|
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... 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. The concept that privileges granted must have a direct correlation to the test material is a fallacy. The additional privileges are a reward for doing more work in the overall field of amateur radio. Many rewards in life have no direct relationship on the material itself. Starting in the home, some parents give their children money or privileges for getting a good grade. The reward has no relationship whatsoever to the accomplishment. In college, you get your degree after fulfilling ALL the requirements. Some of the requirements are imposed not because they have any relationship to the student's major but are considered appropriate as part of a well rounded education. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: 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. And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message m... (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... Seven year old Extras, perfectly "qualified" in radio. Uh, huh... In THIS case, she IS "more qualified" than YOU, Lennie...She's LICNESED! uh HUH! Maybe you can get her to act as control operator for you, Lennie...Then there'd be TWO people there requiring adult supervision! Steve, K4YZ Actually by the FCC rules the licensed 7 year old doesn't require adult supervision. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once? Do you really believe for a second that if the upgrades take place that there will suddenly be 300K people "on-the-air" in HF that haven't been? If yes, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Reality check... 1. How many Techs now own an HF rig at all? 2. How many, if upgraded will buy an HF rig? 3. How many Techs are spouses or family members of an existing ham who is already General, Advanced or Extra? 4. How many of existing 300K techs are SK or otherwise inactive anyway? As for "elmering" those that would become Generals, I'm sure many of us are willing to help anyone that asks for help. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... 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? IF that is what you think must be the only way this can be implemented then YOU file your coments as such or file your own petition. By the same token, we could resurrect the old Advanced written and use it in place of the Extra. Ditto my last comment. 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? The above is ONLY a prospect for the period of time between when the FCC announces their decisin and the actual implementation date for free upgrades. Might someone today look at what the ARRL proposes and now, on the hope the proposal goes through, decide to do nothing towards upgrade? Well I'm sure some will do exactly that. For now, the proposal is in the public arena and that is just the way things are. 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. So what. Are you saying the ARRL should not have made the proposal because it rejected a former upgrade proposal? Ultimately the FCC will decide. I may hazard a guess as to how the FCC will rule, but that's all it would be...a guess. Until the FCC sings on this proposal, none of us know for sure. 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. Neither Carl nor I are ignoring the numbers involved. We fully acknowledge the numbers you have posted...which anyone can get from several database and web site sources anyway. Both Carl and I support the ONE-TIME upgrades with full knowledge of the numbers. 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. Agreed. You aren't telling me anything I don't know. 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. Yet you offer no specific "harm(s)." But if it harms no one to get the simplified scheme, why not make it permanent? Yawn...do YOU want an incentive licensing system or don't you? 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". The reality is that words like always and never are usually (I almost said never :-) too restrictive and subject to critisism when other factors come into play that one might not have considered before. I try to avoid use of always/never, but have, I'm sure used them without thinking about it at the time. 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.... You got it. 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? It would then, truly lower requirments on a permanent basis. Neither Carl, you nor I want that. Or have you changed your mind? 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. You made my point. With this, no one losses anything. If the existing classes are not given free upgrades, nobody loses anything either. True, but it doesn't "clean-up" the myriad of different licenses that exist and would continue to exist for decades more. Clearly you disagree as to the need to "clean-up" the licensing and, I'd guess you will file comments stating it as such. For now, you and I simply disagree on the need. I'm not going to waste time trying to change your mind. The ARRL petition is quite clear on the why. 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. And I am also assuming IF someone did, the FCC would reject it anyway. I'll worry about it if and when it happens. 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? IF the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, there is sufficient arguments there to counter argue. 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. I have learned the folllowing basic instincts regarding how people react....take something away from someone and they resent it just about forever. Give something to someone but not someone else and the one that didn't get the freebie rarely cares or thinks about it for long. That's grass roots political reality 101. 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. It doesn't have to hunt for you. The FCC is the only place that dog needs to 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? We'll never know will we? 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. Fair enough. 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.. Good grief. I never said that at all. The reality is, in the end, the FCC makes the final decision. I didn't say you should not oppose any aspect of the ARRL petition you want. You can continue to oppose and file whatever you want with the FCC if it (FCC) decides to implement free upgrades. It is a free country, express your opinions all you want. 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... The balls in your court. Shoot or pass. 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. 20K is only about 3% of all hams. Not a very big number in that perspective. 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. Just look at the declining Novice and Advanced numbers. Speroni data doesn't show any significant percent of "grace period" renewals. 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? Because God gave me the wisdom to change those I can. 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. I speak only for myself. Lots of other people have said lots of other things. 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. If the "new" NOVICE doesn't work, then some probably will. I can't know or be aware of everyone that is or wants to be a ham. BUT, until it does, this is just an academic discussion to which my participation will be limited. 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!" The ONLY drop in upgrades that would benefit anyone is the Techs from a new ham perspective. We already see only a negligiable amount of Novices upgrading to Tech or Advanced upgrading to Extra. 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. Understood, but if we only look at already licensed hams, the ONLY group that could quickly upgrade to benefit from a free upgrade later is the existing Novice group...34K by your numbers at most...or about 5% of all hams. 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. So in reality, you have no clue as to Carl's ability or not to pass similar tests that you once did. If correct, why make such a personal statement you can't back-up? 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. Who gives a damn how old you or I was when we passed certain tests? And as to whatever other tests you are talking about, you realy have no knowledge of Carl's competence and/or technical expertise in the field of radio and making the statement: "And he couldn't pass the other tests I had to take." is just inflamatory rhetoric. 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! Sorry to have upset you. Now back to the Daytona 500. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: 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. And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Which would, I think, foster more hams to learn and use morse code if they really want that hot DX. And if more hams didn't learn morse to work those DX stations, that'd give more opportunity to work them via DX to current code capable hams. In either case it sounds like something the code enthusiasts should be real happy about. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once? Put it all on a W1AW bulletin. Will take less than 15 minutes to describe at 20 WPM in a broadcast. :-) LHA / WMD |
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. As well it should be ... the hobby-service-what ever has a wealth of deversity to offer but in the context of amateur radio. Any thing else for the non-professional radio affecionado unless he has a ticket would by defination not be amateur radio. Am I "dissing" those who don't have the exalted ticket? Nope .. I knew a fellow who could copy 45 WPM and never had a ticket but loved to listen to high speed CW on the ham bands. He said he would rather be a SWLer ..and this guy never was a military or commercial op. I take a less metaphysical approach to "real feel". I mean it is relatively easy to determine what Amateurs do Not really ...not that is is such a big deal but I find you are falling into the trap that a lot of our "expert" hams out there fall into ....that is one of projection of one's knowledge to another. I really read with a chuckle those who say the test is too easy .. a give away. Again prospective. The guy or gal who is just starting out with no basis is overwhelmed and needs support with the simple things. I see this time and time again with our club's yearly no-code classes. 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. But they have choosen the unique experience of amateur radio. 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. Maybe knowing "about" but really knowing with some sort of "real feeling" ......doubtful . Mater of personality ... boy have I known some personalitie s in "hamdom" ... I can't say that there is a dominate personality ham type. Take care Mark ...73 Tom Popovic KI3R |
And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. My advise is to to buy up ALL the used rigs you can afford and try to corner the market. The give away price of new equipment will soar with demand. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Can't hide for long ....how long before it will be wall to wall "fone"???? Which would, I think, foster more hams to learn and use morse code Nope Bill .... it will foster a concerted movement to turn the CW subbands into SSBville. The mode will die or at best be put into a historical preserve ...maybe like the bottom 20 kcs of the 30 meter band. if they really want that hot DX. And if more hams didn't learn morse to work those DX stations, that'd give more opportunity to work them via DX to current code capable hams. In either Bill I wish you were right ...I say IF they were interested in CW DX they would be there now not waiting for the tooth fairy to leave them the freeby under the pillow at night case it sounds like something the code enthusiasts should be real happy about. Oh yes Bill I am REAL happy about it ...I can't wait to see the subbands go the route of "gentleman's" agreement and not defined regulation. The idea of novice enhancement should have occured years ago with the novices gaining all CW subbands. But nope the "experts" out there kept them in the ghettos as 4th class citizens. Attempts years ago to even try to improve this was met with derision from the establishment. What!!! 5WPM on my belovid bottom 25 kcs. Never ... I will never share this DX with anyone save my speed peers. What would Hiram say?? So guys don't blame the "foneists" totally for your troubles as we missed out bigtime in strengthening our ranks and mode. Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73 Bill ....Tom KI3R Belle Vernon Pa. |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once? Don't have to Dee. They are already qualified! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: 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. And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Of course they won't all become active. I suspect a sizable percentage will remain on VHF where they are now (tech's). And if it goes through, since the F.C.C. and the ARRL have decided that they are qualified, they will need no help. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once? Do you really believe for a second that if the upgrades take place that there will suddenly be 300K people "on-the-air" in HF that haven't been? If yes, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Reality check... 1. How many Techs now own an HF rig at all? 2. How many, if upgraded will buy an HF rig? 3. How many Techs are spouses or family members of an existing ham who is already General, Advanced or Extra? 4. How many of existing 300K techs are SK or otherwise inactive anyway? As for "elmering" those that would become Generals, I'm sure many of us are willing to help anyone that asks for help. Of course! One thing I can't stand is the p**sy attitude of some OF's toward newcomers. I'll be happy to Elmer these folk. I'll probably point them toward one of the General Study guides, or even the old General Question pool for one thing. Operation of a station will be another thing, and hopefully we can get them off to a good start. IMO they would be at some handicap at the beginning. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once? Do you really believe for a second that if the upgrades take place that there will suddenly be 300K people "on-the-air" in HF that haven't been? If yes, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Reality check... 1. How many Techs now own an HF rig at all? 2. How many, if upgraded will buy an HF rig? 3. How many Techs are spouses or family members of an existing ham who is already General, Advanced or Extra? 4. How many of existing 300K techs are SK or otherwise inactive anyway? As for "elmering" those that would become Generals, I'm sure many of us are willing to help anyone that asks for help. Of course! One thing I can't stand is the p**sy attitude of some OF's toward newcomers. I'll be happy to Elmer these folk. I'll probably point them toward one of the General Study guides, or even the old General Question pool for one thing. Operation of a station will be another thing, and hopefully we can get them off to a good start. IMO they would be at some handicap at the beginning. I think there are plenty of folks that have worked DX on VHF and will fit right in. Those that venture into HF that have only repeater experience will, as you note, probably need some helpful direction. I'm with you as to being ready and willing to help anyone. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
m... "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. Not the slightest comment about the original attempt at an insult which was based on ignorance of the facts, but, wow, when there happens to be a return barb pointing out that ignorance, THAT deserves the full righteous indignation treatment. Amusing hyprocisy, but nothing more. 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. Hardly, since I don't agree with a lot of what Mr Anderson said either. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as agreeing with his opponent, although I suspect that may be a difficult concept for some in this NG. You have a ".au" address...What's your VK call? Is this for an "Hah! He isn't even an Amateur!" sort of thing? Since you have already deemed me a troll, I doubt that you would believe it if I told you. Since I'm sure that you will look up the database to check if I'm lying, you can take the effort to find it in the first place. My initials are MR, not MJ. Of course, I could be lying about that as well. ;-) Or have I misjudged you and you are just looking for a sked? I'll trust your answer, because I don't think everyone who disagrees with what I think is just a troll. ;-) Mark |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once? Do you really believe for a second that if the upgrades take place that there will suddenly be 300K people "on-the-air" in HF that haven't been? If yes, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Reality check... 1. How many Techs now own an HF rig at all? 2. How many, if upgraded will buy an HF rig? 3. How many Techs are spouses or family members of an existing ham who is already General, Advanced or Extra? 4. How many of existing 300K techs are SK or otherwise inactive anyway? As for "elmering" those that would become Generals, I'm sure many of us are willing to help anyone that asks for help. Cheers, Bill K2UNK It was partially a hypothetical question. Some Techs are inactive anyway so there's probably a signficant portion there. However if even just a third of them get on the air, that's still a big enough increase, even if spread over months, since some will be buying rigs, that it could be a problem for a while. If even 10% of the current Techs get on the HF bands within a relatively short period of time, it will be chaotic for a period of time. But answer this. If they are not going to get on the air, what is the point of the free upgrade??? It is senseless to give people something they are not going to use. Let's take a look at the points 1 to 3. 1. Most Techs that I personally know have an HF+2m rig at home as they are planning to upgrade anyway. Or they have it for all-mode VHF/UHF capability or satellite work. All these people will be in a position to go on the air instantly if free upgrades are instituted. 2. Among the active Techs, a very high percentage can be expected to buy an HF rig as soon as they could afford one. 3. If they are a family member of a higher class licensee and are actually interested in radio for its own sake, they will go on the air immediately. |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: 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. And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Which would, I think, foster more hams to learn and use morse code if they really want that hot DX. And if more hams didn't learn morse to work those DX stations, that'd give more opportunity to work them via DX to current code capable hams. In either case it sounds like something the code enthusiasts should be real happy about. Cheers, Bill K2UNK While that could be a supposed "bright spot", I don't think that is a reason for supporting codeless licenses and free upgrades. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once? Do you really believe for a second that if the upgrades take place that there will suddenly be 300K people "on-the-air" in HF that haven't been? If yes, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Reality check... 1. How many Techs now own an HF rig at all? 2. How many, if upgraded will buy an HF rig? 3. How many Techs are spouses or family members of an existing ham who is already General, Advanced or Extra? 4. How many of existing 300K techs are SK or otherwise inactive anyway? As for "elmering" those that would become Generals, I'm sure many of us are willing to help anyone that asks for help. Cheers, Bill K2UNK It was partially a hypothetical question. Some Techs are inactive anyway so there's probably a signficant portion there. However if even just a third of them get on the air, that's still a big enough increase, even if spread over months, since some will be buying rigs, that it could be a problem for a while. If even 10% of the current Techs get on the HF bands within a relatively short period of time, it will be chaotic for a period of time. But answer this. If they are not going to get on the air, what is the point of the free upgrade??? It is senseless to give people something they are not going to use. I can turn that around in a heart-beat. If they are not going to get on the air on HF, why would YOU care? Bottom line, none of us know how many will "get into" HF and how many won't. Let's take a look at the points 1 to 3. 1. Most Techs that I personally know have an HF+2m rig at home as they are planning to upgrade anyway. Or they have it for all-mode VHF/UHF capability or satellite work. All these people will be in a position to go on the air instantly if free upgrades are instituted. Do they have an antenna for HF transmitting too? 2. Among the active Techs, a very high percentage can be expected to buy an HF rig as soon as they could afford one. And you base that on what logic or facts? 3. If they are a family member of a higher class licensee and are actually interested in radio for its own sake, they will go on the air immediately. Fine, but they can't be on the same time as their other family member with the HF license. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: 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. And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Which would, I think, foster more hams to learn and use morse code if they really want that hot DX. And if more hams didn't learn morse to work those DX stations, that'd give more opportunity to work them via DX to current code capable hams. In either case it sounds like something the code enthusiasts should be real happy about. Cheers, Bill K2UNK While that could be a supposed "bright spot", I don't think that is a reason for supporting codeless licenses and free upgrades. That is certainly your perogative. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: While that could be a supposed "bright spot", I don't think that is a reason for supporting codeless licenses and free upgrades. Right...U.S. amateur radio is all about radiotelegraphy. beep, beep LHA / WMD |
Paul W. Schleck wrote in message ...
In (N2EY) writes: This is Part Two - previous stuff removed to save space) You might argue that not every existing ham has obtained the same degree of experience, or even a minimum necessary level of experience to be given a free upgrade. That would be true, but ultimately would be self-limiting, as experience would correlate with participation. An inactive ham using no privileges today would be using no more privileges if the FCC gave him a free upgrade tomorrow. Free upgrades are not a perfect solution, ideal in all cases, but are a good solution overall. I disagree. What's wrong with simply allowing Techs, Tech Pluses and Advanceds to upgrade in their own time? What is the sudden need to eliminate those license classes? The Novice and Advanced have been closed off to new issues for almost 4 years, and their numbers have declined. And from 1953 to 1967, no new Advanceds were issued. Did any of that cause problems? What's the rush? Are the written tests too hard? Well? The current Extra was recently earned by a bright seven year old - can we really say that it's unreasonable to expect others to do what she did for the same privileges? As others have pointed out in other threads, the 7-year old Extra is a statistical outlier, one of a handful in amateur radio history, and not a typical example. It's true that there have only been a few hams younger than about 10 years of age. And in most cases these young hams were in somewhat exceptional circumstances. Add a few years, however, and the numbers explode. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of present-day hams started as preteens or young teenagers, often with no other hams in the family and no real parental support other than "don't electrocute yourself or burn the house down". So we still have the nagging question of why it's unreasonable to expect others to do what they did for the same privileges? The more typical, and meaningful, example of an entry-level ham would be one who was high school or college-age. Why? I got my first ham license at the beginning of 7th grade. What is now middle school. No other hams in my family or neighborhood. There were many like me, limited mostly by lack of money and transportation. The greater numbers of these typical entry-level hams would mean that they would have a more profound impact on the shaping of the future of amateur radio, anyway. Agreed! But note this: When the ARRL paid READEX to do a survey back in 1996, the most strongly procodetest age group was the *youngest* group - 15 and under. 85% were in support of code testing, only 15% opposed. Time after time, when Morse code is demonstrated to young prospective hams, they *like* it and are eager to learn it. The idea that a 5 wpm code test is somehow a barrier to young people is not borne out by actual experience. Why do the Advanced class subbands have to be "refarmed" at all? Who or what would they be "refarmed" to? What's the longterm plan? If you do agree that the Advanced phone bands should be refarmed at some point in the future, at what point would you have it done? Would you leave it to Extras, give it to Generals, or would you otherwise split it up in some way? Why does it need to be done at all? Is the Extra written that hard? Why do you avoid these simple questions? Because sometimes simple questions are loaded with built-in assumptions Mine aren't. (e.g., "Why won't you join me in voting to ban COP-KILLER bullets?" or even the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"). I am simply asking why it is so urgent to get rid of closed-off license classes. Where is the "loading" in such a question? Furthermore, you see simplicity where I see complication, and vice-versa. I don't see what the problem is with simply keeping the Advanced and Tech. Allow those who hold them to upgrade in their own time. So you would argue that any refarming would be done at some asymptotic point in the far future, indistinguishable at present between "decades" and "never." I'm *asking* what the problem is with leaving some things alone. The question has been asked and answered, though I have given you an answer you disagree with. Asking the question repeatedly will not result in a different answer from me. Put away the rhetorical bludgeon. All I see is the answer that "we need to simplify!" but not *why* that simplification is so needed right now, when it wasn't needed 4 years ago. Alternatively, avoids opening up the Advanced class phone bands to General-class hams (an effective downgrade in privileges for Advanced, and crowding out DX users with more U.S. hams in those bands) or opening up the Extra class phone bands to Advanced-class hams (which would be a "free upgrade" in all but name). Again, why not just leave those subbands as they are now? In this day and age, regulatory agencies seem more eager to simplify regulations. Removing regulations that are obsolete, or cover too small an intended audience to be justified on a cost basis, is likely a top priority for such agencies. Again, what is your timeline for change? Decades in the future, or never? I don't see any reason to "refarm" them at all. Not at this time, anyway. Note that in 4 years, the number of Advanceds has dropped by only about 16%. Seems to be a pretty popular license even today. Note also that several Advanceds have said they *don't* want an upgrade, free or not. I don't understand why, but that's what they've said. It sounds to me like you want all Advanceds to become Extras so that the Advanced subbands can become General bandspace. That's not part of the ARRL proposal, though. No, I never said that. No, you didn't. That's why I wrote "sounds to me". My first draft of my reply said, "No I never said nor implied that." I edited it to achieve economy of words, because even if I somehow implied that I supported the entire ARRL proposal, adoption of that proposal would not giving the entire Advanced phone subbands to the Generals. The word "refarmed" was used, which is a euphemism for "reallocated". If all Advanceds get Extras, but Generals get no more bandspace, then what is actually "refarmed"? I would combine Advanced and Extra phone bands into just Extra phone bands, and leave the General bands as they are. That's the status quo! It's not "refarming" at all. It still removes one color bar from the frequency allocation charts (for Advanced), so is not strictly a "status quo" solution like you have advocated. The point is that by using the word "refarming", you implied that Generals would get more bandspace. I suppose a definition of refarming is necessary for this context. Even the ITU seems to struggle with the meaning of this word (search for "definition of refarming" on Google). A commonly-accepted definition is: "Moving one service out to make way for another that would use the spectrum more optimally." So, really, neither of us are using the word entirely according to this definition. Even if we substitute "class" for "service" above, no General, Advanced, or Extra is being moved out to make way for anyone else under the two alternatives offered in this discussion (mine, and the ARRL's). Even Novice and Tech Plus hams only face a "lose some, but gain a lot more" prospect under the ARRL proposal. You would define refarming as making different license classes within the same service either gain or lose spectrum. I would agree that this would constitute one kind of refarming. I would also assert that the elimination of license classes within a service to simplify spectrum allocation is another kind of refarming. I say it would be clearer to avoid such euphemistic words and be more direct. "Reallocate" or, better yet, "widen the phone bands". Because that's what it comes down to. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't support frequency shifting, such as that proposed to make 40 meters a primary amateur allocation, or part of Novice band refarming. Just that I would keep the proportional amounts roughly the same. I realize that the current ARRL proposal splits up the Advanced phone bands, giving proportionally more to the General than the Extra phone bands on 80 and 40 meters, and proportionally less on 15 meters (no changes on 20 meters). I do not strongly support that, but even that proposal isn't giving the entire Advanced phone bandwidth to the Generals. And if nothing at all is done, the results are almost the same as what you propose. Emphasis on "almost." One of my motivations in this extended discussion is to determine our agreements and disagreements, what are hard-and-fast beliefs, and what might be open to compromise. Good idea. In case you haven't figured it out, I'm gathering verbage for a draft of my comments on any future NPRM. You seem to be alternating between active opposition to, and fatalistic acceptance of, the possibility that Element 1 will be deleted. That's one way to look at it. The fact is that there are more issues to be addressed than just the 5 wpm code test. It's important to not lose sight of the fact that whether the code test stays or goes, those other issues should not be forgotten. Perhaps you want to "go down fighting" on this issue with the ARRL and the FCC. Why not? If those of us who support code testing don't ask, we'll never get. Is the current 5 wpm test, with all its accomodations, *really* too much to ask of new hams? The ARRL proposal writeups wax nostalgic about the old Novice license, but carefully avoid mentioning that part-and-parcel of the old Novice was the 5 wpm code test. Your ideal-world position of no changes allows me to rebut with the continued complications that it implies. My ideal-world position isn't one of no changes. I've outlined it here before, and can dig it up again if you want to see it. On the other hand, I too believe that Element 1 being dropped is likely, but I also believe that changes to license classes and band allocations are still very much up in the air at this point. Because of this, I will happily play "what-if" with the various scenarios (as the FCC might do them in any combination) while also indicating which ones that I favor. So that there is no further confusion about what I favor, I support dropping Element 1 (which would merge Technician with Technician-Plus), For all license classes or just Tech Plus? giving present Advanced-class licensees a "free upgrade" to Extra, and keeping General and Extra-class phone bands substantially and proportionately the same (save for some small shifting/resizing for Novice-band refarming and making all of 40 meters a primary amateur radio allocation). So the Tech would remain the entry level license? Also avoids having to accommodate a license class (Tech Plus) that isn't even carried in the FCC database anymore, which is a records/ enforcement problem for the FCC, and requires the licensee to keep documentation forever. If the current rules are left alone, all Tech Pluses will be Techs in six years, two months and 20 days or so. If by saying, "If the current rules are left alone..." you really meant leaving alone everything *except* the 5 WPM Morse code requirement (which would be eliminated for these General and below under the ARRL proposal), then, and only then, Technician-class hams will assume the HF privileges of Technician-Plus. Whatever. I don't see why the 5 wpm code test is such a big deal as a requirement. Does your "Whatever" answer above mean that you support 5 WPM Morse code for all HF license classes, or just for Extra? I support a code test for all amateur licenses, period. I think the dropping of the code test for the Tech back in 1991 was a mistake. I argued and commented against it then, and much of what I said would happen has come to pass. The FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (EFCS) only goes back to 1992 and your callsign doesn't appear in Google Groups until 1997. Would you mind elaborating on what you thought would happen, and what you think has come to pass? OK, here's the short list: First off, dropping the code test from the Tech in 1991 re-created a ham license that was VHF-UHF centric. New hams were funneled to start off on VHF/UHF FM phone with new manufactured equipment, rather than HF CW, where homebrew, kit and used equipment were more prevalent. This created a divide between those hams who had some or all HF and those who had none, centered around the code test. Such divisions are not a good thing. The resulting division has diverted attention from other, more important issues such as publicity, antenna restrictions, and limits to growth. Second, the change brought about a surge in new hams (good) but not sustained growth (bad). Third, one of the things promised back in 1991 was that there would be more and more "technical people" becoming hams if the code test were dropped for VHF/UHF. Did not happen. Most of all, the continual tinkering with the license system has perpetuated and expanded the myth that the license tests are "too hard", and that all will be well if we just make this change or that change. Yet history tells a very different story. Look at the growth in US ham radio from 1991 to the present, and compare it to an identical length of time before 1991. Was there a big, sustained increase in the number of new hams because of the Tech losing its code test? Look at the growth since April 2000. Mostly existing hams getting upgrades, but not a huge jump in the number of new hams. And the issue isn't just code tests. The *written* tests have been reduced in number, size and complexity, too. Is that really a good thing? If the former, then there is a very real distinction that will continue to exist in the license ladder whether or not it continues to be recorded in the database. If so, then the expiring of Tech-Plus license in 6 years is not a simplification, it is a complication. That's still a long time in FCC enforcement (and VEC administration) years. Why? It's been almost 4 years since the last restructuring took effect. Look at the enforcement letters - Techs without code masquerading as Tech Pluses isn't a big problem, from what I see. You argue that it's not an enforcement problem because few or none have been caught. I would argue that it is an enforcement problem because it would be very hard to catch someone, especially if confirming who has what privileges requires documentation that is no longer in the FCC database, and might no longer be retained by hams or VEC's. The FCC's limited staff time is probably being aimed at big fish, such as Advanced and Extra-class scofflaws engaging in power and interference violations. You might want to read the letters. They're pretty evenly distributed, license clas wise, except for Novices. I have read them. Even if they are evenly distributed in numbers, they are not evenly distributed according to number of licensees in each class. If they were, then there would be approximately one Extra-class violator for every three Tech/Tech-Plus violators, or every 1.5 General-class violators. I stand by my original argument. Specifically, that the FCC's enforcement agenda is mostly aimed at high-yield (easier to catch/more serious punishment, aka "big fish") violations "such as" (i.e., not limited to) power and interference violations at higher classes of license. Such licensees are being subject to proportionately more enforcement scrutiny than other classes of license. What about the new ham who was found transmitting false distress calls on a marine VHF frequency using a modified ham rig? As I recall, intentional false distress is one of the most serious infractions possible. There is also the factor of enforcement being complaint-driven. Someone who acts up on a 2 meter repeater can be heard over a radius of perhaps a few dozen miles, and the repeater control ops can shut down the machine. But on HF, a single bad apple can be heard for hundreds or thousands of miles, and there's no way to "shut down the machine". Please note, too, that the enforcement actions for on-air behavior are almost entirely directed against those using voice modes. Enforcement actions against hams using Morse code in the CW/data parts of the bands are almost nonexistent. The disparity is far more than can be explained by the relative popularity of the modes. Out of time again. More to come in Part Three 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. Uh huh! I'll ask: Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified? Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific class of license. Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges. The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular band segments. Let's be serious here! It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our lanyards. Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose it. I'm not confused about who produced it and I'm not confused about your support for it, though I believe such support is unwise. Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion contrary to yours. Where was that written? You surely don't expect me to sit mute while you lead the cheering section for something I believe to be wrong, do you? If you don't agree with me, I really don't give a damn... That much is evident. Let me quote you: "Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion contrary to yours". ...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that matters is what the FCC will think and do. We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current regulations. In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test. Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's a--well, you know the drill. Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement. If that is your view, then it applies equally to you non-refutations of earlier statements. After all, you're the guy who used those exact responses. I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm betting that the answer is "none". Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners? The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians being beginners. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class license. No ifs, ands or buts. Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test. That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole shebang. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is something you stated that you'd never support. If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition. I didn't agree with it when I read it and I don't agree with it when you say you support it. In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra and General. Clear enough for you? I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to justify it as being necessary any time. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been forthcoming. The question keeps coming up because some people can't understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements. I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some unintended consequences. A few things here. IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the evil Morse code supporters. I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive system as created simply asks for passage of another test on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only" spectrum from that of a General operating in the General spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted power. So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the elimination of incentive licensing. I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements. I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. Nice waffle. There can be no other explanation. I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. You must. You must. You support permitting those who have not passed certain elements being granted a freebie upgrade. Such an upgrade is at odds with incentive licensing. If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and say so. Because it isn't true! That thing which looks like a duck is quacking and swimming. If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a one-time basis, it can be done permanently. Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have stated I support? Answer - NO! I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Is that how you decide what to believe? Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances. "If it feels good, do it". and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of thousands. Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary to do. Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their logic. No need to repeat it again. Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't want it repeated. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound disingenuous. What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free to enjoy your own beliefs. I fully understand the difference. It does not make me happy to believe that your support of a "just this once" freebie constitutes a reduction in requirements, I still see it happening. Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs. Frankly Dave, I don't give a damn. That has long been apparent. Dave K8MN |
William wrote:
Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists. You left out "his running dogs and lackeys". Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. Uh huh! I'll ask: Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified? Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific class of license. Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges. The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular band segments. If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time" waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades...which then means that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed, constitute fully qualified hams for those license classes. Let's be serious here! It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our lanyards. Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose it. I'm not confused about who produced it and I'm not confused about your support for it, though I believe such support is unwise. Your free to hold whatever opinion you wish. Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion contrary to yours. Where was that written? You surely don't expect me to sit mute while you lead the cheering section for something I believe to be wrong, do you? Whatever floats your boat. If you don't agree with me, I really don't give a damn... That much is evident. Let me quote you: "Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion contrary to yours". Your point? That is my opinion of how I read your comments...which is certainly my right. ...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that matters is what the FCC will think and do. We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current regulations. Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it isn't in sync with what you think. In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test. Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's a--well, you know the drill. Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement. If that is your view, then it applies equally to you non-refutations of earlier statements. After all, you're the guy who used those exact responses. Whatever floats your boat. I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm betting that the answer is "none". Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners? The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians being beginners. Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners.... but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old hands" are allowed 1500 watts. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class license. No ifs, ands or buts. Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test. That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole shebang. Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades. If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down" then you have a lapse of logic somewhere. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is something you stated that you'd never support. If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition. I didn't agree with it when I read it and I don't agree with it when you say you support it. Fair enough. In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra and General. Clear enough for you? I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to justify it as being necessary any time. Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it jeopardizes all future requirements. Governments often waive criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over, if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once they should be permanently waived? And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been forthcoming. The question keeps coming up because some people can't understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements. I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some unintended consequences. And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government as already noted. A few things here. IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the evil Morse code supporters. I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive system as created simply asks for passage of another test on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only" spectrum from that of a General operating in the General spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted power. So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the elimination of incentive licensing. I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements. I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. Nice waffle. No waffle at all. THAT is my specific position and I do wish that licensing privileges did have a relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. There can be no other explanation. I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. You must. You must. You support permitting those who have not passed certain elements being granted a freebie upgrade. Such an upgrade is at odds with incentive licensing. Yawn. Tellit to the FCC then. Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't accept your argument. Seems to me I'm in good company then. If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and say so. Because it isn't true! That thing which looks like a duck is quacking and swimming. Yawn. Your perceptions do not make it so. If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a one-time basis, it can be done permanently. Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have stated I support? Answer - NO! I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Is that how you decide what to believe? Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances. "If it feels good, do it". Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions? Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or her you're taking a vaction day? and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of thousands. Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary to do. Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their logic. No need to repeat it again. Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't want it repeated. Repeat it all you want. I've neither the time nor inclination to cut and paste it in here just to make you happy. If anyone else is curious...go to www.arrl.org. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound disingenuous. What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free to enjoy your own beliefs. I fully understand the difference. It does not make me happy to believe that your support of a "just this once" freebie constitutes a reduction in requirements, I still see it happening. There's that Twilight Zone music again. Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs. Frankly Dave, I don't give a damn. That has long been apparent. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bill Sohl wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. Uh huh! I'll ask: Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified? Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific class of license. Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges. The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular band segments. If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time" waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades No kidding? ...which then means that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed, constitute fully qualified hams for those license classes. Yeah, I know that. I'm trying to keep that part of the ARRL proposal from taking place. Let's be serious here! It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our lanyards. Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose it. I'm not confused about who produced it and I'm not confused about your support for it, though I believe such support is unwise. Your free to hold whatever opinion you wish. You're correct. Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion contrary to yours. Where was that written? You surely don't expect me to sit mute while you lead the cheering section for something I believe to be wrong, do you? Whatever floats your boat. Non-response noted. If you don't agree with me, I really don't give a damn... That much is evident. Let me quote you: "Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion contrary to yours". Your point? ....went right over your head. That is my opinion of how I read your comments...which is certainly my right. I'll hold in reserve my opinion of how you read my comments. ...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that matters is what the FCC will think and do. We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current regulations. Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it isn't in sync with what you think. That should have become obvious to you a little earlier. In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test. Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's a--well, you know the drill. Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement. If that is your view, then it applies equally to you non-refutations of earlier statements. After all, you're the guy who used those exact responses. Whatever floats your boat. Non-response noted. I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm betting that the answer is "none". Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners? The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians being beginners. Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners.... Did you think I wrote anything about such a thing? but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old hands" are allowed 1500 watts. Yep. No one seems to have had a problem with that in the past. Beginners aren't likely to run 1500 watts on 2m or 6m and "old hands" are more likely to know what they're doing. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class license. No ifs, ands or buts. Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test. That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole shebang. Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades. If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down" then you have a lapse of logic somewhere. On the contrary. If such material is not needed by thousands and thousands on a one-time basis, why would it need to be tested at all, ever? Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. Are the people qualified? YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges they would be unqualified. By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is something you stated that you'd never support. If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition. I didn't agree with it when I read it and I don't agree with it when you say you support it. Fair enough. In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra and General. Clear enough for you? I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to justify it as being necessary any time. Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it jeopardizes all future requirements. Burp. I suspect that not many FCC staffers care one way or the other. The FCC has long abdicated its responsibilities in enforcement, planning and testing. Governments often waive criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over, if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once they should be permanently waived? A freebie amateur radio licensing waiver is not a criminal matter nor is it a fine. What is under discussion is amateur radio licensing and whether the testing for certain classes of license are truly necessary if they can be waived for thousands and thousands of people. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been forthcoming. The question keeps coming up because some people can't understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements. I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some unintended consequences. And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government as already noted. You've written of quite disparate scenarios, having nothing to do with the topic of discussion. So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the elimination of incentive licensing. I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements. I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. Nice waffle. No waffle at all. I don't agree. THAT is my specific position and I do wish that licensing privileges did have a relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. But, Bill, that is for the FCC to decide and they are the final arbiter ;-) There can be no other explanation. I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore, oppose incentive licensing. You must. You must. You support permitting those who have not passed certain elements being granted a freebie upgrade. Such an upgrade is at odds with incentive licensing. Yawn. Tellit to the FCC then. Burp. I shall. Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't accept your argument. The League's board isn't required to accept it, nor have I noted any opposition. I can make my views to clear to my Director and to those other Directors and Vice-Directors I know. I've already made my view known to Dave Sumner. Seems to me I'm in good company then. Not necessarily. If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and say so. Because it isn't true! That thing which looks like a duck is quacking and swimming. Yawn. Your perceptions do not make it so. *Scratch* No, your quacking and swimming make it so. If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great disservice. Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed* support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new" novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test) The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a one-time basis, it can be done permanently. Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have stated I support? Answer - NO! I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just do this once Believe whatever makes you feel good. Is that how you decide what to believe? Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances. "If it feels good, do it". Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions? Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or her you're taking a vaction day? Izzat what we've had under discussion, taking a drive in an antique car 'cuz it's a nice day? How about calling your boss and telling him you're taking a couple of days to mull over the ARRL's proposal for revamping amateur radio testing? and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of thousands. Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary to do. Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their logic. No need to repeat it again. Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't want it repeated. Repeat it all you want. You told me that there was no need to repeat it. I've neither the time nor inclination to cut and paste it in here just to make you happy. As long as you support freebie upgrades, you aren't going to make me happy. If anyone else is curious...go to www.arrl.org. I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements. I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access to HF. A pattern forms. Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the background too. I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound disingenuous. What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free to enjoy your own beliefs. I fully understand the difference. It does not make me happy to believe that your support of a "just this once" freebie constitutes a reduction in requirements, I still see it happening. There's that Twilight Zone music again. It only seems to be playing at your place. A freebie upgrade is a reduction in requirements *punto*. Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message (SNIP) The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular band segments. If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time" waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades No kidding? ...which then means that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed, constitute fully qualified hams for those license classes. Yeah, I know that. I'm trying to keep that part of the ARRL proposal from taking place. Go for it then. But if you fail in your effort, those that will be "free" upgraded are qualified because they will have been upgradedaccording to FCC rules at the time. (SNIP) ...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that matters is what the FCC will think and do. We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current regulations. Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it isn't in sync with what you think. That should have become obvious to you a little earlier. It has never been unclear to me. (SNIP) I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm betting that the answer is "none". Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners? The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians bbeing beginners. Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners.... Did you think I wrote anything about such a thing? YOU said: "Also, what makes you (me) assume ALL technicians are beginners?" I made no such assumption, nor did I suggest it in what I wrote previously. but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old hands" are allowed 1500 watts. Yep. No one seems to have had a problem with that in the past. Beginners aren't likely to run 1500 watts on 2m or 6m and "old hands" are more likely to know what they're doing. You still ignore thefact that beginners CAN run 1500 watts. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class license. No ifs, ands or buts. Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test. That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole shebang. Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades. If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down" then you have a lapse of logic somewhere. On the contrary. If such material is not needed by thousands and thousands on a one-time basis, why would it need to be tested at all, ever? You still ignore the reality of non-relationship of privileges vs license class. The ONLY logic behind the current system is Incentive Licensing. (SNIP) In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra and General. Clear enough for you? I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to justify it as being necessary any time. Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it jeopardizes all future requirements. Burp. I suspect that not many FCC staffers care one way or the other. The FCC has long abdicated its responsibilities in enforcement, planning and testing. Please do comment to that effect in your FCC filing when you do so. Governments often waive criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over, if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once they should be permanently waived? A freebie amateur radio licensing waiver is not a criminal matter nor is it a fine. So how come many states have raised driver's license ages for teenagers and not had any problems. If a 16 year old was qualified to drive a few years ago, why can't they now? The point is that requirements can and do change for various things. What is under discussion is amateur radio licensing and whether the testing for certain classes of license are truly necessary if they can be waived for thousands and thousands of people. Testing for US hams has changed many times. When Generals LOST privileges in 1968, no one raised a legal argument that if a General was qualified in 1965 to operate on all allowed Amateur spectrum, that the same General should be legally qualified to do so after Incentive licensing. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been forthcoming. The question keeps coming up because some people can't understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements. I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some unintended consequences. And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government as already noted. You've written of quite disparate scenarios, having nothing to do with the topic of discussion. There are many analogies: Raised the drinking age, raised the smoking age, driver's license age, waiving tax penalties, waiving of illegal alien penalties. Not one situation has been rolled back to the "waived" condition after reinstatement of the waived requirements, laws or regulations. Legally, it isn't an issue. So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the elimination of incentive licensing. I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements. I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. Nice waffle. No waffle at all. I don't agree. I don't care. THAT is my specific position and I do wish that licensing privileges did have a relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. But, Bill, that is for the FCC to decide and they are the final arbiter ;-) Absolutely correct. It is, in the end, the FCC's decision. Nothing I have said, nothing I wish, makes it any different. I can and will add my voice to those that comment to the FCC as to my preferences. (SNIP) Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't accept your argument. The League's board isn't required to accept it, nor have I noted any opposition. I can make my views to clear to my Director and to those other Directors and Vice-Directors I know. I've already made my view known to Dave Sumner. Seems to me I'm in good company then. Not necessarily. You are entitled to your opinion. (SNIP) Believe whatever makes you feel good. Is that how you decide what to believe? Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances. "If it feels good, do it". Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions? Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or her you're taking a vaction day? Izzat what we've had under discussion, taking a drive in an antique car 'cuz it's a nice day? How about calling your boss and telling him you're taking a couple of days to mull over the ARRL's proposal for revamping amateur radio testing? I could do that. and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of thousands. Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary to do. Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their logic. No need to repeat it again. Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't want it repeated. Repeat it all you want. You told me that there was no need to repeat it. I said I wasn't going to repeat it. You can do it all you want. I've neither the time nor inclination to cut and paste it in here just to make you happy. As long as you support freebie upgrades, you aren't going to make me happy. Then prepare to be unhappy for now. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article , Leo
writes: On 11 Feb 2004 00:00:18 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 10 Feb 2004 09:52:50 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: Without the ARRL, do you think we'd still have amateur radio? I don't. Um, the rest of the planet does not have the ARRL, and amateur radio is still going strong there..... In large part that's because of US influence at the international level. Also the IARU, which was founded by guess who? Perhaps, but are there specific historical facts which support that theory? Yep. Maxim, Mrs. Maxim (she spoke fluent French, the language used in the conferences back then) Ken Warner and several other ARRL folks went to the Paris conferences of 1924, 1925 and 1927 to push for the very existence of amateur radio. Amateur radio did not actually exist by international treaty until 1927 - hams were simply a subset of various countries' nongovernment radio services. The ARRL was a founding member of IARU - not the only founding member.... True - but it was an ARRL idea. Except for Japanese 4th class licensees, how many hams are there in the rest of the planet? Well, my trusty EuroCall 2003 CD lists 276,446 callsigns in Europe alone - even if a couple of guys died, there's probably more than that now. I don't have figures for Asia, Africa, Oceania or the rest of the Americas (except that there's around 56,000 or so up here...). Once you get outside of Europe, North America, the British Commonwealth and Japan, there aren't many of us. China has more than a billion people - and how many hams? A few thousand, maybe. Quite a few, anyway! DX wouldn't be the same without 'em..... ;) That's a lot of real estate, covering some 150 or so countries, give or take a few.... Right. And there are 682,000 US hams, which is more than twice as many as in all of densely populated Europe. You might want to check out what the rest of the world wanted to do to amateur radio in the 1920s at the Paris conferences.... Would you have a link handy for that one? No, but do a search for W2XOY's "Wayback Machine". And, did the ARRL actually exert that much influence over the other members? As there is one IARU zone for each ITU zone, I'd expect that they would have infinitely more say in the Zone 2 group than the others...they may have been founders of the IARU in 1925, but they didn't own it - did they? ARRL organized IARU. The zone thing came later. 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: William wrote: Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists. You left out "his running dogs and lackeys". Dave K8MN Incorrect...YOU are here... LHA / WMD |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message (SNIP) The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular band segments. If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time" waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades No kidding? ...which then means that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed, constitute fully qualified hams for those license classes. Yeah, I know that. I'm trying to keep that part of the ARRL proposal from taking place. Go for it then. But if you fail in your effort, those that will be "free" upgraded are qualified because they will have been upgradedaccording to FCC rules at the time. (SNIP) ...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that matters is what the FCC will think and do. We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current regulations. Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it isn't in sync with what you think. That should have become obvious to you a little earlier. It has never been unclear to me. (SNIP) I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit. How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm betting that the answer is "none". Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners? The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians bbeing beginners. Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners.... Did you think I wrote anything about such a thing? YOU said: "Also, what makes you (me) assume ALL technicians are beginners?" I made no such assumption, nor did I suggest it in what I wrote previously. but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old hands" are allowed 1500 watts. Yep. No one seems to have had a problem with that in the past. Beginners aren't likely to run 1500 watts on 2m or 6m and "old hands" are more likely to know what they're doing. You still ignore thefact that beginners CAN run 1500 watts. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. THAT is the critical difference. Give me a break, Bill! Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified? Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing what? They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class license. No ifs, ands or buts. Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test. That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole shebang. Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades. If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down" then you have a lapse of logic somewhere. On the contrary. If such material is not needed by thousands and thousands on a one-time basis, why would it need to be tested at all, ever? You still ignore the reality of non-relationship of privileges vs license class. The ONLY logic behind the current system is Incentive Licensing. (SNIP) In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra and General. Clear enough for you? I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to justify it as being necessary any time. Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it jeopardizes all future requirements. Burp. I suspect that not many FCC staffers care one way or the other. The FCC has long abdicated its responsibilities in enforcement, planning and testing. Please do comment to that effect in your FCC filing when you do so. Governments often waive criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over, if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once they should be permanently waived? A freebie amateur radio licensing waiver is not a criminal matter nor is it a fine. So how come many states have raised driver's license ages for teenagers and not had any problems. If a 16 year old was qualified to drive a few years ago, why can't they now? The point is that requirements can and do change for various things. What is under discussion is amateur radio licensing and whether the testing for certain classes of license are truly necessary if they can be waived for thousands and thousands of people. Testing for US hams has changed many times. When Generals LOST privileges in 1968, no one raised a legal argument that if a General was qualified in 1965 to operate on all allowed Amateur spectrum, that the same General should be legally qualified to do so after Incentive licensing. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Are they qualified? Broken record here it seems. The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been forthcoming. The question keeps coming up because some people can't understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements. I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some unintended consequences. And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government as already noted. You've written of quite disparate scenarios, having nothing to do with the topic of discussion. There are many analogies: Raised the drinking age, raised the smoking age, driver's license age, waiving tax penalties, waiving of illegal alien penalties. Not one situation has been rolled back to the "waived" condition after reinstatement of the waived requirements, laws or regulations. Legally, it isn't an issue. So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the elimination of incentive licensing. I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements. I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. Nice waffle. No waffle at all. I don't agree. I don't care. THAT is my specific position and I do wish that licensing privileges did have a relationship to the additional knowledge being tested for. But, Bill, that is for the FCC to decide and they are the final arbiter ;-) Absolutely correct. It is, in the end, the FCC's decision. Nothing I have said, nothing I wish, makes it any different. I can and will add my voice to those that comment to the FCC as to my preferences. (SNIP) Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't accept your argument. The League's board isn't required to accept it, nor have I noted any opposition. I can make my views to clear to my Director and to those other Directors and Vice-Directors I know. I've already made my view known to Dave Sumner. Seems to me I'm in good company then. Not necessarily. You are entitled to your opinion. (SNIP) Believe whatever makes you feel good. Is that how you decide what to believe? Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances. "If it feels good, do it". Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions? Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or her you're taking a vaction day? Izzat what we've had under discussion, taking a drive in an antique car 'cuz it's a nice day? How about calling your boss and telling him you're taking a couple of days to mull over the ARRL's proposal for revamping amateur radio testing? I could do that. and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up. The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of thousands. Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary to do. Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their logic. No need to repeat it again. Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't want it repeated. Repeat it all you want. You told me that there was no need to repeat it. I said I wasn't going to repeat it. You can do it all you want. I've neither the time nor inclination to cut and paste it in here just to make you happy. As long as you support freebie upgrades, you aren't going to make me happy. Then prepare to be unhappy for now. Cheers, Bill K2UNK I'm trying to recall any happy moment that that Dave has shared with us on rrap. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: William wrote: Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists. You left out "his running dogs and lackeys". Incorrect...YOU are here... After re-reading Brian's statement and my response, your comment makes no sense whatever. Dave K8MN |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: After re-reading Brian's statement and my response, your comment makes no sense whatever. Poor baby. Another with intellectual presbyopia. Tsk, tsk. |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: After re-reading Brian's statement and my response, your comment makes no sense whatever. Poor baby. Another with intellectual presbyopia. Tsk, tsk. |
Len Over 21 wrote: William wrote: Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists. You left out "his running dogs and lackeys". Incorrect...YOU are here... In article , Dave Heil writes: After re-reading Brian's statement and my response, your comment makes no sense whatever. Poor baby. Another with intellectual presbyopia. Tsk, tsk. I had no idea that's what you were diagnosed with, Len. I'm awfully sorry. I should have realized that there was something behind these seemingly senseless outbursts of yours. I did you a favor and re-inserted the part you snipped. If you look at the whole thing, perhaps it'll become clear to you how you made your error. Dave K8MN |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: William wrote: Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists. You left out "his running dogs and lackeys". Incorrect...YOU are here... In article , Dave Heil writes: After re-reading Brian's statement and my response, your comment makes no sense whatever. Poor baby. Another with intellectual presbyopia. Tsk, tsk. I had no idea that's what you were diagnosed with, Len. HAR! YOU are the one diagnosed with it... :-) Presbyopia: A common condition in humans around 40 and older where the eyeball becomes less flexible, thus requiring bifocal or trifocal lens correction for wide-range optical focussing. Intellectual presbyopia: A common condition among olde-tyme hammes of the morse persuasion whose mind has become inflexible and incapable of understanding communications they are not familiar with or not explained by the League in some publication such as "Talking for Dummies." I'm awfully sorry. True enough. [surprising self-depreciatory admission!] I should have realized that there was something behind these seemingly senseless outbursts of yours. Yes, those "outbursts" are down in the noise level of independent thought. You don't have much of that. I did you a favor and re-inserted the part you snipped. Why? Did your letter-tracing-finger run down to the bottom of the monitor again? If you look at the whole thing, perhaps it'll become clear to you how you made your error. My only "error" is considering that olde-tyme hammes of the morse persuasion MIGHT try to be civil or at least accept the fate of morse testing defeat with some grace. In that regard I was absolutely wrong and admit it freely. :-) Was there anything else, then? LHA / WMD |
JJ wrote in message ...
They would have had to successfully flown solo several times before getting a license. Gotta love this logic. You get to fly an airplane solo several times before you can get a pilots license, but can't get on HF without first taking a morse code test and getting a license. |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote: Mark, you must first understand the mind of Heil and Heil apologists. You left out "his running dogs and lackeys". Dave K8MN "Heil apologists" covers it, don't you think? |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (William) writes: Gotta love this logic. You get to fly an airplane solo several times before you can get a pilots license, but can't get on HF without first taking a morse code test and getting a license. So, there are a lot of things you must do first before you can solo in an aircraft, like learning how to land, takeoff, read sectional maps, navigate using landmarks, use the VOR for navigation, how to operate the radio and communicate with traffic control using proper procedures ect., ect., and prove to the instructor you can do all this and be safe in the aircraft by yourself. It is a lot more than learning simple Morse code. And by the way, you must be familier enough with Morse code to be able to look at the sectional map and interperate dots and dashes so you can identify VOR's, as the id is sent in code. Them are the rules...don't like it? then don't get a pilots license or ham license. Until the rules change, those are the requirements to meet, like it or not. ONLY in the "amateur service," Brian. Way back in 1958 any U.S. civilian could get on HF without any code test or ANY other test. :-) Been that way ever since. Not on the ham bands. SGC's SG-2020 HF transceiver is sold to private boat owners who don't have to take any morse test to operate it legally on HF. Not even if they buy power amplifiers to boost 20 W output to 400 W. But not for operation on the ham bands. Different service, different set of rules. Many, many, many government and military personnel operate on HF quite legally every day without having to take any morse test to "prove their technical ability" to be a "skilled radio operator." But not on the ham bands, different service, different set of requirements. Nope...in the US of A radio amateurs aren't "real" hams until they pass that archaic morse test...sez the "amateur community." Yep, until the rules change, to get a license for HF operation you must pass the code test. You claim you have no interest in getting a ham license so it shouldn't matter a whit to you, so what's your beef old man? Oh, I know, you can't pass the test. That's the LAW, and, by [expletive deleted], those olde-tyme hamme raddio kopps are going to enforce it no matter what! No, the olde-type hamme raddio kopps don't enforce anything, the FCC does and until the FCC changes the rules, it is the law. Even if the code test requirement is dropped you still won't be able to get a ham license because you can't pass the test, even as simple as it is today. |
SGC's SG-2020 HF transceiver is sold to private boat owners who don't have to take any morse test to operate it legally on HF. Not even if they buy power amplifiers to boost 20 W output to 400 W. Yepper ...the same idiots I hear on the fishing boats utilizing the "F" bomb every other word on the bottom of the 30 meter band. CB afloat .... real role models .... and ya know what ...I don't even like tuna. 73 Tom KI3R |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com