I read it and I don't agree with it when you
say you support it.


Fair enough.

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?


I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be
able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't
deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to
justify it as being necessary any time.


Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC
can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it
jeopardizes all future requirements.


Burp. I suspect that not many FCC staffers care one way or the other.
The FCC has long abdicated its responsibilities in enforcement, planning
and testing.

Governments often waive
criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering
special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over,
if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the
courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once
they should be permanently waived?


A freebie amateur radio licensing waiver is not a criminal matter nor is
it a fine. What is under discussion is amateur radio licensing and
whether the testing for certain classes of license are truly necessary
if they can be waived for thousands and thousands of people.

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.


I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the
difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some
unintended consequences.


And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government
as already noted.


You've written of quite disparate scenarios, having nothing to do with
the topic of discussion.


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.


Nice waffle.


No waffle at all.


I don't agree.

THAT is my specific position and I do wish that
licensing privileges did have a relationship to the additional knowledge
being tested for.


But, Bill, that is for the FCC to decide and they are the final arbiter
;-)

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.


You must. You must. You support permitting those who have not passed
certain elements being granted a freebie upgrade. Such an upgrade is at
odds with incentive licensing.


Yawn. Tellit to the FCC then.


Burp. I shall.

Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't
accept your argument.


The League's board isn't required to accept it, nor have I noted any
opposition. I can make my views to clear to my Director and to those
other Directors and Vice-Directors I know. I've already made my view
known to Dave Sumner.

Seems to me I'm in good company then.

Not necessarily.

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!


That thing which looks like a duck is quacking and swimming.


Yawn. Your perceptions do not make it so.


*Scratch* No, your quacking and swimming make it so.

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.


"If it feels good, do it".


Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision
to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car
with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on
that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions?
Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or
her you're taking a vaction day?


Izzat what we've had under discussion, taking a drive in an antique car
'cuz it's a nice day? How about calling your boss and telling him
you're taking a couple of days to mull over the ARRL's proposal for
revamping amateur radio testing?

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.


Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't
want it repeated.


Repeat it all you want.


You told me that there was no need to repeat it.

I've neither the time nor inclination to
cut and paste it in here just to make you happy.


As long as you support freebie upgrades, you aren't going to make me
happy.

If anyone else
is curious...go to www.arrl.org.

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.


I fully understand the difference. It does not make me happy to believe
that your support of a "just this once" freebie constitutes a reduction
in requirements, I still see it happening.


There's that Twilight Zone music again.


It only seems to be playing at your place. A freebie upgrade is a
reduction in requirements *punto*.

Dave K8MN
  #307   Report Post  
Old February 21st 04, 12:41 PM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message

(SNIP)
The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks

of
RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the
exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying

particular
band segments.


If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time"
waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades


No kidding?

...which then means
that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed,
constitute fully qualified hams for those license
classes.


Yeah, I know that. I'm trying to keep that part of the ARRL proposal
from taking place.


Go for it then. But if you fail in your effort, those that will
be "free" upgraded are qualified because they will have been
upgradedaccording to FCC rules at the time.

(SNIP)
...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.

We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current
regulations.


Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it
isn't in sync with what you think.


That should have become obvious to you a little earlier.


It has never been unclear to me.

(SNIP)
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?

The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all
Technicians bbeing beginners.


Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners....


Did you think I wrote anything about such a thing?


YOU said: "Also, what makes you (me) assume ALL
technicians are beginners?" I made no such assumption,
nor did I suggest it in what I wrote previously.

but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old

hands"
are allowed 1500 watts.


Yep. No one seems to have had a problem with that in the past.
Beginners aren't likely to run 1500 watts on 2m or 6m and
"old hands" are more likely to know what they're doing.


You still ignore thefact that beginners CAN run 1500 watts.

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.

That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing
to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and

making
the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering
down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole
shebang.


Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades.
If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down"
then you have a lapse of logic somewhere.


On the contrary. If such material is not needed by thousands and
thousands on a one-time basis, why would it need to be tested at all,
ever?


You still ignore the reality of non-relationship of
privileges vs license class. The ONLY logic behind
the current system is Incentive Licensing.

(SNIP)
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?

I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not

be
able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't
deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult

to
justify it as being necessary any time.


Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC
can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it
jeopardizes all future requirements.


Burp. I suspect that not many FCC staffers care one way or the other.
The FCC has long abdicated its responsibilities in enforcement, planning
and testing.


Please do comment to that effect in your FCC filing when
you do so.

Governments often waive
criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering
special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over,
if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the
courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once
they should be permanently waived?


A freebie amateur radio licensing waiver is not a criminal matter nor is
it a fine.


So how come many states have raised driver's license
ages for teenagers and not had any problems. If a
16 year old was qualified to drive a few years ago, why
can't they now? The point is that requirements can and
do change for various things.

What is under discussion is amateur radio licensing and
whether the testing for certain classes of license are truly necessary
if they can be waived for thousands and thousands of people.


Testing for US hams has changed many times. When
Generals LOST privileges in 1968, no one raised a legal
argument that if a General was qualified in 1965 to
operate on all allowed Amateur spectrum, that the
same General should be legally qualified to do so after
Incentive licensing.

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.

I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the
difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some
unintended consequences.


And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government
as already noted.


You've written of quite disparate scenarios, having nothing to do with
the topic of discussion.


There are many analogies: Raised the drinking age, raised
the smoking age, driver's license age, waiving tax penalties,
waiving of illegal alien penalties. Not one situation has been
rolled back to the "waived" condition after reinstatement
of the waived requirements, laws or regulations. Legally,
it isn't an issue.

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.

Nice waffle.


No waffle at all.


I don't agree.


I don't care.

THAT is my specific position and I do wish that
licensing privileges did have a relationship to the additional knowledge
being tested for.


But, Bill, that is for the FCC to decide and they are the final arbiter
;-)


Absolutely correct. It is, in the end, the FCC's decision.
Nothing I have said, nothing I wish, makes it any different.
I can and will add my voice to those that comment to the
FCC as to my preferences.

(SNIP)
Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't
accept your argument.


The League's board isn't required to accept it, nor have I noted any
opposition. I can make my views to clear to my Director and to those
other Directors and Vice-Directors I know. I've already made my view
known to Dave Sumner.

Seems to me I'm in good company then.

Not necessarily.


You are entitled to your opinion.


(SNIP)

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Is that how you decide what to believe?

Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances.

"If it feels good, do it".


Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision
to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car
with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on
that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions?
Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or
her you're taking a vaction day?


Izzat what we've had under discussion, taking a drive in an antique car
'cuz it's a nice day? How about calling your boss and telling him
you're taking a couple of days to mull over the ARRL's proposal for
revamping amateur radio testing?


I could do that.

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.

Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't
want it repeated.


Repeat it all you want.


You told me that there was no need to repeat it.


I said I wasn't going to repeat it. You can do it all
you want.

I've neither the time nor inclination to
cut and paste it in here just to make you happy.


As long as you support freebie upgrades, you aren't going to make me
happy.


Then prepare to be unhappy for now.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK



  #308   Report Post  
Old February 21st 04, 05:52 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Leo
writes:

On 11 Feb 2004 00:00:18 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


In article , Leo


writes:


On 10 Feb 2004 09:52:50 -0800,
(N2EY) wrote:

Without the ARRL, do you think we'd still have amateur radio? I don't.

Um, the rest of the planet does not have the ARRL, and amateur radio
is still going strong there.....


In large part that's because of US influence at the international level.
Also the IARU, which was founded by guess who?


Perhaps, but are there specific historical facts which support that
theory?


Yep. Maxim, Mrs. Maxim (she spoke fluent French, the language used in the
conferences back then) Ken Warner and several other ARRL folks went to the
Paris conferences of 1924, 1925 and 1927 to push for the very existence of
amateur radio. Amateur radio did not actually exist by international treaty
until 1927 - hams were simply a subset of various countries' nongovernment
radio services.

The ARRL was a founding member of IARU - not the only founding
member....


True - but it was an ARRL idea.

Except for Japanese 4th class licensees, how many hams are there in the rest
of the planet?


Well, my trusty EuroCall 2003 CD lists 276,446 callsigns in Europe
alone - even if a couple of guys died, there's probably more than that
now. I don't have figures for Asia, Africa, Oceania or the rest of
the Americas (except that there's around 56,000 or so up here...).


Once you get outside of Europe, North America, the British Commonwealth and
Japan, there aren't many of us. China has more than a billion people - and how
many hams? A few thousand, maybe.

Quite a few, anyway! DX wouldn't be the same without 'em.....

That's a lot of real estate, covering some 150 or so countries, give
or take a few....

Right. And there are 682,000 US hams, which is more than twice as many as in
all of densely populated Europe.

You might want to check out what the rest of the world wanted to do to
amateur radio in the 1920s at the Paris conferences....


Would you have a link handy for that one?


No, but do a search for W2XOY's "Wayback Machine".

And, did the ARRL actually exert that much influence over the other
members? As there is one IARU zone for each ITU zone, I'd expect that
they would have infinitely more say in the Zone 2 group than the
others...they may have been founders of the IARU in 1925, but they
didn't own it - did they?


ARRL organized IARU. The zone thing came later.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo



  #309   Report Post  
Old February 21st 04, 08:42 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

William wrote:

Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists.


You left out "his running dogs and lackeys".

Dave K8MN


Incorrect...YOU are here...

LHA / WMD
  #310   Report Post  
Old February 21st 04, 11:20 PM
William
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message

(SNIP)
The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks

of
RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the
exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying

particular
band segments.

If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time"
waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades


No kidding?

...which then means
that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed,
constitute fully qualified hams for those license
classes.


Yeah, I know that. I'm trying to keep that part of the ARRL proposal
from taking place.


Go for it then. But if you fail in your effort, those that will
be "free" upgraded are qualified because they will have been
upgradedaccording to FCC rules at the time.

(SNIP)
...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.

We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current
regulations.

Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it
isn't in sync with what you think.


That should have become obvious to you a little earlier.


It has never been unclear to me.

(SNIP)
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?

The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all
Technicians bbeing beginners.

Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners....


Did you think I wrote anything about such a thing?


YOU said: "Also, what makes you (me) assume ALL
technicians are beginners?" I made no such assumption,
nor did I suggest it in what I wrote previously.

but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old

hands"
are allowed 1500 watts.


Yep. No one seems to have had a problem with that in the past.
Beginners aren't likely to run 1500 watts on 2m or 6m and
"old hands" are more likely to know what they're doing.


You still ignore thefact that beginners CAN run 1500 watts.

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.

That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing
to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and

making
the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering
down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole
shebang.

Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades.
If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down"
then you have a lapse of logic somewhere.


On the contrary. If such material is not needed by thousands and
thousands on a one-time basis, why would it need to be tested at all,
ever?


You still ignore the reality of non-relationship of
privileges vs license class. The ONLY logic behind
the current system is Incentive Licensing.

(SNIP)
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?

I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not

be
able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't
deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult

to
justify it as being necessary any time.

Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC
can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it
jeopardizes all future requirements.


Burp. I suspect that not many FCC staffers care one way or the other.
The FCC has long abdicated its responsibilities in enforcement, planning
and testing.


Please do comment to that effect in your FCC filing when
you do so.

Governments often waive
criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering
special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over,
if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the
courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once
they should be permanently waived?


A freebie amateur radio licensing waiver is not a criminal matter nor is
it a fine.


So how come many states have raised driver's license
ages for teenagers and not had any problems. If a
16 year old was qualified to drive a few years ago, why
can't they now? The point is that requirements can and
do change for various things.

What is under discussion is amateur radio licensing and
whether the testing for certain classes of license are truly necessary
if they can be waived for thousands and thousands of people.


Testing for US hams has changed many times. When
Generals LOST privileges in 1968, no one raised a legal
argument that if a General was qualified in 1965 to
operate on all allowed Amateur spectrum, that the
same General should be legally qualified to do so after
Incentive licensing.

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.

I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the
difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some
unintended consequences.

And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government
as already noted.


You've written of quite disparate scenarios, having nothing to do with
the topic of discussion.


There are many analogies: Raised the drinking age, raised
the smoking age, driver's license age, waiving tax penalties,
waiving of illegal alien penalties. Not one situation has been
rolled back to the "waived" condition after reinstatement
of the waived requirements, laws or regulations. Legally,
it isn't an issue.

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.

Nice waffle.

No waffle at all.


I don't agree.


I don't care.

THAT is my specific position and I do wish that
licensing privileges did have a relationship to the additional knowledge
being tested for.


But, Bill, that is for the FCC to decide and they are the final arbiter
;-)


Absolutely correct. It is, in the end, the FCC's decision.
Nothing I have said, nothing I wish, makes it any different.
I can and will add my voice to those that comment to the
FCC as to my preferences.

(SNIP)
Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't
accept your argument.


The League's board isn't required to accept it, nor have I noted any
opposition. I can make my views to clear to my Director and to those
other Directors and Vice-Directors I know. I've already made my view
known to Dave Sumner.

Seems to me I'm in good company then.

Not necessarily.


You are entitled to your opinion.


(SNIP)

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Is that how you decide what to believe?

Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances.

"If it feels good, do it".

Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision
to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car
with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on
that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions?
Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or
her you're taking a vaction day?


Izzat what we've had under discussion, taking a drive in an antique car
'cuz it's a nice day? How about calling your boss and telling him
you're taking a couple of days to mull over the ARRL's proposal for
revamping amateur radio testing?


I could do that.

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.

Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't
want it repeated.

Repeat it all you want.


You told me that there was no need to repeat it.


I said I wasn't going to repeat it. You can do it all
you want.

I've neither the time nor inclination to
cut and paste it in here just to make you happy.


As long as you support freebie upgrades, you aren't going to make me
happy.


Then prepare to be unhappy for now.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


I'm trying to recall any happy moment that that Dave has shared with us on rrap.
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 02:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017