|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Dave Heil wrote: It happens that HPM did go to Washington for the stated purpose. ARRL says that because it is factual. What have you done for amateur radio, Leonard? Provide a noise floor in here? 8^) No, an overall data/information "floor" to show that "facts" are not solely those of the selective-editing of facts (removal of information that is not in favor of the ARRL) from their "documentation." The "noise floor" as you put it has already been raised to astronomical heights by the arrogant, uncompromising PCTAs who stoutly insist on the old ways such as the absolute necessity of testing for morse code in this new millennium of technological progress. Independent thought is the bane of the fraternalists, the lifestylers, those who inhabit an imaginary world of their entire reason for being centered around the mighty morse machismo of seven decades ago. If you have some kind of problem with "noise," then I would suggest you have this newsgroup CLOSED, moderated to let only the established thought rule the content. See Paul Schleck about having the newsgroup closed and inaccessible to anyone but those with the correct papers, checked at the door. LHA / WMD |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: We are not saying that the ARRL was the only thing that made this happen. Yes you are. The evidence is the constant evangelical beliefs in the ARRL doing it all for hams in the USA. Simply that they were a significant player in the US and that the US was a significant player in the world. ARRL was a relative late-comer in national amateur radio organizations in the USA. They were incorporated in 1914. The very first, and still existing radio club in the USA is the Radio Club of America, organized in 1909. Without the ARRL, US amateurs would have had a much tougher time. You are proposing a "what if" situation in an alternate universe. You have absolutely no verification of what you said above. It is your personal opinion and nothing more. If the US amateur community had been seriously weakened, it would have affect to some degree the amateur community in the rest of the world. Probably so but do not elevate the ARRL to some kind of divine order of things. Remember that other organizations were already around before the ARRL and were remarking to the U.S. federal government concerning amateur radio. Many, many more citizens of the USA were involved in this new "radio" between 1909 and 1914 and that ALL, amateurs included, had very little technological knowledge or operational experience with "radio." You cannot believably "predict" these alternate universe conditions of then anymore than you can "predict" or even "know what will happen" due to regulation changes. LHA / WMD |
In article , Leo
writes: What about the input from nonhams? Or is commentary limited to those already licensed? As above, the post-WRC 03 changes would affect only those currently engaged in the hobby - I believe that no non-ham input has been requested at this time. The code test requirements very much affect the "non-hams." Those that do not care for any morse code test or those that cannot do any sufficient morse would be affected in that they would not bother trying to get a license grant. Radio amateurs who have already achieved the top "upgrade" license class in their country would NOT be affected in their privileges. Their only "affect" is a psychological disturbance due to newcomers not having to do exactly as they did many years ago. I don't know that much about Industry Canada's charter in Canadian law but the FCC is NOT required to provide psychological sustenance to already-licensed radio amateurs. At present, the majority expressed opinions of radio amateurs both in here and elsewhere treat the hobby activity of amateur radio as a glorified fraternal order insofar as requirements in law are concerned. The FCC is not chartered as a fraternal order, is merely a radio regulating agency. Amateur radio is not a vital need or concern for any nation's security or safety or well-being, regardless of the emotional spins turning around from existing amateur fraternal orders. It is a fun hobby, a relaxing (to most) avocation involving radio activity. Some poor souls cannot be satisfied with anything but a fantasy mindset of ham radio as an entire raison d'etre, a reason for existance. Those mentalities will never be satisfied, cannot compromise in anything unless all test for and be granted licenses exactly as they had to endure once upon a time. They are outraged, fed up, cannot take it anymore the minute anyone puts forth a change in regulations they do not like. If ALL the commentary on new regulations come only from already- licensed amateurs, then this is NOT adhering to good democratic principles of federal rule. It is merely going by very long established tradition of the insular fraternal order ruling only itself by itself. That is fine for fraternal orders...except no amateur radio service in any country that I'm familiar with requires their governments to regulate amateur radio as or by fraternal order principles. LHA / WMD |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Dave Heil wrote: It happens that HPM did go to Washington for the stated purpose. ARRL says that because it is factual. What have you done for amateur radio, Leonard? Provide a noise floor in here? 8^) No, an overall data/information "floor" to show that "facts" are not solely those of the selective-editing of facts (removal of information that is not in favor of the ARRL) from their "documentation." The "noise floor" as you put it has already been raised to astronomical heights by the arrogant, uncompromising PCTAs who stoutly insist on the old ways such as the absolute necessity of testing for morse code in this new millennium of technological progress. Just as an aside to you, Len: I find you arrogant and uncompromising. No one here can possibly know as much or have done as much as you. You leave no room for compromise on the issue of morse testing, having only its abolition as your desired end result. Independent thought is the bane of the fraternalists, the lifestylers, those who inhabit an imaginary world of their entire reason for being centered around the mighty morse machismo of seven decades ago. Talk about your imaginary worlds! Aren't you the guy who has appointed himself an advocate for removal of morse testing in the amateur radio service in which you are not a participant. Give my best to the rest of the Mitty clan, Walter. What's it to you, Len? You aren't involved. Dave K8MN |
In article , Leo
writes: On 14 Feb 2004 00:05:49 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Leo writes: What about the input from nonhams? Or is commentary limited to those already licensed? As above, the post-WRC 03 changes would affect only those currently engaged in the hobby - I believe that no non-ham input has been requested at this time. The code test requirements very much affect the "non-hams." Those that do not care for any morse code test or those that cannot do any sufficient morse would be affected in that they would not bother trying to get a license grant. Good point. I was thinking more of the impact of removing code (per the WRC-03 decision) not having a (negative) impact. You are correct, there would be an impact on non-hams should IC choose to retain code, even though no longer required...I missed that possibility! I should have written "non-hams considering getting a license." There are a couple of newsgroupies in here who demand adoration and dedication to the 'service' which they equate to 'interest.' :-) Few radio amateurs consider the whole of amateur radio. Their activity is intensely personal, one-on-one with their radio. If using morse then they are devoid of normal human clues to the other contact's whole personality...no visuals, no voice tone, no clues to gender, no real sense of emotion of the other. Voice mode is better with normal voice clues to the other party. During all contacts on the radio they remain in a relatively isolated spectral bandwidth even if netted with several others. There is sufficiently long time for the mind to imagine many things about the 'service,' to expand far from its reality into realms of fantasy greatness. The major identification with the entirety of any national radio activity is publications of a special-interest nature. To a rather large extent in the USA, the ARRL uses their text to build upon the imagination of its readers, to identify with it. That lends reinforcement of the imaginary grouping, provides a "sense of belonging" otherwise not happening in radio use or even in a home workshop by themselves building something. As a result of this insular activity having little in the way of regular human interaction with others, the individual amateur will use their own experiences in the hobby as a basis of what others are expected to do. The self-identification of personal desire with what should be (in their minds) for others does not make a reasonable consideration of future regulations that affect many, many others, including those not yet licensed in amateur radio. What adds to the unreasonableness is the ignorance of what other radio services are doing and there being a great number of different radio 'service' people using, maintaining, designing non-amateur radios. The idea that non-amateurs "not understanding" amateur radio is false and little more than an attempt at rationalization of their own ignorance. All radios work by the same laws of physics. Human made legislation does not change the way a 'service's' radio works or that a non-amateur entering amateur radio be considered a "beginner." [I am certain there are Canadians as unreasonable as our esteamed robustness, Heil] 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. Radio amateurs who have already achieved the top "upgrade" license class in their country would NOT be affected in their privileges. Their only "affect" is a psychological disturbance due to newcomers not having to do exactly as they did many years ago. True as well. Those who achieved their license under a more rigorous testing scheme will naturally see any reduction in testing requirements as an erosion of standards, and will be offended by it. That is simple human nature. Most affected by this are the folks at the top level of licensing. Which makes sense - they put in the greatest effort under the old system. Add to that the uncertainty of understanding modern radio, other than the emotionally-loaded advertisements for amateur radio equipment and to use that to be one up on their fellows. That "simple human nature" aspect can alienate them in the eyes of others. Some of those do not profess to care citing their long tenure and alleged self-worthiness. Those are just trying to put "greatness" in the hobby activity by using themselves as top-level role models. I don't know that much about Industry Canada's charter in Canadian law but the FCC is NOT required to provide psychological sustenance to already-licensed radio amateurs. Exactly the same in this regard. They regulate, not placate.... Placation is for the membership organizations. In the USA the ARRL tries to pose as a second-level "government." They are not but decades of propaganda have created a large following of Believers. It works very well for the ARRL; the propaganda is self-serving survival activity but Believers in the league will not believe they have been brainwashed. :-) At present, the majority expressed opinions of radio amateurs both in here and elsewhere treat the hobby activity of amateur radio as a glorified fraternal order insofar as requirements in law are concerned. The FCC is not chartered as a fraternal order, is merely a radio regulating agency. Amateur radio is not a vital need or concern for any nation's security or safety or well-being, regardless of the emotional spins turning around from existing amateur fraternal orders. It is a fun hobby, a relaxing (to most) avocation involving radio activity. Some poor souls cannot be satisfied with anything but a fantasy mindset of ham radio as an entire raison d'etre, a reason for existance. Those mentalities will never be satisfied, cannot compromise in anything unless all test for and be granted licenses exactly as they had to endure once upon a time. They are outraged, fed up, cannot take it anymore the minute anyone puts forth a change in regulations they do not like. Yup - there is clearly a notion that everyone who is not subjected to the same rigorous testing as they were years ago is somehow getting a free ride. What isn't being adequately taken in to account are the underlying reasons for simplification, elimination or change of the various test elements. Much of that resentment is strictly personal, about themselves. Such clouds judgement on what might be good for all, especially those not yet licensed. What has been stable, or relatively so over the years is known, familiar. Such stability can be comforting. Change, newness is to be avoided since an unknown condition can cause much anxiety. Then too, personal rank, status, title might lessen if regulations change to remove some of that. I believe that IC was simply giving the amateur community first chance to voice their opinion - not from the perspective of a closed shop per se, but because they wanted to hear the opinions of those currently involved in the hobby before they decided what to do next. I'm no expert in the inner workings of the government here, but I believe that NPRM is the next step, and public comment is requested at that stage. I see little wrong with that to get an INITIAL opinion by any regulator. I see lots wrong with it if the regulators do not hear from others prior to decisions. Remember, with no incentive licensing scheme here, the perception of a 'class structure' of a hierarchical nature is not nearly as prevalent. Most of the folks I have talked to welcome the elimination of code testing - after all, it isn;t code that is being eliminated, just the mandatory practical test - which only survived as far as 2003 because of the ITU requirements. In the poll submitted from the amateur community to IC, almost two thirds of the lecensed amateurs here want code testing dropped from our requirements! Approximately the opposite of the ARRL numbers bandied about here.... The decades of propaganda by the ARRL is showing up in the un- swerving Belief that the old ways are still supposed to be best. Part of that (on the part of ARRL) has been the catering to the insularity of amateurs, of keeping the status as much quo as possible so as not to upset the old-time amateur membership. BTW, a question - does the FCC operate based entirely upon democratic principles? Fairly well. Everything they receive in text is put on public view, even the "sunshine" commentary on NOI 03-104, the FCC thing on BPL. "Sunshine" things are for public viewing but are not supposed to be used by FCC on regulatory matters. [I have no idea how the name came to be] On the BPL NOI, of 5,199 documents, 8 are in the "sunshine" category. One of those 8 is from a Canadian. :-) The FCC openly invites the public to communicate...and they get a LOT of communications about all of USA civil radio. That includes letters and other communications from federal elected officers who are forwarding complaints from their constituents to the FCC. It is all out in the open except for a very few legal matters, almost all legal action documentation which does not concern regulatory legislation. By the way, it is quite possible that the FCC was all for BPL from the first. The NOI or Notice of Inquiry was NOT about whether or not the service should exist...the Notice Of Inquiry was for the purposes of determining what the standards of RFI should be. Almost none of the 5,199 documents submitted any such standards or levels. :-) All were caught up in a wildfire confligration of opinion saying "BPL is BAD!" The FCC has had an intenal program to improve rural America's tie to the Internet. BPL would fit right in with that noble goal. Connection to the Internet over existing power lines involves very, very little additional cost to anyone. Almost no one has bothered to think of that side of the equation. From what I'm hearing on the group, specifically WRT incentive licensing several years ago, they seemed to ignore the will of the majority and come up with something on their own.....which seems to have annoyed everyone. Oh well, at least they got everyone to agree on something! Sigh. More human nature. Since certain sides didn't get their way, they quaff the juice of fermented spoiled grapes...they whine before the time. :-) Many demand that the "majority" of anything do as they do or that what they do IS what the "majority" does. They are absolutely, poselutely for-sure knowing such, cannot be considered otherwise. The caste system of the "IL" or Incentive Licensing definitely exists in USA amateur radio and continues today. It fits to a T the notion of (or desire of) some who NEED some way to show they are "better than others" through some sort of federal whatsis. Now that Internet has robbed much of the ARRL's monopoly on communications direct with the FCC, the FCC might be seeing a different picture of what the feelings are in USA amateur radio. ARRL still doesn't have more than a quarter of all USA licensees as members. They were always a minority group but had sufficent income from publication profits to afford legal counsel and a lobbying company in Washington, DC. At one time back the FCC just rubber-stamped what the ARRL wanted. Not so anymore. LHA / WMD |
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 14 Feb 2004 00:05:49 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Leo writes: I should have written "non-hams considering getting a license." There are a couple of newsgroupies in here who demand adoration and dedication to the 'service' which they equate to 'interest.' :-) You really need to be more careful in your reading. Neither adoration nor dedication to the ARS has been deemed necessary, nor has any "demand" (one of your favorite words) been made. In your case, you've written of "interest" a number of times but have never quite been interested enough over the course of decades, to have actually taken an amateur radio exam. Few radio amateurs consider the whole of amateur radio. There's Len's false premise #1. Their activity is intensely personal, one-on-one with their radio. If using morse then they are devoid of normal human clues to the other contact's whole personality...no visuals, no voice tone, no clues to gender, no real sense of emotion of the other. That's no different from newsgroup posts, e-mails or even a letter. Voice mode is better with normal voice clues to the other party. I'd have to agree. If you aren't using a voice mode, you certainly aren't going to have any "voice clues". During all contacts on the radio they remain in a relatively isolated spectral bandwidth even if netted with several others. There is sufficiently long time for the mind to imagine many things about the 'service,' to expand far from its reality into realms of fantasy greatness. I know there must be a point here somewhere. Radio amateurs may use any mode authorized them. There are voice modes. There are modes which lack "voice clues". Those would include any keyboard mode as well as morse. Does your line about "fantasy greatness" come from your personal feelings of fantasy greatness? The major identification with the entirety of any national radio activity is publications of a special-interest nature. To a rather large extent in the USA, the ARRL uses their text to build upon the imagination of its readers, to identify with it. I see. Then National Geographic, Gun Digest, Southern Living, Gourmet, Field and Stream do the same. That lends reinforcement of the imaginary grouping, provides a "sense of belonging" otherwise not happening in radio use or even in a home workshop by themselves building something. Imaginary grouping? It isn't imaginary, Leonard. Being an amateur radio operator and belonging to the ARRL are very, very real. The sense of belonging comes from actually belonging. One can be as involved in the goings on or as uninvolved as one chooses. As a result of this insular activity having little in the way of regular human interaction with others, the individual amateur will use their own experiences in the hobby as a basis of what others are expected to do. Now we have Len's false premise #2. In reality, amateur radio is as much about interacting with others as anything else. Hams chew the rag on the air, via letters, on the telephone and on the internet. The self-identification of personal desire with what should be (in their minds) for others does not make a reasonable consideration of future regulations that affect many, many others, including those not yet licensed in amateur radio. Len's false premise #3. Any changes in amateur radio regulations have an effect on both those desiring entry into amateur radio and those currently licensed in amateur radio. What adds to the unreasonableness is the ignorance of what other radio services are doing and there being a great number of different radio 'service' people using, maintaining, designing non-amateur radios. It certainly isn't clear what is meant by the statement above. What other services do or don't do has little to do with what radio amateurs do or don't do. That's probably one of the reasons that there are *different* radio services. What is good for some point-to-point, channelized service isn't necessarily good for amateur radio. 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. 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. All radios work by the same laws of physics. All of everything seems to work by the same laws of physics as physics are now understood. Human made legislation does not change the way a 'service's' radio works... Of course not. Legislation regulates how they may or may not be used and where they may or may not be used. ...or that a non-amateur entering amateur radio be considered a "beginner." Now that you've seen your sentence broken in half, does it occur that it could use some work? A non-radio amateur who enters amateur radio is always going to be a beginner in amateur radio just as a non-painter who starts painting is a beginner in painting. Those who've just started driving taxicabs are beginners at driving a cab. Why not write what you really mean: that it chafes you to be thought of as a beginner. [I am certain there are Canadians as unreasonable as our esteamed robustness, Heil] Oh, you mean those who don't agree with you and who might agree with me? That's very likely. In fact, it is very likely that are quite a few of 'em. 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. It is tough to keep a running tally on the number of false premises. I think this one is #4. You'd have no idea of whether this happens in reality. Radio magazines are full of articles and adverts featuring new devices, new equipment and new ideas. A lot of what radio amateurs discuss is new devices, new equipment and new ideas. 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. There's a masterful re-statment of the obvious! That is true of all electronics-related fields of work. It is true of many fields of endeavor. It doesn't make your previous statement correct. 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. Let's see, that's false premise #5, I believe. I've encountered no such thinking. Was your personal best in radio those days at ADA? Those are days you keep bringing up here? Others of the modern day are little interested in meeting antiquated standards of entering amateur radio. You mean *you* aren't interested in passing a morse code exam. Radio amateurs who have already achieved the top "upgrade" license class in their country would NOT be affected in their privileges. Their only "affect" is a psychological disturbance due to newcomers not having to do exactly as they did many years ago. True as well. Those who achieved their license under a more rigorous testing scheme will naturally see any reduction in testing requirements as an erosion of standards, and will be offended by it. That is simple human nature. Most affected by this are the folks at the top level of licensing. Which makes sense - they put in the greatest effort under the old system. Add to that the uncertainty of understanding modern radio, other than the emotionally-loaded advertisements for amateur radio equipment and to use that to be one up on their fellows. Why you condescending windbag! Where do you get the idea that no one but you can possibly understand modern radio? How did you get the idea that someone would only want the best equipment in order to play a game of one-upmanship? Did it ever occur to you that someone would want the best equipment because it can do the job better than something which isn't as good? It must chafe you to realize that someone obtains the latest transceiver, filled with all sorts of DSP tools and then uses those tools to assist in hearing a weak morse signal on a static-filled hunk of medium wave spectrum. That "simple human nature" aspect can alienate them in the eyes of others. Some of those do not profess to care citing their long tenure and alleged self-worthiness. Those are just trying to put "greatness" in the hobby activity by using themselves as top-level role models. I've observed "simple human nature" here when someone proclaims himself an advocate for regulation change in an activity in which he has no involvement. I've observed it in one who brings up his military service and insults the military service of others. Such "simple human nature" comes up when someone talks of his PROFESSIONAL credentials and accomplishments and insults the professional credentials and accomplishments of others. Do you have any idea of who I mean? It might be a guy who has little worthiness (self or otherwise), a guy who has no tenure, a guy who has no "greatness" and a guy who has little time to develop himself into any kind of role model within amateur radio. If you'd like to talk reality, Len, here's some for you: You aren't a radio amateur. You have no involvement in amateur radio. Exactly the same in this regard. They regulate, not placate.... Placation is for the membership organizations. In the USA the ARRL tries to pose as a second-level "government." Len's false premise #6. It is simply an Andersonian ploy to smear the ARRL with false accusations. Leonard, you are as involved in the affairs of the ARRL as you are with amateur radio. They are not but decades of propaganda have created a large following of Believers. It works very well for the ARRL; the propaganda is self-serving survival activity but Believers in the league will not believe they have been brainwashed. :-) In what do you believe, Leonard? Do you believe in amateur radio? Do you believe you'll ever be a participant in amateur radio? Do you believe that Dennis Kucinich has more support for his ideas than you for yours? Yup - there is clearly a notion that everyone who is not subjected to the same rigorous testing as they were years ago is somehow getting a free ride. What isn't being adequately taken in to account are the underlying reasons for simplification, elimination or change of the various test elements. Much of that resentment is strictly personal, about themselves. How much of your obvious resentment of radio amateurs and the ARRL is strictly personal--about you? Such clouds judgement on what might be good for all, especially those not yet licensed. As one who is not yet licensed, do you believe your judgment on amateur radio issues might be clouded by your personal feelings? What has been stable, or relatively so over the years is known, familiar. Such stability can be comforting. Change, newness is to be avoided since an unknown condition can cause much anxiety. Then too, personal rank, status, title might lessen if regulations change to remove some of that. You can take comfort in the known, Len. You're still not a radio amateur. You have nothing to do with the changes, lack of them, rank, status, titles within amateur radio. I believe that IC was simply giving the amateur community first chance to voice their opinion - not from the perspective of a closed shop per se, but because they wanted to hear the opinions of those currently involved in the hobby before they decided what to do next. I'm no expert in the inner workings of the government here, but I believe that NPRM is the next step, and public comment is requested at that stage. I see little wrong with that to get an INITIAL opinion by any regulator. I see lots wrong with it if the regulators do not hear from others prior to decisions. You've been heard from. Regulators are not mandated to take positive action on your views. Remember, with no incentive licensing scheme here, the perception of a 'class structure' of a hierarchical nature is not nearly as prevalent. Most of the folks I have talked to welcome the elimination of code testing - after all, it isn;t code that is being eliminated, just the mandatory practical test - which only survived as far as 2003 because of the ITU requirements. In the poll submitted from the amateur community to IC, almost two thirds of the lecensed amateurs here want code testing dropped from our requirements! Approximately the opposite of the ARRL numbers bandied about here.... The decades of propaganda by the ARRL is showing up in the un- swerving Belief that the old ways are still supposed to be best. Part of that (on the part of ARRL) has been the catering to the insularity of amateurs, of keeping the status as much quo as possible so as not to upset the old-time amateur membership. I think you may have the cart before the horse. Quite a number of long time League members support continued morse testing. It is in the ARRL's best interest to consider the views of its core membership, those who provide money, while doing a delicate balancing act in trying to attract new members. The League does cater to the insularity of radio amateurs. Catering to the insularity of radio fields is left to other organizations which don't want to upset their core memberships. By the way, it is quite possible that the FCC was all for BPL from the first. Possible? That fact was impossible to miss. It took surgeons several hours to remove Kathleen Abernathy's shoe from her yap. The NOI or Notice of Inquiry was NOT about whether or not the service should exist...the Notice Of Inquiry was for the purposes of determining what the standards of RFI should be. Almost none of the 5,199 documents submitted any such standards or levels. :-) All were caught up in a wildfire confligration of opinion saying "BPL is BAD!" That all took place, no doubt, because BPL at HF and the lower VHF frequencies is BAD. The FCC has had an intenal program to improve rural America's tie to the Internet. BPL would fit right in with that noble goal. Connection to the Internet over existing power lines involves very, very little additional cost to anyone. Almost no one has bothered to think of that side of the equation. Lots of people have considered that side. Cost isn't everything. The FCC denied amateurs a slice of LF spectrum based largely upon the idea that such operation (at very low power) could interfere with electric company low level communications via the power grid. The law of reciprocity hasn't been repealed. From what I'm hearing on the group, specifically WRT incentive licensing several years ago, they seemed to ignore the will of the majority and come up with something on their own.....which seems to have annoyed everyone. Oh well, at least they got everyone to agree on something! Sigh. More human nature. Since certain sides didn't get their way, they quaff the juice of fermented spoiled grapes...they whine before the time. :-) Are you writing of your personal feelings that the FCC has not yet done away with morse testing in amateur radio or are you writing of your bitterness that you've not yet attained that "Extra right out of the box" or any other amateur radio license? Many demand that the "majority" of anything do as they do or that what they do IS what the "majority" does. They are absolutely, poselutely for-sure knowing such, cannot be considered otherwise. You've been DEMANDING that radio amateurs do as you wish. You aren't even involved. Why the feelings that you know what is right for amateur radio? Why can't you consider otherwise? The caste system of the "IL" or Incentive Licensing definitely exists in USA amateur radio and continues today. It fits to a T the notion of (or desire of) some who NEED some way to show they are "better than others" through some sort of federal whatsis. Now that Internet has robbed much of the ARRL's monopoly on communications direct with the FCC, the FCC might be seeing a different picture of what the feelings are in USA amateur radio. Don't let the actuality of how incentive licensing came to be detract from a wild-eyed rant, Len. ARRL still doesn't have more than a quarter of all USA licensees as members. They were always a minority group but had sufficent income from publication profits to afford legal counsel and a lobbying company in Washington, DC. At one time back the FCC just rubber-stamped what the ARRL wanted. Not so anymore. Your disingenuous side shines brightly, Len. The ARRL "minority" has been for decades, the largest organization of radio amateurs by an enormous margin. Rubber stamp this. Dave K8MN |
|
"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] If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the required tests. Particularly the *written* tests. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. You're the one willing to share with "a few".... You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know [expletive deleted] well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ... I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I don't know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly, I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing for over 400,000 US hams And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction in the **WRITTEN** test requirements. I'm not ... 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. 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. 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. 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. 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" in 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. Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. 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. 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? Ultimately the FCC will decide. 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. 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. As for the existing novices...that is now down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you suggest. Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to actually take (or study for) the General. Life's a bitch and then we die. Same for Advanceds and the Extra. The arte at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically low already. your arguments are just plain lame How? Do you think people won't do this? Some will, but it won't be significant. 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. 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. Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests. Bill K2UNK |
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? 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? 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? 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? 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. 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. I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. 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. |
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] If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the required tests. Particularly the *written* tests. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. You're the one willing to share with "a few".... You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know [expletive deleted] well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ... I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I don't know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly, I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing for over 400,000 US hams And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction in the **WRITTEN** test requirements. I'm not ... 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? 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. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. 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" in 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? Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? 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? 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. 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. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? 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. 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. 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. 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. Same for Advanceds and the Extra. The arte 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.... 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? 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. 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. Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests. That makes what - a dozen countries? I wonder what HK's written test requirements are..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
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] If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the required tests. Particularly the *written* tests. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. You're the one willing to share with "a few".... You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know [expletive deleted] well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ... I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I don't know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly, I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing for over 400,000 US hams And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction in the **WRITTEN** test requirements. I'm not ... 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? 'tisn't, Jim. 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. On the contrary, I believe that they DO support permanent reductions of the written requirements. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. 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? 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. ahem.... 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. But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? 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. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. 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 Whhhoooaaaahhhh! And there my friend is the first shot in the next volley that will attempt to permanently reduce the written requirements! "The difference betweent the Tech and General written tests is not that large". How about that? Lessee.... 1. we don't support reductions in the test requirements 2. we support a one shot upgrade 3. the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large snip 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? Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? 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? Kinda makes you wonder, eh? I cannot come ot any logical conclusion that does not include a permanent reduction in the qualifications. The rest snipped, I gotta go do some housework............ - Mike KB3EIA - |
"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. 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? 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. 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. 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) 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. 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. 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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] If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the required tests. Particularly the *written* tests. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. You're the one willing to share with "a few".... You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know [expletive deleted] well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ... I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I don't know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly, I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing for over 400,000 US hams And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction in the **WRITTEN** test requirements. I'm not ... 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...and if you want an incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it plus it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one snapshot of time. 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. 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. 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. 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! But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? See prior coments on the same thing. 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. With this, no one losses anything. 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. I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens. Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? SWAG applied with common sense. 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. 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). 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. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? Different subject for a different thread. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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? 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. Cheers again, Bill K2UNK |
|
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? Because there's no real harm to anyone...and if you want an incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it plus it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one snapshot of time. On the contrary, Bill, to olde-tyme hammes, the "unqualifications" (not being licensed under old standards and practices) causes irreconcileable psychological HARM to those olde-tymers. They will LOSE some of their bragging rights and rank/status/ privilege that made them so arrogantly "superior." Ho hum. 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. 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. "Incentive?" Incentive towards bragging rights, I'm sure. Such seems to be a very important part of today's amateur radio, almost as much as morsemanship... 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. Mr. Expletive_deleted does NOT ALLOW anyone to change their minds! Hiram forbid that anyone, ever changes their minds! That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands that loss. With this, no one losses anything. ...except psychological harm. :-) 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. The "loss" is very deep, very personal. Their world is collapsing around them, the sky is falling, and all is lost. 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. I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens. No change! No change! Hold back the dawn! :-) 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). Everything to these olde-tymers is wrapped up in that pretty piece of paper (suitable for framing). Change cannot happen until that license certificate is officially modified by an official of the official government. Officially. 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. Mr. Expletive_deleted has previously claimed "insider knowledge." He KNOWS. Ho hum. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? Different subject for a different thread. Normal misdirection by Mr. Expletive_deleted. :-) I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too. As is your right to do so. Absolutely. 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. Morsemanship doesn't guarantee immortality?!?!? Tsk, tsk, tsk! 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. Some cannot be changed, do not permit change that infringes on their rank/status/privilege. Federals must support their bragging rights no matter what. :-) 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? He WILL "see" such and be inventive in his rationalization of same! Take that to the bank. :-) 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? Finally you getting a glimpse of Mr. Expletive_deleted's motives. :-) U.S. amateur radio has always been about morsemanship? To some that is a Maxim. I wonder what HK's written test requirements are..... I don't really care. He is worried. :-) LHA / WMD |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: 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? Kinda makes you wonder, eh? I cannot come ot any logical conclusion that does not include a permanent reduction in the qualifications. Hiram forbid you EVER lose your rank, status, privileges obtained under old standards! Cannot that...ever! The old standards must remain inviolate, never ever changed! The ONLY ones "qualified" are those who took the same tests you took. Yup, you are SO qualified. Nobody else is if they didn't take the same tests you did. [we get the picture] The rest snipped, I gotta go do some housework............ Are you QUALIFIED to do housework? :-) LHA / WMD |
In article , "Helmut"
writes: Hi, Jim, Hello Helmut - sorry to take so long to reply "N2EY" schrieb im Newsbeitrag . com... "Helmut" wrote in message ... Hi all, on this thread, Hello! "N2EY" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? Fun fact: When I got my Extra there were fewer than 10,000 others (other Extras, that is). Now there are over 104,000 others. Doesn't bother me a bit. The more the merrier - IF they pass the tests. You all are on the wrong numbers, as you might recall, that the airwaves wont stop ath the borders of your country. The "others" I wrote of above are other US Amateur Extra licensees. HF-Bands are not only for EXTRA licensed hams from the US, and the expression "SANDBOX" means the whole spectrum accessible for radio amateurs all over the world. Wasn't meant that way at all. My philosophy is that anyone in any country who can pass the required tests of that country and get the required license is welcome on the ham bands. In the USA, parts of some bands are reserved for Extras. The USA has long had a multilevel license structure, designed to reward increased knowledge and skill with more spectrum space. In the process of restructuring after WRC03 zillion of hams will be able to enter this spectrum. How many will really do it, though? And remember that the restructuring is determined by the governments of each country. The ITU sets minimum requirements - the signatory countries can have more requirements for a license. Most of them did not pass the "US GOLD CARD EXTRA" tests. They are given full HF privileges by the authorities. Sure - that's up to the governments of their countries. And what US hams get is up to the FCC. This will also occur in the United States in the near future. You mean the FCC will eliminate the Extra class license? How and why? Do you realy think, your authority will step back from their voting at WRC03? Do you think they want to loose their face towards those other countries they were partnering at the WRC03? I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about the Morse code test, all that changed at WRC03 was that it stopped being an international requirement. Each country can now choose whether or not to have a Morse code test. So far, FCC hasn't changed any US rules. If you're talking about the written tests, all that changed at WRC03 was that it stopped being a vague statement about each country setting its own standards and became an international recommendation with specific standards of what hams should know. Each country is expected to meet the standards in its own way. So far, FCC hasn't changed any US rules. They all are your fellow hams. Your friends, buddies, pals, or fellas. Why don't you try to do the same, as the rest of the worlds hams are doing to their hamfriends, stepping up now into the heaven of ham radio? I've been in the heaven of ham radio for almost 37 years now, Helmut. Last night I worked an OK1 on 40 CW and an F5 on 80 CW with my 100W homebrew rig. Got the OK1 on the first buzz but there was quite a pile on the F5. Welcome them, elmer them, if you think they are not skilled enough, and give them the feeling of beeing welcome in your part of the spectrum. Been doing that for almost 37 years now. Exept in the US and a few other countries, you can tell the license class from the callsign. Sort of. In the US, the license class *sometimes* tells the license class. For example, all 1x2 and 2x1 callsigns are Extras, but Extras can also have other callsigns. I know hams with callsigns like WA3IYC who have been Extras for 30+ years. From all the others around the globe you cannot tell, if they've got their HF-privileges after the WRC without passing a test. You're missing the point, Helmut. What is being proposed by some is that some existing hams get a free upgrade to the next-higher license class without a *written* test that is required of everyone else. Some of us don't think that's a good idea. What will your reaction be? "Go home, this is MY PARTof the spectrum"? No. But I will oppose changing the rules. There will be poor operational skills around for a while. That's not the issue at all. Just recall YOUR first months of HF-operation. October 1967. No master ever fell out of the blue sky, they all had to take their lesson and do her homework and practice. But first they had to take the required tests. Beeing a ham worldwide includes to be: CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the pleasure of others. LOYAL...offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local clubs, and the American Radio Relay League, through which Amateur Radio in the United States is represented nationally and internationally. PROGRESSIVE...with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient station and operation above reproach. FRIENDLY...slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the amateur spirit. BALANCED...radio is an avocation, never interfering with duties owed to family, job, school or community. PATRIOTIC...station and skill always ready for service to country and community. I agree with all of that. But that code does not mean that I must accept without protest any and all proposed changes to the ARS. --The original Amateur's Code was written by Paul M. Segal, W9EEA, in 1928. Nowadays there has to be added: global thinking What does global thinking have to do with requirements for an amateur radio license in the USA? Maybe the rest of the world should adopt the USA's ideas. Most of what is discussed here is amateur radio policy in the USA. That's simply a result of it being US based and in English. And concerning this newsgroup as to be US-based and written in english language is not protecting you of beeing a ham. Act like, speak like and write like it is to the honor of amateur radio. What have I written that is dishonorable? I have said that *all* who pass the required tests and get the required license are welcome in *our* sandbox. So am I. They need to be tested though, and they need to take the test that other Extra's take. I've heard the same song across the bands after they dropped the CW-test to 5wpm. Did it help anything? I don't see where dropping the code test to 5 wpm helped much. A lot of existing US hams upgraded their existing licenses, but an even greater number did not. There was a very slight increase in the number of US hams. But not a large increase. Several countries around the globe have dropped their Morse code tests entirely. Have they gotten lots more new hams as a result? Your authority ignored it. Do you think they did change their habit to please 10 percent of the american hams? The USA reduced code testing to 5 wpm back in April 2000, even though the majority of American hams who expressed an opinion to the government wanted more than 5 wpm. Exactly. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. as are your motives. As I said before - all who pass the required tests are welcome in *our* sandbox. See? What is "your sandbox"? I don't have one! Where can I make a test to access 40m above 7.100 ? Move to ITU Region 2. Or convince your government to change the rules. The reason hams in Regions 1 and 3 don't have 7.100-7.300 is that their governments wanted that spectrum for shortwave broacasting in 1938. It's not the fault of hams or governments in Region 2. To be even more specific: In the Cairo convention of 1938, certain central European governments insisted on taking part of the ham band for SWBC. Their allies in the Far East agreed. The compromise was that Region 2 kept 40 meters as 7000-7300. And although those governments are long gone, it has taken more than 60 years to change things. You are right on this. It will get regulated after 2007 when the 40m allocation will be 7000 - 7200 exclusive for all hams worldwide. This was also concluded in Geneva. Because Region 1 and Region 3 SWBC changed. Where can I do the test for usage of 146 - 148 MHz? Move to ITU Region 2. Or convince your government to change the rules. This is your sandbox, I assume. Not mine. Ours. "Ours" meaning "all the hams in the world who have the required licenses" not just US hams. But all the other Ham frequencies are also the sandbox and playground of all the hams in the world. Their numbers are a lot more than just 100k. And they're all welcome. But how many of them are actually using, say, 7.000 to 7.025? Well, Helmut? Do *you* use those frequencies? I used some of them less than 24 hours ago. 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? 83,000 advanced today who are either SK, inactive or just don't see the need to upgrade and you expect even a measurable increase in QRM because some of them may suddenly start operating in the Extra only segments. Then just leave 'em be! That would require essentially maintaining the status quo, which is unacceptable. Why? What happens if the staus quo is maintaned? Good question. The FCC wants to simplify - the ARRL wants to create a viable entry level class with meaningful HF privs and reasonable power limits. On what relevant statements do you base this? After careful consideration of Ed Hare's (personal, not ARRL) comments on the subject on eHam.net, 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. As a person that would never support a reduction in the written test requirements, how do you support your rationale? Do you now support a reduction in the test requirements? Obviously the answer is yes. Are these benificiaries of the so called "one shot deal" qualified to operate at the level to which they will be advanced? Thats the usual procedure in most countries of the globe to make a one shot exam. That's not the case in the USA. We have several classes of license, with a very easy and simple exam for the limited-privileges licenses and a more advanced exam for the full-privileges license. By the standards of most of the rest of the world, the USA exams are very easy. What is being discussed in this thread is a proposal that would give more privileges to many with limited-privileges license *without* any more tests. I think that's a bad idea. Assuming your answer is yes, what is the reasoning behind those who come after the "one shot deal" to have to take a more difficult test? That's the real problem - particularly for the Tech-to-General upgrade. Effective after Aug. 15, 2003, this kind of upgrade from non-HF to HF- Hams has occured after the WRC03 throughout the world. Are you talking about the code test? We're talking about the *written* tests. This has been of greatest benefit to ham radio after its developement. Now as there is young blood on the bands, it will keep the ITU from knibbling on the bands. How much difference has it really made? How many countries have changed their rules? How many new hams have gotten on the air since those changes? How does the number of new hams since the changes compare to an equal period of time before the changes? Jim, it is not the difference in numbers, it is just the fact, that it happend. If there is no difference in numbers, why make the change? Give yourself the cream upon the cake and think positive about the new situation. I do! Showing anger and agressiv language against those beeing a "victim" of the restructuring process doesn't bring any good to the ham family. I see far more anger from others who disagree with me. Your friend Len Anderson is very angry and aggressive. He is not a ham and would not make a good ham, judging by how he writes here. Not in your country, and not around the world. And where we cannot do anything against it, it's not worth to argue about it. But maybe something can be done about it. I don't think the written tests for a US amateur radio license with full privileges should be made easier. In fact, I think they are too easy. The *written* tests! Should I just be quiet about it? It is NOT negotiable. Yes, it is. The USA has to meet the minimum requirements of the treaty, but does not have to stay at the minimum. Here in Europe, we even did'nt have the time to try negotiating. The authorities of the various countries just signed the bill and thats it. That's why I live in the USA. We have the right to argue and negotiate. It's called the democratic process. Some of my distant ancestors invented it thousands of years ago. Your FCC should do the same. I disagree. Our FCC should go through the democratic process, not simply hand down rules with no discussion. This would save you all here on this thread a lot of nerves. Maybe. But discussion is part of the process. God bless, stay calm, and have a nice week You too, Helmut. 73 de OE8SOQ Helmut ps: meet me on echolink node # 107658 if you would like to talk. Not set up for that here. Meet me on 7.020 CW sometime..... 73 de Jim, N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. Let's be serious here! It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our lanyards. 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. There can be no other explanation. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. Dave K8MN |
"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. 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. What exactly are you suggesting is so different in AR that it is completely alien from any other activity? 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. snip |
|
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. 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. What exactly are you suggesting is so different in AR that it is completely alien from any other activity? Dave got his opinions beamed down from the Mother Ship by aliens? 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. It is VERY important to use PROPER PROCEDURE in all ham activity. When hacking Western Union on the NTS, one MUST use the official authorized radiogram forms. Net users may lose their jobs if the official proper form is not used. All five of them. Never at any time may other radio services' jargon, expressions, or any other words except as officially permitted by league guides be used on or off the air by devout amateurs. "Roger that" and "ten-four" phrases are punishable by excommunication of any communication. The normal penance is 100 Hail-Hirams and "sin no more" exhortations. Proper civil courtesy on the air is to give everyone a "599" report, even if asking for repeats due to local noise. On 'phone all have superb diction and are perfectly understandable...always. All amateur radios operate by laws of the league, not the laws of physics. Correct procedure is to always consult a Handbook, never any textbook about other radio services' equipment. Amateur radios do not work by such non-applicable laws. Only league books have official information. The "amateur community" always rules on dedication and committment of all. Except for the Extras who are above criticsm and gods of radio. All amateurs not expressing love, honor, and obeyance of morse code are bottom-feeding slime and shall always be treated as inferior trash not even worthy of contempt. There, I guess this sums it up fairly well... :-) LHA / WMD |
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 - running a marathon - playing a musical instrument really well (others are invited to add to the list) 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. 2) Hams are almost all self-funded and noncommercial, using their own equipment on their own time. 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. 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. 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. Do you know or care how your email and postings get to and from your computer? If you're like 99.99% of the online population, it's not an issue as long as it happens. 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!) 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". 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. 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. But to hams, radio operating skill is the whole point. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
The idea that non-amateurs "not understanding" amateur radio is false and little more than an attempt at rationalization of their own ignorance. Huh ???? I better get another beer to figure out this one .... just who is non-rational here ???? I haven't figured this one out yet. My idea of amateur radio is a deversion from my daily routine. I do not live by it or for it. It is my desire that all involved in the hobby-service-passion what ever have a good time in fellowship. 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. OK by your argument then lets say sex ..... but your definition of "real feel" and what I say is normal may differ. Take care 73 KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa. Enjoying ham radio for what it is to me ..not what others perceive it or wish it to be. |
Mark Little wrote:
"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. Nonsense, yourself. There are plenty of activities which might have some outward similarities to other things but which are actually quite different. Hunting with a shotgun is quite different than hunting with a rifle. Even the aiming technique is very different. Driving the family sedan on the roads and highways doesn't give one the feel for Formula One racing. Being a Television station engineer doesn't impart a feel for how to chase a weak one on 160m. 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? ;-) 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. 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. What exactly are you suggesting is so different in AR that it is completely alien from any other activity? Oh, I can't think of a thing, Mark. Let's allow an artillery officer who has never hunted game, decide best how game hunting should be regulated. 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. Dave K8MN |
It is VERY important to use PROPER PROCEDURE in all ham activity. Sort of like driving in the right lane so as to maximize everyone's enjoyment .... reduce frustration etc. When hacking Western Union on the NTS, one MUST use the official authorized radiogram forms. Net users may lose their jobs if the official proper form is not used. All five of them. Whatever floats one's boat ...again not my call on what I define as enjoyment. Passing traffic ... not for me personally. Never at any time may other radio services' jargon, expressions, or any other words except as officially permitted by league guides be used on or off the air by devout amateurs. "Roger that" and "ten-four" phrases are punishable by excommunication of any communication. The normal penance is 100 Hail-Hirams and "sin no more" exhortations. Better watch it Len ...Hiram is listening ... Proper civil courtesy on the air is to give everyone a "599" report, even ......during contests where all signals are 599 due to the ruler of the ionosphere making it so ...could never figure out this one ...but again I could never figure out contests but again whatever floats one's boat ...have a good time. if asking for repeats due to local noise. On 'phone all have superb diction and are perfectly understandable...always. Len ...I have to get the receiver you are using and that DSP mode for diction control ...from what I have heard ..we could sure use it . All amateur radios operate by laws of the league, not the laws of physics. Correct procedure is to always consult a Handbook, never any textbook about other radio services' equipment. Amateur radios do not work by such non-applicable laws. Only league books have official information. Ah Len com'on ...thats a stretch even tounge in cheekedly ...besides how do you expect the league to make money? BTW are you a Diamond Club member yet .... for a couple grand you can get a discount on all league publications. That should pay for itself in a millenium or 2. The "amateur community" always rules on dedication and committment of all. Except for the Extras who are above criticsm and gods of radio. Len you need to talk to my wife ...she dosen't think so. I have heard her use a phrase containing God in reference to my radio as in get off that *** **** radio and do some work around here. All amateurs not expressing love, honor, and obeyance of morse code are bottom-feeding slime and shall always be treated as inferior trash not even worthy of contempt. Naa not really ... but they are missing out on one tool in the box of ham radio. There, I guess this sums it up fairly well... :-) eehhh ..... maybe LHA / WMD Take care Len ..73 KI3R Tom |
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. 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. 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. And I see you don't deny my assertion. 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! 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. 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 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............ - Mike KB3EIA - |
"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. - 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. ;-) - 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. (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!!!!! 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. They simply plug in the boxes and off they go. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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). AM voice - still used in broadcasting. FSK RTTY - still used as anyone with a communications rig can tell you. None of these are unique to AR. 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. 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. 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? 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. There is no difference. I don't know too many Amateurs who go to buy a rig and want the one that is the hardest to use. But to hams, radio operating skill is the whole point. Unsustainable if you listen to the bands. Most people do not even comply with the statuatory requirements for identification, let alone push the envelope of operating skills. 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? 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. 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. Mark 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"garigue" wrote in message
news:zgAXb.313140$xy6.1534723@attbi_s02... The idea that non-amateurs "not understanding" amateur radio is false and little more than an attempt at rationalization of their own ignorance. Huh ???? I better get another beer to figure out this one .... just who is non-rational here ???? I haven't figured this one out yet. My idea of amateur radio is a deversion from my daily routine. I do not live by it or for it. It is my desire that all involved in the hobby-service-passion what ever have a good time in fellowship. 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. OK by your argument then lets say sex ..... but your definition of "real feel" and what I say is normal may differ. By taking this tack, even a licenced Amateur would not be able to get a "real feel" as it is just about 100% certain that they will have different interests and priorities than you. I take a less metaphysical approach to "real feel". I mean it is relatively easy to determine what Amateurs do and there are plenty of related things (CB & marine radio, electronics kits, regulations, chat rooms, phones, etc) so that a person could reasonably be expected to be about to judge whether this would be interesting - before they went to the effort of getting a licence. Take care 73 KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa. Enjoying ham radio for what it is to me ..not what others perceive it or wish it to be. As it should be, but that does not prevent unlicenced people from knowing what the hobby is about. Whether they would enjoy those activities is a matter of personality, not of holding a licence. regards, Mark |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... I've worked in commercial/scientific radio communications as well as being an Amateur and there is a great deal of similarity between the operations - there are licences, How tough was the studying for a license for which there is no exam? ;-) Are you really just clueless or are you just trying to be a smart arse? In case it is the former, this page may help: http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/ I'm not under FCC regulations so it's a real shame that I appear to know more about them that you do. there are regulations, The regs aren't very much alike, are they? In fact, such point-to-point channelized communications can only be compared to amateur VHF/UHF FM operation. Radio regulations cover a truckload of licence types and the regulations are many and varied. Did you read about your regulations and not understand; or do you just make this stuff up as you go? Ignorance would be to assume that because one has experience in another service, that all of his experience in that service directly transfers to amateur radio. This is more accurate as there are some subtle differences between even very similar activities. You can bet there are and if you've read many of Leonard H. Anderson's posts over the years, you'll find that he doesn't see them. I didn't agree with him. I disagreed with you. His thoughts, past or otherwise, right or wrong, aren't relevant. Mark |
In article , "Mark Little"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Mark Little" writes: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... snip The idea that non-amateurs "not understanding" amateur radio is false and little more than an attempt at rationalization of their own ignorance. The idea that one who has no experience in using amateur radio has no real feel for amateur radio is no falsehood. Nonsense. There is nothing in life that is so insular that one cannot get a "real feel" of it by doing similar things. The question, then, is "what is a similar thing?" What would be similar to, say: - having a baby According to a woman I know, passing a kidney stone. She has done both so is probably in a good situation to know. I will take that one on faith as neither seems that appealing. Those two are similar only in the pain experienced and the relief when it's over. But the joy of a new baby is not part of the kidney stone episode. - running a marathon "Hitting the wall" and the physical tribulations associated with a marathon are not limited to running. If you have done other activities that stress the body, then you are in a position to get the "feel". In my case, that is just running to the end of the street. ;-) There's a lot more to the marathon than "hitting the wall", which doesn't happen to all marathoners anyway. (I've run two marathons and numerous shorter races, btw) - playing a musical instrument really well Anyone who has had to practice long and hard to achieve any hand skill will know the satisfaction that comes with doing something well. I can't play the guitar "really well", but I think it is safe to say I have a feel for what it would be like to be able to do so. So playing a guitar well is similar to playing a guitar really well... (others are invited to add to the list) Jumping off a cliff - Never done it, but I have a good feel for what happens - At the bottom, you go splattt!!!!! HAW! I've worked in commercial/scientific radio communications as well as being an Amateur and there is a great deal of similarity between the operations - there are licences, there are regulations, there are serious conversations, there are "rag chew" conversations, there is problem solving and information exchange. These is even a "siblinghood" (is that the PC equivalent of "brotherhood"? ;-) ) amongest the operators. There are also big differences. What exactly are you suggesting is so different in AR that it is completely alien from any other activity? Several things: 1) Hams have a level of freedom pretty much unmatched in other services. Wide variety of modes, bands, technologies, and activities. No channelization or requirement to use certain types of equipment. I suggest that you look at the FCC page and search for "experimental licence". These couple of snippets may be of interest to show its breadth: "Any person or entity--corporation, individual, etc. that is not a foreign government or representative of a foreign government may obtain an experimental license." "Any frequency allocated to non-Government or Government use in the Table of Frequency Allocations may be assigned under the Experimental Radio Service, except frequencies exclusively allocated to the passive services." Use of non-approved equipment is also permitted with this licence. Not the same thing! Each experimental license is granted for a specific purpose, isn't it? The applicant has to make application for a specific reason, not general experimentation, and the license is limited to the specific experimentation applied for. It's not a general-purpose thing like a ham license. How many experimental licenses are currently issued by FCC? There are over 682,000 US ham licenses issued to individuals. How many new experimental licenses were issued by FCC last year? FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses in 2003. 2) Hams are almost all self-funded and noncommercial, using their own equipment on their own time. Agreed, but again this is not unique. Plenty of people including CB operators and pleasure marine radio operators in the same boat (pun intended). Those services are not about "radio for its own sake" and allow only a very limited choice of channels and modes. 3) [this it the really big one] Amateur radio is, at its core, radio communication for its own sake. To other services, radio is but a means to an end, but to hams the medium really is a big part of the message. Or to put it another way, the ham's journey is as important, if not more important, than the destination. You are incorrect to assert that the medium is not important to others, especially in the scientific community. Radio propagation research by definition is interested in the medium. Only to find out how it works. It is also misleading to imply that the majority of Amateur have the medium as the primary focus of their activities. The majority of Amateurs use commercial equipment and spend the majority of their time chin-wagging. From their conversations, it is obvious that the conversation is more import than the medium. If that were true, most of those conversations would have moved to other means of communication long ago. This is why certain things from other services don't apply to hams. The person watching TV usually doesn't care how the signal gets to the set - VHF, UHF, terrestrical, satellite, analog, digital, cable, fiber, whatever. All the TV viewer cares about is how good the picture, sound and program are. While the person who watches TV may have no idea how it works, there is a complete army of people behind that tube that do know how it works and why it works. That's true, but it's not the point. The TV viewer and the ham are both the "end users", but it makes no difference to the TV viewer whether the program got to him/her by radio, wire, etc. There *is* a difference to the ham whether the QSO is by radio or landline. If one were to subtract the number of hams who cannot even fix a simple fault in their commerical rig, the odds would not be much different. That's not the "how" I was referring to. A ham cares that it's "communication by radio" - the TV viewer doesn't. The military communications folks don't care how the messages are carried, just so the messages get where they need to be, when they need to be there, without the bad guys knowing about them. I'll bet its fair to say that most Amateurs do not understand how Packet, PACTOR or even just their rigs work. I disagree. But that's not the point. They simply plug in the boxes and off they go. Again, a ham cares that it's "communication by radio" Do you know or care how your email and postings get to and from your computer? Actually, I do as I run my own servers. Exception that proves the rule. And once it leaves your servers? If you're like 99.99% of the online population, it's not an issue as long as it happens. This is also the case for many Amateurs. Most would not know how their current rig works and they would neither have the expertise or equipment to find anything but the most trivial of faults. Again, not the point. A ham cares that it's "communication by radio", but most email users don't care if the medium is wire, fiber, etc. Heck, many if not most cellphone users don't even think in terms of "radio" - the cellphone to them is a telephone without wires, that's all. (In fact I have had people tell me that a cellphone is *not* a radio!) As I said most Amateurs don't know how packet works or even how their Yaesu works. How do you know that for sure? Under this defintion, most Amateurs aren't amateurs either. If one goes into particular instances, I've fixed radios for more than one full call that could not find that the battery wire had broken. Such anecdotes may be amusing, but have little value in the big picture. Point is they at least knew it was a radio. The radio amateur does radio, for the most part, for purely emotional reasons. IOW, because it's fun, rewarding, challenging, educating, etc. "Radio for it's own sake". Certainly in the area I work, I have seen the scientists knock back very large amounts of money because it didn't have a research component that they found "fun, rewarding, challenging, educating, etc." But only as an expedient. Not as a rule. This is why modes like Morse code, AM voice and Baudot FSK RTTY continue in use in amateur radio. Hams like them. They're fun, and they work. Morse - still used commercially, in the forces and aviation (ident calls). Some will argue that point! AM voice - still used in broadcasting. FSK RTTY - still used as anyone with a communications rig can tell you. Baudot! Not just FSK None of these are unique to AR. No, they're not. But their choice in other services is driven by considerations other than what the operators like. That's the point. There is no doubt that these modes work and "fun" to some people. This is true even if you are a commercial operator. There are plenty of people who actually enjoy their work. Sure, but as a rule they are not the one making the choice. BTW, not all hams like these modes. Many people don't like Morse, many also don't like AM because of its bandwidth, especially in the lower bands and most Amateurs don't use RTTY with or without the clunking teleprinter. By choice - that's the point! Ignorance would be to assume that because one has experience in another service, that all of his experience in that service directly transfers to amateur radio. This is more accurate as there are some subtle differences between even very similar activities. And some very big differences. Much of what is done in other radio services does not transfer to amateur radio at all. For example, every other radio service I know of seeks to eliminate the need for a skill in the operation of the radio equipment. They think in terms of "user", not "radio operator". And given their constraints, it may make sense to do so, because it is usually less expensive to buy sophisticated equipment than to pay a skilled radio operator. How many Amateurs still neutralise their power amplifiers? I do. No many. Why? Because they have decided to buy (in most cases not build) more sophisticated equipment that reduces the skill required to operate the radio. I build my ham rigs, either from scratch or kits. There is no difference. Yes, there is. Neutralization is an alignment adjustment, not part of operating the rig. I don't know too many Amateurs who go to buy a rig and want the one that is the hardest to use. Not the point. Modes like ALE and conventions such as channelization have not had much acceptance in amateur radio, even though very widely used in other services. But to hams, radio operating skill is the whole point. Unsustainable if you listen to the bands. I do, and that's why I make the observation. Most people do not even comply with the statuatory requirements for identification, let alone push the envelope of operating skills. Where have you noticed that? I see just the opposite on the bands and modes I use. Are you suggesting that randomly monitoring the Amateur Bands for a few hours would show a very high level of operating skill? I wouldn't bet the farm on that one, would you? No, I'm saying that hams value operating skills, even if they don't always have the highest level of them. Someone who plays a guitar for fun usually values skill at doing so, even if they're not as good as the guy on the CD. As I said, AR is by no means "unique" in what it provides and there are many people in the radio field, even if they don't hold an AR licence that would have a "really good feel" of what the Amateur Serice is all about bases on their other experiences. Maybe. But in general I'd disagree. It concerns me when Amateurs attempt to tell others that AR is "unique" and that a non-amateur could never underestand what it is all about, because all it does is reduce credibilty. If amateur radio is not unique, why should it exist? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. Uh huh! I'll ask: Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified? Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific class of license. Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges. Let's be serious here! It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our lanyards. Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose it. Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion contrary to yours. If you don't agree with me, I really don't give a damn...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that matters is what the FCC will think and do. In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test. Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's a--well, you know the drill. Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement. I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm betting that the answer is "none". Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners? If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class license. No ifs, ands or buts. Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is something you stated that you'd never support. If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition. In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra and General. Clear enough for you? And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been forthcoming. The question keeps coming up because some people can't understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements. A few things here. IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the evil Morse code supporters. I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive system as created simply asks for passage of another test on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only" spectrum from that of a General operating in the General spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted power. So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the elimination of incentive licensing. I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements. I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. There can be no other explanation. I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and say so. Because it isn't true! If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a one-time basis, it can be done permanently. Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have stated I support? Answer - NO! I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Is that how you decide what to believe? Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances. and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of thousands. Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary to do. Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their logic. No need to repeat it again. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound disingenuous. What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free to enjoy your own beliefs. Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs. Frankly Dave, I don't give a damn. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. Uh huh! I'll ask: Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified? Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be serious here! In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test. I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. So you now support no testing whatsoever, since the priveliges have no bearing? Glad you finally got serious and admitted it. Sorry Mike, your logic is seriously lacking. My stateing the obvious about privileges vs license in no way leads to the conclusion that I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. Even Jim, N2EY has acknowledged what I have said regarding privileges vs license class based on written test knowledge. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? You are right Bill. There really is no need for qualification if you don't want there to be. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. So why make the tests more difficult after the "one shot" upgrade? If you think a technician is now qualified to be a General, then you should be consistant. The problem, is that there isn't any accepted relationship of privileges vs license to apply a truly knoweldege based upgrade system that links the additional privileges to actual written test knowlede. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. You notice? A few things here. IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the evil Morse code supporters. I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive system as created simply asks for passage of another test on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only" spectrum from that of a General operating in the General spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted power. If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The ARRL is being illogical. Then go take it up with ARRL...assuming you are a member. And I see you don't deny my assertion. Not at all...YOU refuse to see the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT. I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Doesn't make me feel good at all! Your problem, not mine. and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You're playing with my words here. No, you are incorrectly stating the aspects of the ARRL petition. A person that takes the Technician test, then becomes a General with no further retesting. A person that takes a Technician test, then a General test. Which person has done more? Unless you are suggesting that the future General test is simply the equivalent of the Tech test. I do not dispute there is a one-time difference. That is what happens when there is a one-time waiver. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Yeah I know, lifes a bitch............ By Jove I think he's got it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mark Little" wrote in message ...
I'm not under FCC regulations so it's a real shame that I appear to know more about them that you do. Awwww...fer Geezus Sakes...yet another know-it-all "I'm-Better-Than-You" antagonist who thinks that his cut-and-paste skills replace those of practical experience in the radio service he would seek to troll through. Radio regulations cover a truckload of licence types and the regulations are many and varied. Did you read about your regulations and not understand; or do you just make this stuff up as you go? Would YOU please cite what part you seem to think Dave doesn't ahve a grip on? Seems to me that you overlooked that part. You can bet there are and if you've read many of Leonard H. Anderson's posts over the years, you'll find that he doesn't see them. I didn't agree with him. I disagreed with you. His thoughts, past or otherwise, right or wrong, aren't relevant. Since that was what Dave was addressing, I'd say it was VERY relevant. You have a ".au" address...What's your VK call? Steve, K4YZ |
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: [snip] Let's get this clear right now. ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General with no additional testing. They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra with no additional testing. Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. I (N2EY) don't support it. Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? Because there's no real harm to anyone... I say there *is* real harm to the ARS. However, let's explore your claim for a bit and see where it leads. You say that the free upgrades are OK "Because there's no real harm to anyone...". I've also seen it justified by "the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large". If that's true, then what would be the harm is simply dumping the General class question pool completely and using the Technician pool in its place, with slight modifications to include General HF privs? Who would be harmed by such a change? By the same token, we could resurrect the old Advanced written and use it in place of the Extra. and if you want an incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it I disagree! It works as a disincentive. Why should anyone study for an upgrade if there's a chance for a freebie? Would you you pay $500 for a new computer if you knew that next month it would go on sale for $300? plus it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one snapshot of time. ARRL proposed similar freebies before and FCC said no, even though it would simplify the licensing and regs. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses on a certain date. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. Agreed. And that's the point: Folks like Carl who said they'd NEVER support ANY reduction are now supporting a reduction because it's a one-time thing. And ignoring the fact that it affects a huge number of hams. Free upgrades for Techs would affect about 322,000 hams. Last year we got about 20,000 new Techs, so the proposed freebie would affect as many existing hams as the new ones we might get in the next 10-15 years. THAT is the critical difference. And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as a permanent change? Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND it then continues with the incentive system as before. I say it does harm people. But if it harms no one to get the simplified scheme, why not make it permanent? Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one time thing. Time and situations change and people change. IOW, Carl's "never" didn't mean "never", it just meant "until I change my mind". You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. True. Thank you! Time and situations change and people change. Next week or next year.... But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? See prior coments on the same thing. Who would be harmed by a permanent reduction? And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands that loss. I lost privileges as an Advanced. And I had to wait 2 years to even try the Extra, even though I could have passed it the day I lost privileges. With this, no one losses anything. If the existing classes are not given free upgrades, nobody loses anything either. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. If maybe not, please point to what privileges will be lost by which license holders. Yet now I see that same person supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written* tests... As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" i a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF. Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech written is adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply dump the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool for General? If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself. No, it's not what I want. But how do we argue against those who want it? YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that. You're assuming they won't. I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens. And what will you say to them? How will you argue against making the one-time freebie permanent? After all, they can quote you and Ed and Carl saying "no one will be harmed" and "the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large" What counterarguments can be used against those quotes? Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? SWAG applied with common sense. They said the same thing in 1969. I was there. In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but not OK for future hams? As above, because it will be a one time situation. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break. If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades, is there? They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't sent in their license for cancellation - so what? I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade a new license at all. There's no need to. So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old license class. The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with their upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement: Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra). Then why wasn't it done in 2000? Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then? Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's (or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade. How do you know what FCC wants? How do you? I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is claiming to know what FCC wants. Take it as a best quess then. OK. My best guess is that FCC doesn't care. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? Different subject for a different thread. Not at all! You're saying we should just trust FCC. BPL shows what can happen.. I (personally, not as NCI) think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future. Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today. Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...) I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them. If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all? If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC. I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too. As is your right to do so. let's see....3 classes of license, no free upgrades, imporved writtens... So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the changes take place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General. Give me a break ... What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do. Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade bus to General. If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll be truly surprised. 20,000 in the past 12 months. We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations. And how many will renew in the grace period? You have to look longterm. As for the existing novices...that is now down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you suggest. 34,000 or so. minor difference in the scope of this conversation. Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to actually take (or study for) the General. Life's a [expletive deleted] and then we die. Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test. God grant us the wisdom to... Accept the things we cannot change, change those we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference. Right. So why not just accept 5 wpm and the existing classes? Same for Advanceds and the Extra. The rate at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically low already. 17% in 4 years. Gotta wonder why. Maybe the code test wasn't a problem after all.... No one said it was the only roadblock to all Advanced hams going to Extra. It has been touted as the boogieman for years. Now we see that it wasn't. And let's suppose FCC enacts the ARRL proposal, and even dumps Element 1 for Extra as well. And suppose we don't get a huge increase in the number of new hams, just as we didn't after 2000. You watch - there will be more proposals to further water down the writtens. your arguments are just plain lame How? Do you think people won't do this? Some will, but it won't be significant. How do you know? SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC implements free upgrades on a certain date? Yep. Plus a huge drop in upgrades. Why not? "We're having a one-time sale - get 'em now!" Back in 1951, there was a similar one-time sale. FCC announced that they were closing out the Advanced/class A and replacing it with the much harder to get Extra at the end of 1952. But existing Class A/Advanceds would have the same privs as Extras. There was a flood of folks upgrading to beat the price increase. and your "someone might get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I took" is REALLY showing. Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the tests I took, Carl. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Nope. Not at all. It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the qualifications, both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And that's not a good thing. And if that is your true meaning, why would you state that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl." Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same written tests if he had to? If he had to, maybe. But he didn't have to. And he couldn't pass the other tests I had to take. And he didn't do it at 16 years of age, with no professional background. I did. The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in written test requirements are the issue. The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to lower the General or Extra requirements. Not yet. But a one-time upgrade is one more step. And it paves the way. As you have said. Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests. That makes what - a dozen countries? I believe so. I wonder what HK's written test requirements are..... I don't really care. bwaahaahaa! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
(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 |
"Mark Little" wrote in message ...
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... I've worked in commercial/scientific radio communications as well as being an Amateur and there is a great deal of similarity between the operations - there are licences, How tough was the studying for a license for which there is no exam? ;-) Are you really just clueless or are you just trying to be a smart arse? In case it is the former, this page may help: http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/ I'm not under FCC regulations so it's a real shame that I appear to know more about them that you do. Not according to Hoyle. Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists. Not only should an amateur NOT know the rules of another country, but he MUST NOT know them! So if you should happen to know the US FCC rules, you must disregard them, i.e., you must pretend not to know them. there are regulations, The regs aren't very much alike, are they? In fact, such point-to-point channelized communications can only be compared to amateur VHF/UHF FM operation. Radio regulations cover a truckload of licence types and the regulations are many and varied. Did you read about your regulations and not understand; or do you just make this stuff up as you go? Well, there you have it! Ignorance would be to assume that because one has experience in another service, that all of his experience in that service directly transfers to amateur radio. This is more accurate as there are some subtle differences between even very similar activities. You can bet there are and if you've read many of Leonard H. Anderson's posts over the years, you'll find that he doesn't see them. I didn't agree with him. I disagreed with you. His thoughts, past or otherwise, right or wrong, aren't relevant. Mark Welcome to the jungle. bb |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message some snippage So you now support no testing whatsoever, since the priveliges have no bearing? Glad you finally got serious and admitted it. Sorry Mike, your logic is seriously lacking. My stateing the obvious about privileges vs license in no way leads to the conclusion that I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. Even Jim, N2EY has acknowledged what I have said regarding privileges vs license class based on written test knowledge. Considering that you support a plan that supposedly gives a huge chunk of hams a free upgrade, then supposedly makes it harder for hams coming into the service after this giveaway, I'll take your concerns about my logic under advisement, and with a huge grain of salt. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? You are right Bill. There really is no need for qualification if you don't want there to be. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. So why make the tests more difficult after the "one shot" upgrade? If you think a technician is now qualified to be a General, then you should be consistant. The problem, is that there isn't any accepted relationship of privileges vs license to apply a truly knoweldege based upgrade system that links the additional privileges to actual written test knowlede. Agreed. I've said for a long time that there is no *practical* need for any test regimen at all. This isn't the old days. If I were so inclined, I could buy my equipment, pay someone to put up the antenna and put the station together, and then teach me how to mash the PTT button. Then get on the air and yak away. No knowledge needed. All the knowledge we look for in a Ham OP is arbitrary and must be something we decide upon. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. You notice? A few things here. IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the evil Morse code supporters. I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive system as created simply asks for passage of another test on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only" spectrum from that of a General operating in the General spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted power. If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The ARRL is being illogical. Then go take it up with ARRL...assuming you are a member. Why yes I am a member And I see you don't deny my assertion. Not at all...YOU refuse to see the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT. Perhaps my cynicism sees this one time thing as the salesman getting his foot in the door. It's where I see the disconnect with logic. If a testing regimen is sufficient for qualification one day, it should be good enough the day after, unless there is a pressing reason to increase the qualifications. There will be no compelling need to increase the qualifications the day after the "one shot" upgrade. I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Doesn't make me feel good at all! Your problem, not mine. and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You're playing with my words here. No, you are incorrectly stating the aspects of the ARRL petition. All actions have consequences. I know exactly what the aspects of the ARRL petition are. They are allowing another agenda (IMO) to color their thinking on the issue, and are trying to shoehorn their agenda into it, along with giving some lip service to those members that still want Element 1 tested. Speculation alert Their agenda, if I am correct, is that they want lots more people with HF access. This will have two immediate effects in their view. Effect 1 is that there is a pretty big divide in the ham radio neighborhood regarding the ARRL. Hams that have only VHF and up access tend not to belong to the league, and hams that do have HF access are more likely to belong. If a ham has hf access, they will be more likely to join perhaps. They look at the possibility of a good size chunk of these 400,000 upgraded hams to join up. Effect 2 is that these upgrades hams will make a great number to trot out when fighting spectrum threats "Look at all the Hams that will be negatively affected by BPL, etc.". Double that number, and it looks all the more impressive. speculation mode off But as with all side agendas, people tend to get caught up in the agenda, and lose sight of those consequences. And the consequences here are that a powerful argument is provided to make HF access test requirements at the Technician level permanent. If it was good once, it should continue being good until circumstances force a change. And I don't see any logical way around that. Will these Tech level people be able to get on HF and work? Of course. Plenty of people are running high power rigs on 11 meters, and they haven't taken one test. So the tech's will have one foot up on them. As I've said in the past, the service is what we want it to be A person that takes the Technician test, then becomes a General with no further retesting. A person that takes a Technician test, then a General test. Which person has done more? Unless you are suggesting that the future General test is simply the equivalent of the Tech test. I do not dispute there is a one-time difference. That is what happens when there is a one-time waiver. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Yeah I know, lifes a bitch............ By Jove I think he's got it. Actually I don't, "got it", Bill. That kind of stuff is more a detriment to your arguments than a help. But hey, if you like that kind of stuff, have at it!! - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com