| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Excellent ARRL proposal
This proposal is a good start. However, the ultimate goal should be to
align our privileges with those of the rest of the amateur radio world and REMOVE all mode restrictions. CW US operators can operate anywhere in the US bands but US phone is restricted. A clear case of discrimination, and a "mode-ist" one at that!! Politically incorrect these days....and a major waste of sprectrum!! (Just tune the CW bands during any non contest day). A carry over from the olde days when the ARRL was clearly a CW only group of old buzzards. I submit that US Extra class licencee's should be allowed to operate phone anywhere that the rest of the world can. Is that fair??? Or are we still destined to live in an amateur radio world surpressed by our own government? Hey...ARRL, WAKE UP!!! If you want to keep the activity up you need to promote frequencies where we can talk to the rest of the world! How can I make this any clearer??? And provide incentives to do this!!! An extra 25KHz doesn't make it. BTW....requiring CW should not be a requirement for HF operation. (Good move by the ARRL on this with the new Novice proposal) Time to get over it....and let the rest of the many good people get on the air!!! I say this from having slaved over getting 20 WPM done to pass my Extra test (for those measly 25 KHz of phone) and I rarely have used code since. So......don't deny folks from HF just because code is "your favorite mode" and you are proud that you have no microphone in your shack..... 73, Chuck...K1KW |
In article iE%Ob.85899$Rc4.333443@attbi_s54, "Chuck...K1KW"
writes: This proposal is a good start. I disagree. It has a few good points and several bad points. However, the ultimate goal should be to align our privileges with those of the rest of the amateur radio world and REMOVE all mode restrictions. Why? CW US operators can operate anywhere in the US bands but US phone is restricted. How much actual CW operation do you hear in the 'phone subbands? A clear case of discrimination, and a "mode-ist" one at that!! Politically incorrect these days....and a major waste of sprectrum!! A CW or digital signal uses about 1/10 the spectrum space of a 'phone signal. The waste of spectrum is in clinging to modes that use so much spectrum when much narrower options are available. (Just tune the CW bands during any non contest day). And? A carry over from the olde days when the ARRL was clearly a CW only group of old buzzards. ARRL doesn't make the rules and never has. FCC does. I submit that US Extra class licencee's should be allowed to operate phone anywhere that the rest of the world can. Is that fair??? No. It's not a good idea. Narrow and wide modes don't share spectrum well. Or are we still destined to live in an amateur radio world surpressed by our own government? Check out how much of the amateur bands from 160 through 10 is available to analog 'phone. Hey...ARRL, WAKE UP!!! If you want to keep the activity up you need to promote frequencies where we can talk to the rest of the world! How can I make this any clearer??? And provide incentives to do this!!! An extra 25KHz doesn't make it. Why should we promote 'phone over more spectrum-efficient modes? BTW....requiring CW should not be a requirement for HF operation. Why not? How about requiring theory knowledge to use manufactured equipment? (Good move by the ARRL on this with the new Novice proposal) They would also permit General with no code test, too. Time to get over it....and let the rest of the many good people get on the air!!! I say this from having slaved over getting 20 WPM done to pass my Extra test (for those measly 25 KHz of phone) and I rarely have used code since. How about the written test? So......don't deny folks from HF just because code is "your favorite mode" and you are proud that you have no microphone in your shack..... No one is denied. The code test has been 5 wpm for almost 4 years. Is 5 wpm really too much to ask? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In rec.radio.amateur.policy Chuck...K1KW wrote:
CW US operators can operate anywhere in the US bands but US phone is restricted. A clear case of discrimination, and a "mode-ist" one at that!! Politically incorrect these days....and a major waste of sprectrum!! Hey Chuck, I didn't realize that you hi-fi AM guys were so concerned with efficient use of spectrum. I can just hear the phone ops screaming if someone started (legally) operating CW in "the phone band." Hey...ARRL, WAKE UP!!! If you want to keep the activity up you need to promote frequencies where we can talk to the rest of the world! How can I make this any clearer??? And provide incentives to do this!!! An extra 25KHz doesn't make it. So why are you trumpeting this as an "Excellent ARRL Proposal?" Art Harris N2AH |
"Chuck...K1KW" wrote in message news:iE%Ob.85899$Rc4.333443@attbi_s54... This proposal is a good start. However, the ultimate goal should be to align our privileges with those of the rest of the amateur radio world and REMOVE all mode restrictions. CW US operators can operate anywhere in the US bands but US phone is restricted. A clear case of discrimination, and a "mode-ist" one at that!! Politically incorrect these days....and a major waste of sprectrum!! (Just tune the CW bands during any non contest day). A carry over from the olde days when the ARRL was clearly a CW only group of old buzzards. I submit that US Extra class licencee's should be allowed to operate phone anywhere that the rest of the world can. Is that fair??? Or are we still destined to live in an amateur radio world surpressed by our own government? Hey...ARRL, WAKE UP!!! If you want to keep the activity up you need to promote frequencies where we can talk to the rest of the world! How can I make this any clearer??? And provide incentives to do this!!! An extra 25KHz doesn't make it. BTW....requiring CW should not be a requirement for HF operation. (Good move by the ARRL on this with the new Novice proposal) Time to get over it....and let the rest of the many good people get on the air!!! I say this from having slaved over getting 20 WPM done to pass my Extra test (for those measly 25 KHz of phone) and I rarely have used code since. So......don't deny folks from HF just because code is "your favorite mode" and you are proud that you have no microphone in your shack..... 73, Chuck...K1KW Dang Chuck, you should go be a co-host on K1MAN with such a speech. Completely assinine and appropiate to Baxters blabcast. Dan/W4NTI |
"Chuck...K1KW" wrote in message news:iE%Ob.85899$Rc4.333443@attbi_s54...
This proposal is a good start. However, the ultimate goal should be to align our privileges with those of the rest of the amateur radio world and REMOVE all mode restrictions. CW US operators can operate anywhere in the US bands but US phone is restricted. A clear case of discrimination, and a "mode-ist" one at that!! Politically incorrect these days....and a major waste of sprectrum!! (Just tune the CW bands during any non contest day). A carry over from the olde days when the ARRL was clearly a CW only group of old buzzards. "PC" my butt. CW is authorized "anywhere" since it is a narrow band mode requiring only a fraction of the bandwidth of any voice mode. The ONLY time I've ever heard CW in a "voice" allocation was a mobile station trying to check in to a net that wasn't being heard otherwise. It worked well. I submit that US Extra class licencee's should be allowed to operate phone anywhere that the rest of the world can. Is that fair??? Or are we still destined to live in an amateur radio world surpressed by our own government? No, it's not "fair". Most US Amateurs are allowed to run far more power than they need, and in most cases area able to erect antenna systems that overshadow those of many other countries. Like it or not, we owe it to the rest of the world to restrain all that ERP. Hey...ARRL, WAKE UP!!! If you want to keep the activity up you need to promote frequencies where we can talk to the rest of the world! How can I make this any clearer??? And provide incentives to do this!!! An extra 25KHz doesn't make it. Like it or not, not all of the world is chomping at the bit to have US Amateurs able to pounce on them at every turn. When Podunk Island is ready to work the pile-ups, he'll announce his intentions. Otherwise, WHY do we need to have all that spectrum? Except on contest weekends it's ahrd enough to strike up a QSO as it is anyway. BTW....requiring CW should not be a requirement for HF operation. (Good move by the ARRL on this with the new Novice proposal) Time to get over it....and let the rest of the many good people get on the air!!! I say this from having slaved over getting 20 WPM done to pass my Extra test (for those measly 25 KHz of phone) and I rarely have used code since. So......don't deny folks from HF just because code is "your favorite mode" and you are proud that you have no microphone in your shack..... Bully for you that you did it...However Morse Code STILL, contrary to naysayers, plays an important part in international communication in the AMATEUR Service. That' it's been put out to pasture by the unwilling and the boistrous is evidient. That it's a "good thing" is yet to be seen. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Chuck...K1KW" wrote in message news:iE%Ob.85899$Rc4.333443@attbi_s54... This proposal is a good start. However, the ultimate goal should be to align our privileges with those of the rest of the amateur radio world and REMOVE all mode restrictions. Already been there........it's called ECHOLINK : ) : ) : ) |
"Moe" wrote:
The ARRL's latest licensing scheme is driven by money. The league will achieve its goal by spreading cash to the correct FCC managers. The FCC has no shortage of corrupt management officials, ready to accept a bribe for anything. And you know this, how? Let's think this through. We're talking about ham radio, right? Someone at ARRL is going to risk jail time to funnel personal or League funds to corrupt FCC officials in the hope that by doing so, the proposal will become reality. Then, when it does become reality, there will be a HUGE increase in League membership, and said ARRL person will presumably siphon off huge profits (again risking jail time) and live the good life ever after. Meanwhile, the FCC bureaucrats are going to risk their jobs and jail time to accept these funds and push through this crazy proposal. Then, they too will live the good life ever after. Oh yeah, that's real plausible. Art Harris N2AH (No fan of ARRl, but not stark raving mad either) |
"Moe" wrote in message ... The ARRL's latest licensing scheme is driven by money. The league will achieve its goal by spreading cash to the correct FCC managers. The FCC has no shortage of corrupt management officials, ready to accept a bribe for anything. ARRL is no friend of amateur radio. Moe Interesting seeing as how many of the ARRL's past proposals were turned down. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Moe" wrote in message ... The ARRL's latest licensing scheme is driven by money. The league will achieve its goal by spreading cash to the correct FCC managers. The FCC has no shortage of corrupt management officials, ready to accept a bribe for anything. ARRL is no friend of amateur radio. Moe Interesting seeing as how many of the ARRL's past proposals were turned down. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE True, but with the FCC they could butcher it up so bad that the Novice equivelant would be Extra no code. The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Bullcrap. The league has shown their true colors to me. Money Money and more Money. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Moe" wrote in message ... The ARRL's latest licensing scheme is driven by money. The league will achieve its goal by spreading cash to the correct FCC managers. The FCC has no shortage of corrupt management officials, ready to accept a bribe for anything. ARRL is no friend of amateur radio. Moe Interesting seeing as how many of the ARRL's past proposals were turned down. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE True, but with the FCC they could butcher it up so bad that the Novice equivelant would be Extra no code. The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Bullcrap. The league has shown their true colors to me. Money Money and more Money. Dan/W4NTI The historical articles state that the FCC forced it down everyone's throat and the ARRL tried to fight it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
True, but with the FCC they could butcher it up so bad that the Novice equivelant would be Extra no code. Well, some FCC brearucrat botched the lifetime code credit thing. You get lifetime credit for passing a 5wpm, but not for 13 or 20. So we need to look closely at what they write up.... The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Me thinks that different people are in charge there now then back 40 years ago. |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. And who elected the directors, Dan? They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. How did "incentive licensing" trash ham radio? btw, it was FCC's idea, and they made it clear they weren't going to leave the system alone. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Who? I don't think there's a single person at Hq or in the Board of Directors today who was a League official of any kind back in the '60s. Most of the '60s BoD and Hq folks are dead. So it's a completely different bunch that reversed the policies. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(stewart) wrote in message om...
(N2EY) wrote in message ... The big mystery, though, is why FCC got all fired up back in 1958 and started making noises about changing the system, only 5 years after they'd done the Big Giveaway of 1953. My best guess is that they had a serious case of Sputnik Fever. Yep... and guess what, it is 2004 now, and the 'ol US of A is going thru a serious case of "Sacred Vessel" fever. What is "Sacred Vessel" fever, Stew? Never heard that one! We need to give the young people who are willing to learn about RF, a decent place to learn in the ham ranks, with incentives that match the requirements. Agreed! That's why we need different license levels, for one thing. What changed? The Internet... Cell Phones... The WTC attack... Chinese astronauts... Outsourced Engineering jobs to India... A terminated fool-for-a-governer who allowed illegal aliens to sink the California economy into a $36bln debt... A President who refuses to guard our country's borders, and who now proposes to let illegal aliens sink the USA economy (or is it just a Chess Gambit, designed to pull a plank from the Dem's platform?). What do any of those things have to do with the tests for a ham radio license? The ARRL proposal is GOOD FOR AMERICA, and is the obvious right thing to do. Parts of it are. Other parts are not so good - like the free upgrades. btw, the proposed revamped Novice is nothing like your 'Colt' ideas. You old naysaying [expletive deleted] talk about work ethic, and bemoan the lowering of standards... Are you talking about me? But it is now clear that you simply don't want to share frequencies (which are now all virtually unused!), nor information (which is now all 10-15 years out of date!)... you just want to sit on your [expletives deleted] None of that is true in my case, so you can't be talking about me. This old [expletive deleted] likes Morse code up to a point, but it can NO LONGER be the centerpiece of contention in Amateur Radio - we MUST move on. We have, Stew. The code test is only one part of the debate. Do you think giving all Techs a free upgrade to General, and all Advanceds a free upgrade to Extra would be good things? I don't. We are DONE listening to this MORSE CODE [expletive deleted] STOP IT! Sounds like you're telling people to shut up, Stew. Is that what civil debate in a free society means to you? Get on with your lives! Do SOMETHING positive. ANYTHING! We are. We're working towards a better license structure and tests for same. There's some disagreement about how to do that. K0HB, Hans, has proposed a radically different license and test structure here. Lots of good debate on it. No words from you, though. Now, as for getting "the young people who are willing to learn about RF, a decent place to learn in the ham ranks, with incentives that match the requirements", think about the following: The greatest period of growth in the number of US hams in the past 70 years was the 12 year period from 1951 to 1962. The number of US hams grew from about 100,000 to almost 250,000 in that time, even though amateur radio was bedeviled by TVI and other problems. One of the prime reasons for that growth, I think, was the introduction (in 1951) of the Novice license, with its simple 20 question written test and 5 wpm code test. But that license also gave very limited privileges and was only good for one year, after which the new ham had to upgrade to a permanent license or leave the ham bands. Many, many of those new hams were young people. The young people today are not lazier or dumber than the young people of those times, so if we're not getting them like we did back then, the problem must lie elsewhere. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"stewart" wrote in message m... (N2EY) wrote in message ... The big mystery, though, is why FCC got all fired up back in 1958 and started making noises about changing the system, only 5 years after they'd done the Big Giveaway of 1953. My best guess is that they had a serious case of Sputnik Fever. Yep... and guess what, it is 2004 now, and the 'ol US of A is going thru a serious case of "Sacred Vessel" fever. We need to give the young people who are willing to learn about RF, a decent place to learn in the ham ranks, with incentives that match the requirements. What changed? The Internet... Cell Phones... The WTC attack... Chinese astronauts... Outsourced Engineering jobs to India... A terminated fool-for-a-governer who allowed illegal aliens to sink the California economy into a $36bln debt... A President who refuses to guard our country's borders, and who now proposes to let illegal aliens sink the USA economy (or is it just a Chess Gambit, designed to pull a plank from the Dem's platform?). The ARRL proposal is GOOD FOR AMERICA, and is the obvious right thing to do. You old naysaying farts talk about work ethic, and bemoan the lowering of standards... But it is now clear that you simply don't want to share frequencies (which are now all virtually unused!), nor information (which is now all 10-15 years out of date!)... you just want to sit on your asses and bitch. This old fart likes Morse code up to a point, but it can NO LONGER be the centerpiece of contention in Amateur Radio - we MUST move on. We are DONE listening to this MORSE CODE BULL****! STOP IT! Get on with your lives! Do SOMETHING positive. ANYTHING! 73 de Jim, N2EY - Stewart (N0MHS) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN Unused frequencies? Where are they? 15 and 10 during a sunspot minimum in the middle of a day? You sound like K1MAN claiming to have tuned 20 meters and found only two active frequencies. Balderdash. Try hooking up an antenna next time. Dan/W4NTI |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... True, but with the FCC they could butcher it up so bad that the Novice equivelant would be Extra no code. Well, some FCC brearucrat botched the lifetime code credit thing. You get lifetime credit for passing a 5wpm, but not for 13 or 20. So we need to look closely at what they write up.... The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Me thinks that different people are in charge there now then back 40 years ago. True, different folks. But of a similar mind set. They do what they want WITHOUT the input of the alleged voting members. Same crap, different day. Dan/W4NTI |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. And who elected the directors, Dan? I don't know who 'elected' the directors. I know I didn't. They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. How did "incentive licensing" trash ham radio? btw, it was FCC's idea, and they made it clear they weren't going to leave the system alone. It trashed ham radio by creating a CLASS system in our ranks, forcing seperation by license class, making one feel superior and others thus inferior. This was NOT THERE before Incentive Licensing. The FCC did not propose Incentive Licensing. It was the ARRL back about 1963 or so. The FCC followed up on it and 'modified' it and it was implemented beginning November of 1968. Why do I know this? Because I read QST cover to cover while stateside in the military. And when I went overseas I lost track due to military activities. I returned to the USA in 1968. I operated on 7.010 and received a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of band for my class of license. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Who? I don't think there's a single person at Hq or in the Board of Directors today who was a League official of any kind back in the '60s. Most of the '60s BoD and Hq folks are dead. So it's a completely different bunch that reversed the policies. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
.. The FCC followed up on it and 'modified' it and it was
implemented beginning November of 1968. Why do I know this? Because I read QST cover to cover while stateside in the military. And when I went overseas I lost track due to military activities. I returned to the USA in 1968. I operated on 7.010 and received a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of band for my class of license. Amazing Jim ....I know there are people out there who do not believe you regarding the notice. Your situation taken in context of what we hear today on the bands is crazy by today's "standards" but it does show where we have gone in this service ........unfortunately. God Bless there Jim 73 Tom KI3R Belle Vernon Pa |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. And who elected the directors, Dan? I don't know who 'elected' the directors. I know I didn't. Every member with a license gets a ballot. If you didn't vote... They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. How did "incentive licensing" trash ham radio? btw, it was FCC's idea, and they made it clear they weren't going to leave the system alone. It trashed ham radio by creating a CLASS system in our ranks, forcing seperation by license class, making one feel superior and others thus inferior. This was NOT THERE before Incentive Licensing. There were "class distinctions" before IL, Dan. I heard folks say, way back then, that Novices and Techs weren't "real hams". People who look down on others because of license class usually look down for other reasons too. There were the Collins owners who looked down on the Drake folks, etc. The SSB-vs-AM stuff. The appliance ops vs, the homebrewers. DX vs. traffic handlers, contesters vs. ragchewers, etc. That sort of thing comes from the person, not the system. The FCC did not propose Incentive Licensing. It was the ARRL back about 1963 or so. The FCC followed up on it and 'modified' it and it was implemented beginning November of 1968. Why do I know this? Because I read QST cover to cover while stateside in the military. And when I went overseas I lost track due to military activities. I returned to the USA in 1968. I was a ham back then, too, Dan, and I read the same mags. We're not going to agree on who started it, but I think we can agree on these things: 1) Whoever started it, the ARRL BoD pushed IL from 1963 onwards 2) What the FCC finally enacted in 1967 was very different from what ARRL proposed in 1963 3) ARRL claimed that a majority of hams at the time supported IL. Others claim a majority opposed it. Nobody *really* knows, just as nobody knows what would have happened otherwise. 4) There's still a lot of bad feeling about the whole thing. 5) The present ARRL BoD and Hq folks are a completely different lot than was there in the '60s I operated on 7.010 and received a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of band for my class of license. And if the original 1963 ARRL proposal had been enacted, you would not have been in violation. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Who? I don't think there's a single person at Hq or in the Board of Directors today who was a League official of any kind back in the '60s. Most of the '60s BoD and Hq folks are dead. So it's a completely different bunch that reversed the policies. So what *should* be done, Dan? Do you support Hans' 2-level idea? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. And who elected the directors, Dan? I don't know who 'elected' the directors. I know I didn't. Every member with a license gets a ballot. If you didn't vote... They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. How did "incentive licensing" trash ham radio? btw, it was FCC's idea, and they made it clear they weren't going to leave the system alone. It trashed ham radio by creating a CLASS system in our ranks, forcing seperation by license class, making one feel superior and others thus inferior. This was NOT THERE before Incentive Licensing. There were "class distinctions" before IL, Dan. I heard folks say, way back then, that Novices and Techs weren't "real hams". People who look down on others because of license class usually look down for other reasons too. There were the Collins owners who looked down on the Drake folks, etc. The SSB-vs-AM stuff. The appliance ops vs, the homebrewers. DX vs. traffic handlers, contesters vs. ragchewers, etc. That sort of thing comes from the person, not the system. The FCC did not propose Incentive Licensing. It was the ARRL back about 1963 or so. The FCC followed up on it and 'modified' it and it was implemented beginning November of 1968. Why do I know this? Because I read QST cover to cover while stateside in the military. And when I went overseas I lost track due to military activities. I returned to the USA in 1968. I was a ham back then, too, Dan, and I read the same mags. We're not going to agree on who started it, but I think we can agree on these things: 1) Whoever started it, the ARRL BoD pushed IL from 1963 onwards 2) What the FCC finally enacted in 1967 was very different from what ARRL proposed in 1963 3) ARRL claimed that a majority of hams at the time supported IL. Others claim a majority opposed it. Nobody *really* knows, just as nobody knows what would have happened otherwise. 4) There's still a lot of bad feeling about the whole thing. 5) The present ARRL BoD and Hq folks are a completely different lot than was there in the '60s I operated on 7.010 and received a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of band for my class of license. And if the original 1963 ARRL proposal had been enacted, you would not have been in violation. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Who? I don't think there's a single person at Hq or in the Board of Directors today who was a League official of any kind back in the '60s. Most of the '60s BoD and Hq folks are dead. So it's a completely different bunch that reversed the policies. So what *should* be done, Dan? Do you support Hans' 2-level idea? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. And who elected the directors, Dan? I don't know who 'elected' the directors. I know I didn't. Every member with a license gets a ballot. If you didn't vote... I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has run un-opposed for the last several elections. Which explains why I don't remember having voted for a Director recently. Also since I have NOT seen the results of his voting I don't know how he stands. They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. How did "incentive licensing" trash ham radio? btw, it was FCC's idea, and they made it clear they weren't going to leave the system alone. It trashed ham radio by creating a CLASS system in our ranks, forcing seperation by license class, making one feel superior and others thus inferior. This was NOT THERE before Incentive Licensing. There were "class distinctions" before IL, Dan. I heard folks say, way back then, that Novices and Techs weren't "real hams". People who look down on others because of license class usually look down for other reasons too. There were the Collins owners who looked down on the Drake folks, etc. The SSB-vs-AM stuff. The appliance ops vs, the homebrewers. DX vs. traffic handlers, contesters vs. ragchewers, etc. That sort of thing comes from the person, not the system. Totally different situation compaired to mandatory class difference based on license. The FCC did not propose Incentive Licensing. It was the ARRL back about 1963 or so. The FCC followed up on it and 'modified' it and it was implemented beginning November of 1968. Why do I know this? Because I read QST cover to cover while stateside in the military. And when I went overseas I lost track due to military activities. I returned to the USA in 1968. I was a ham back then, too, Dan, and I read the same mags. We're not going to agree on who started it, but I think we can agree on these things: 1) Whoever started it, the ARRL BoD pushed IL from 1963 onwards 2) What the FCC finally enacted in 1967 was very different from what ARRL proposed in 1963 3) ARRL claimed that a majority of hams at the time supported IL. Others claim a majority opposed it. Nobody *really* knows, just as nobody knows what would have happened otherwise. 4) There's still a lot of bad feeling about the whole thing. 5) The present ARRL BoD and Hq folks are a completely different lot than was there in the '60s True....but the bottom line on this particular commentary is the ARRL initiated the incentive stuff. If not for that....the FCC would have not done what they did. Period. I operated on 7.010 and received a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of band for my class of license. And if the original 1963 ARRL proposal had been enacted, you would not have been in violation. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Who? I don't think there's a single person at Hq or in the Board of Directors today who was a League official of any kind back in the '60s. Most of the '60s BoD and Hq folks are dead. So it's a completely different bunch that reversed the policies. So what *should* be done, Dan? Do you support Hans' 2-level idea? 73 de Jim, N2EY It makes no difference what I support. The ARRL and the FCC will do as they please. But I DO RESERVE my RIGHTS to bitch about it. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message How did "incentive licensing" trash ham radio? btw, it was FCC's idea, and they made it clear they weren't going to leave the system alone. It trashed ham radio by creating a CLASS system in our ranks, forcing seperation by license class, making one feel superior and others thus inferior. This was NOT THERE before Incentive Licensing. That's incorrect Dan. I was an early '50s kid Novice. The OFs of those days more than just occasionally bent over backwards to make sure that I knew that I was at the bottom of the totem pole. In retrospect no doubt some of it involved the usual compulsive cocky male pubescent/male adult conflict which had nothing to do with ham radio. But it was also obvious that those OFs were also ticked off about the recent emergence of the 5 wpm code test which allowed us weenies to get on the air without having to go thru the same pushups they had to go thru to get on the air. There were neighborhood radio clubs which didn't allow full voting memberships to Novices and Techs. It's all just cycles Dan and the 1968 maneuver was not the first cycle by any means and welcome to the current cycle. There will be others. w3rv |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
I operated on 7.010 and received a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of band for my class of license. Was there a fine or some other penalty involved? Or did they understand that it was an oversight and told them you won't do that again? I once did a similar mistake (I was in band for my license but was a wrong mode, i.e., SSB in the CW/data segment answering some DX on 40) but soon spotted it and stopped doing it. Haven't heard anything from the FCC, I think they know people occasionally make such mistakes. But if someone keeps doing it then watch out. |
Brian Kelly wrote:
That's incorrect Dan. I was an early '50s kid Novice. The OFs of those days more than just occasionally bent over backwards to make sure that I knew that I was at the bottom of the totem pole. In retrospect no doubt some of it involved the usual compulsive cocky male pubescent/male adult conflict which had nothing to do with ham radio. I would guess that most of those OFs had nothing better than their ham license on their resume. "I am big ham, you a worthless kid".... I don't expect kids to kiss my ass like some adults wanted me to when I was a kid. Respect is a 2 way street. |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: I operated on 7.010 and received a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of band for my class of license. Was there a fine or some other penalty involved? Or did they understand that it was an oversight and told them you won't do that again? I once did a similar mistake (I was in band for my license but was a wrong mode, i.e., SSB in the CW/data segment answering some DX on 40) but soon spotted it and stopped doing it. Haven't heard anything from the FCC, I think they know people occasionally make such mistakes. But if someone keeps doing it then watch out. Since you asked....I called the office in Cleveland that issued the notice. During the conversation I was asked 'where have you been not to know of this change?', or something to that effect. My response was that I had just got back from Nam and wanted to play radio again. The notice was thrown out, no fines or warnings other than to use a higher crystal..hi. Dan/W4NTI |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch of world class hypocrites. And who elected the directors, Dan? I don't know who 'elected' the directors. I know I didn't. Every member with a license gets a ballot. If you didn't vote... I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has run un-opposed for the last several elections. That's bad, IMHO. Which explains why I don't remember having voted for a Director recently. Either he does such a good job nobody wants to oppose him, or nobody wants to do the job in the first place. Also since I have NOT seen the results of his voting I don't know how he stands. Email him and ask. That's how I find out how Bernie voted. They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'. How did "incentive licensing" trash ham radio? btw, it was FCC's idea, and they made it clear they weren't going to leave the system alone. It trashed ham radio by creating a CLASS system in our ranks, forcing seperation by license class, making one feel superior and others thus inferior. This was NOT THERE before Incentive Licensing. There were "class distinctions" before IL, Dan. I heard folks say, way back then, that Novices and Techs weren't "real hams". People who look down on others because of license class usually look down for other reasons too. There were the Collins owners who looked down on the Drake folks, etc. The SSB-vs-AM stuff. The appliance ops vs, the homebrewers. DX vs. traffic handlers, contesters vs. ragchewers, etc. That sort of thing comes from the person, not the system. Totally different situation compaired to mandatory class difference based on license. How is it totally different? If anything, the license system was fairer because it was based on knowledge and skill rather than how many $$ you could throw at the local radio store. Heck, as a high school kid there was no way I could have had a Collins, Drake or even a Heath/SB station. Even if by some miracle I'd gotten the money, it was needed for other things. There was *no way* I could join some of their ranks. But I could earn the highest class of license. The FCC did not propose Incentive Licensing. It was the ARRL back about 1963 or so. The FCC followed up on it and 'modified' it and it was implemented beginning November of 1968. Why do I know this? Because I read QST cover to cover while stateside in the military. And when I went overseas I lost track due to military activities. I returned to the USA in 1968. I was a ham back then, too, Dan, and I read the same mags. We're not going to agree on who started it, but I think we can agree on these things: 1) Whoever started it, the ARRL BoD pushed IL from 1963 onwards 2) What the FCC finally enacted in 1967 was very different from what ARRL proposed in 1963 3) ARRL claimed that a majority of hams at the time supported IL. Others claim a majority opposed it. Nobody *really* knows, just as nobody knows what would have happened otherwise. 4) There's still a lot of bad feeling about the whole thing. 5) The present ARRL BoD and Hq folks are a completely different lot than was there in the '60s True....but the bottom line on this particular commentary is the ARRL initiated the incentive stuff. ARRL did make the first formal proposal - but only *after* asking what hjams thought. If not for that....the FCC would have not done what they did. Period. How does anyone know what would have happened if ARRL had left things alone? I operated on 7.010 and received a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of band for my class of license. And if the original 1963 ARRL proposal had been enacted, you would not have been in violation. Then 40 years later they totally reverse themselves. Who? I don't think there's a single person at Hq or in the Board of Directors today who was a League official of any kind back in the '60s. Most of the '60s BoD and Hq folks are dead. So it's a completely different bunch that reversed the policies. So what *should* be done, Dan? Do you support Hans' 2-level idea? It makes no difference what I support. The ARRL and the FCC will do as they please. If all we do is keep quiet, that could happen. But I DO RESERVE my RIGHTS to bitch about it. Of course! So do I 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"Dan/W4NTI" writes: | | I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has | run un-opposed for the last several elections. Which explains why I don't | remember having voted for a Director recently. | There's a reason for that. Frank is, IMNSHO, is among the top 3 best Director's who ever wore the red badge. He understands ham radio, he understands that he was elected to be a leader, not a manager, and he has the courage to look beyond the popularity surveys and support what is best for Amateur Radio (which isn't always what is most popular with the vocal minority). The SE Division is a lucky bunch. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"N2EY" wrote | I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has | run un-opposed for the last several elections. | | That's bad, IMHO. | Then you don't know Frank Butler. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Robert Casey wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: That's incorrect Dan. I was an early '50s kid Novice. The OFs of those days more than just occasionally bent over backwards to make sure that I knew that I was at the bottom of the totem pole. In retrospect no doubt some of it involved the usual compulsive cocky male pubescent/male adult conflict which had nothing to do with ham radio. I would guess that most of those OFs had nothing better than their ham license on their resume. "I am big ham, you a worthless kid".... Bad guess. A couple examples were EEs who were too old to serve in WW2 but who put in 70 hrs/week at the submarine communications lab here "for the duration", another was an M.D. and some others of their ilk who twisted me six ways from Sunday about being a Novice just to see what would happen. Which I probably deserved quite frankly. Those were also the days when the door prizes at company functions were cartons of Luckies passed out by "the prettiest secretary". Check yer extrapolaton methods Casey, some of of those curves are horizontal lines (beasting on 5 wpm newbies in 1953 and in 2004 is one) and some AIN'T. I don't expect kids to kiss my ass like some adults wanted me to when I was a kid. Respect is a 2 way street. Yer lecturing the choir, I have three thirty-something daughters . . Dunno if they're still card-carrying NOW members or not . . Good night. w3rv |
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes: "Dan/W4NTI" writes: | | I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has | run un-opposed for the last several elections. Which explains why I don't | remember having voted for a Director recently. | There's a reason for that. Frank is, IMNSHO, is among the top 3 best Director's who ever wore the red badge. He understands ham radio, he understands that he was elected to be a leader, not a manager, and he has the courage to look beyond the popularity surveys and support what is best for Amateur Radio (which isn't always what is most popular with the vocal minority). IOW he supports code testing for all ham licenses. Works for me. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote | I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has | run un-opposed for the last several elections. | | That's bad, IMHO. | Then you don't know Frank Butler. No, I don't. And while he's probably a fine fellow, I'm opposed to uncontested 'elections' on general principles. No disrespect of Mr. Butler intended. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote | I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has | run un-opposed for the last several elections. | | That's bad, IMHO. | Then you don't know Frank Butler. No, I don't. And while he's probably a fine fellow, I'm opposed to uncontested 'elections' on general principles. No disrespect of Mr. Butler intended. 73 de Jim, N2EY And it's not the fault of Mr. Butler if no one chooses to run against him. It says much more about the members of the organization than it does about Mr. Butler. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote | I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has | run un-opposed for the last several elections. | | That's bad, IMHO. | Then you don't know Frank Butler. No, I don't. And while he's probably a fine fellow, I'm opposed to uncontested 'elections' on general principles. No disrespect of Mr. Butler intended. 73 de Jim, N2EY And it's not the fault of Mr. Butler if no one chooses to run against him. It says much more about the members of the organization than it does about Mr. Butler. Exactly! You said it much better than I did, Dee. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Dan/W4NTI" writes: | | I researched the question. It seems that Frank Butler the SE Director has | run un-opposed for the last several elections. Which explains why I don't | remember having voted for a Director recently. | There's a reason for that. Frank is, IMNSHO, is among the top 3 best Director's who ever wore the red badge. He understands ham radio, he understands that he was elected to be a leader, not a manager, and he has the courage to look beyond the popularity surveys and support what is best for Amateur Radio (which isn't always what is most popular with the vocal minority). The SE Division is a lucky bunch. 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, He don't even bother to answer e-mails about what his vote and or opinion was on the matter. Dan/W4NTI |
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: go thru to get on the air. There were neighborhood radio clubs which didn't allow full voting memberships to Novices and Techs . . . And in the mid-60s there were still some who did similar things. Indeed, there were Advanceds who looked down on Generals, Generals who looked down on Conditionals, Conditionals who looked down on Techs, and Techs who looked down on Novices. Etc. And it wasn't just kids vs. adults, either. Yessir, It's 2004 and it's **still** out there. Guy was up late last year for the vote on approving his membership application into The Group (the 43rd & Kingsessing "Group" we're both familair with yes?) and somebody asked "what license class does he have?" His sponser: "Uhhh . . Advanced." Then he ducked. Immediate 180dBA noise level from the Back Benchers, "what the hell is this guy's problem?" Then as now, they were few - but noisy. Maybe it was different where you were, Dan. It's all just cycles Dan and the 1968 maneuver was not the first cycle by any means and welcome to the current cycle. There will be others. Circle Game. Dit-dit! 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
"N2EY" wrote | | Anything less than an Extra is a big competitive disadvantage in DX contesting. | Like not being able to work split. | Not able to work split???????????????? That's nonsense. Actually it's pretty common (almost universal) that DXpeditions park their transmitter in the Advance or Extra class part of the band and listen in the General segment. On 20, for example, DXpeditions usually park at 14.023 (Extra) and listen up 5 on CW. Similarly on Phone they almost universally transmit at 14.195 (Advanced) and listen up. Similar tactics on other bands (transmit on 3795 and listen just up above 3800). 40-meter phone (there isn't even an Extra phone segment there) is almost 100% done working split. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: and somebody asked "what license class does he have?" His sponser: "Uhhh . . Advanced." Then he ducked. Immediate 180dBA noise level from the Back Benchers, "what the hell is this guy's problem?" Well, what IS his problem? Why does he have to have a problem? Why cannot a lowly Advanced enjoy DX? bb |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com