|
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions: K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive enforcement nightmare."? AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more Techs HF privileges. Quarter million? More like 322,000, since the ARRL-proposed free upgrade would go to all Techs and Tech Pluses. OTOH there's no indication of how many would actually use the new privileges. I believe there are a good number of family member techs who probably have limited desire even to get on HF at all. Around here we had lots of "honeydew hams" in the '80s and '90s (people who got ham licenses to keep in touch with family members, not because they were interested in radio itself). Nice folks but many disappeared when cell phones became cheap and good coverage. FRS/GMRS took some othere. And some discovered they were interested in radio for its own sake, too. I think that phenomenon is the main reason for the somewhat-lower renewal percentage of Techs. We have intentional QRM on the bands already. Haven't heard any on CW, myself... I suspect any animosity would be short lived anyway. For some it will never go away, just like the animosity over incentive licensing or vanity calls or the ARRL or VEs or whathaveyou. For others it will simply be "done deal, move on". Add a quarter of a million Techs to the bands, along with the resentment over this whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will happen? How will anyone know who is who just from a callsign? There's sure to be some resentment no matter what. There's also the possibility that there will be far fewer who will actually get on HF no matter what freebies are handed out. Look how much fuss and bother it is for some allegedly experienced people to put up a simple wire antenna, or to pass any amateur exams at all. In any event the "very expensive enforcement nightmare" scenario may or may not become a reality. Some fun facts: If either the ARRL or FAR proposals are enacted, about 322,000 Techs and Pluses will have more HF/MF. Not just 'phone but CW and data. The ARRL proposal spreads them out over most of nine bands while the FAR proposal concentrates all 322,000 into half of 160, small slivers of 80 and 40, and a bit more of 10 and 15. And no 'phone on the bands between 2 and 25 MHz. Which proposal do you think will maximize crowding and resentment? Good point. I think the ARRL BoD thought of it first. Or maybe I did, way back in my three-class proposal idea. In fact, if we're gonna have a new entry class with HF, I say they should have a piece of 160, and all of the WARC bands. Comparisons to the old Novice are not valid because there were far fewer than 322,000. It's clear that one reason ARRL proposed the upgrade to General was to *avoid* crowding. K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra) doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be allowed by the FCC to operate morse? AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We want to keep licensing requirements for General and Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test. ---------------- He didn't understand the question? Agreed. It's clear from the proposal that all license classes would be allowed to use Morse. Not an issue. Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF believes...IMHO. I think it's pretty clear. The FAR/RAF? proposal was written as a reaction to the ARRL proposal, and is similar in some ways but offers drastically less HF/MF (space and bands) to hams who haven't passed a code test. The big question, then, comes down to this: If it is accepted that Element 1 will be removed for at least some classes of licenses with HF privs, (note that "if", folks!) is it preferable to: A) limit them to small parts of a few bands that are relatively unpopular, particularly during sunspot minima years or B) allow them significant access to all HF/MF bands? Well put. Thanks - and in that light, the thinking behind the various proposals becomes clearer. Personally, I don't think the 5 wpm code test is a real "barrier" to anyone, given the wide range of accomodations now in place and the training methods now available. But if it's going to be dropped for some license classes, it seems to me that B makes more sense than A. Agreed. If I had my way there'd be at least 5 wpm code for all classes of license. Why not? IOW, ARRL would spread the free upgradees out and give them a smorgasboard of options, FAR would concentrate them and give them a restricted diet. Which do you think makes more sense? Agree again. I presume you prefer the ARRL scenario to the RAF one. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Robert Casey wrote in message ...
How will anyone know who is who just from a callsign? There's sure to be some resentment no matter what. Lots of extras kept their original callsigns. I had a 2x3 call as an Extra for seven years. I know folks who have had Extra 30 years and who are still on their original 2x3 callsign. Though I don't think that there are any WN#*** calls that are not vanity calls around anymore. By definition they all are. But I kept my call that I was assigned as a Tech (5wpm and general written) back in 1976. And I had to take a sending test back then at the FCC field office. Yeah, me too, 20 per on a straight key, no biggie. So I would look like a no code HFer if this thing goes thru. How? Not worried about it. Heck, I might get on HF 'phone just for the heck of it. Lessee, Southgate Type 9....FT-241A xtal filter, unit VFO, single conversion for 75 meters, pair of 6DQ6s in AB2....could be a nice long-weekend project... Or maybe dig out that old basket-case HW-101 and slap a new homebrew VFO in it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
N2EY wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... I believe there are a good number of family member techs who probably have limited desire even to get on HF at all. Around here we had lots of "honeydew hams" in the '80s and '90s (people who got ham licenses to keep in touch with family members, not because they were interested in radio itself). Nice folks but many disappeared when cell phones became cheap and good coverage. FRS/GMRS took some othere. And some discovered they were interested in radio for its own sake, too. I think that phenomenon is the main reason for the somewhat-lower renewal percentage of Techs. Overheard on a 2m repeater in this area of the Ohio Valley yesterday: "KC8--- this is KC8***, come back". "KC8*** this is KC8--- . I have a copy on you. What's yer twenty?" "I'm up here on the hill but you're scratchy. You must be overmodulatin or somthing". "Well I'm copyin' you pretty good considering the distance between us". "Yeah, 4-Roger. It's pretty amazin' that these little hand held radios will talk this far from each other". It is a brave new world of amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
N2EY wrote:
So I would look like a no code HFer if this thing goes thru. How? With the 2x3 call, but come to think of it, I think that the FCC had run out of WA#xxx calls long before the no code tech came out. But I'm not worried about this at all. In reality, I've since forgotten the 5wpm long ago. Not worried about it. Heck, I might get on HF 'phone just for the heck of it. Lessee, Southgate Type 9....FT-241A xtal filter, unit VFO, single conversion for 75 meters, pair of 6DQ6s in AB2....could be a nice long-weekend project... Or maybe dig out that old basket-case HW-101 and slap a new homebrew VFO in it. Do it. Enjoy. Nothin' like the smell of solder and dust on hot vacuum tubes..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: N2EY wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message rthlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... I believe there are a good number of family member techs who probably have limited desire even to get on HF at all. Around here we had lots of "honeydew hams" in the '80s and '90s (people who got ham licenses to keep in touch with family members, not because they were interested in radio itself). Nice folks but many disappeared when cell phones became cheap and good coverage. FRS/GMRS took some othere. And some discovered they were interested in radio for its own sake, too. I think that phenomenon is the main reason for the somewhat-lower renewal percentage of Techs. Overheard on a 2m repeater in this area of the Ohio Valley yesterday: "KC8--- this is KC8***, come back". "KC8*** this is KC8--- . I have a copy on you. What's yer twenty?" "I'm up here on the hill but you're scratchy. You must be overmodulatin or somthing". "Well I'm copyin' you pretty good considering the distance between us". "Yeah, 4-Roger. It's pretty amazin' that these little hand held radios will talk this far from each other". It is a brave new world of amateur radio. Nothing new there, Dave, that sort of thing has been common for well over a decade. You get a bye because you were out of CONUS in the service of our country all that time. Most of those folks eventually wise up in time. I am reminded of the QST article, way back in the 1950s, about some of the doozies various manufacturers had to deal with: - There was the ham who bought a receiver (I think it was a Hallicrafters, in fact) took it home and hooked it up and proceeded to listen to hams. After a time, he got a microphone, plugged it into the PHONES jack (but not all the way), flipped the SEND-RECEIVE switch to SEND, and proceeded to call CQ. He wanted his money back.... - Another, rather than RTFM, carted his receiver downtown for at least two round trips before he finally grasped the function of the RADIO-PHONO switch. - Then there was guy who literally "fired up" his new Harvey Wells because (again) he did not RTFM, and failed to remove the cardboard shipping padding inside the rig that kept the tubes in their sockets during transit. My personal favorite: - Ham's receiver seemed a bit less sensitive than usual, so he lifted the lid and tightened all the loose screws - most of which were mica compression trimmer capacitors. Nothing new under the sun. 73 de Jim, N2EY "He tightened all the loose screws" |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message (SNIP) Personally, I don't think the 5 wpm code test is a real "barrier" to anyone given the wide range of accomodations now in place and the training methods now available. But if it's going to be dropped for some license classes, it seems to me that B makes more sense than A. Agreed. If I had my way there'd be at least 5 wpm code for all classes of license. Why not? Why not? Let's not open that issue all over again :-) :-) IOW, ARRL would spread the free upgradees out and give them a smorgasboard of options, FAR would concentrate them and give them a restricted diet. Which do you think makes more sense? Agree again. I presume you prefer the ARRL scenario to the RAF one. Yes. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... I believe there are a good number of family member techs who probably have limited desire even to get on HF at all. Around here we had lots of "honeydew hams" in the '80s and '90s (people who got ham licenses to keep in touch with family members, not because they were interested in radio itself). Nice folks but many disappeared when cell phones became cheap and good coverage. FRS/GMRS took some othere. And some discovered they were interested in radio for its own sake, too. I think that phenomenon is the main reason for the somewhat-lower renewal percentage of Techs. Overheard on a 2m repeater in this area of the Ohio Valley yesterday: "KC8--- this is KC8***, come back". "KC8*** this is KC8--- . I have a copy on you. What's yer twenty?" "I'm up here on the hill but you're scratchy. You must be overmodulatin or somthing". "Well I'm copyin' you pretty good considering the distance between us". "Yeah, 4-Roger. It's pretty amazin' that these little hand held radios will talk this far from each other". It is a brave new world of amateur radio. Dave, Exactly what is wrong with the above dialog between the two parties involved? Now before answering, consider this: 1. Both parties ID'd as required by law. 2. Neither party used any type of clandestine or secret code. 3. Both parties appear to have understood each other. Who cares about how we dialog with each other as long as the parties involved are operating within the law as per Part 97 rules and regs? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: Who cares about how we dialog with each other as long as the parties involved are operating within the law as per Part 97 rules and regs? Olde-tyme hammes DO care a great deal, Bill. They are servicemen in the glory and tradition of the amateur service. Why they might even serve you up on a Summary Court if you don't use the "correct" words and phrases and jargon of olde tymes EXACTLY as ordered! "You shall key your rig in the service manner, keeping always on the alert and listening for all CW above noise level." - General Order #1 in the amateur serviceman's service manual. Them olde-tymers have been stewing since 1958 when ordinary civilians could legally use radios on HF without a morse test. A mere 46 years ago and they've been enforcing the letter of the unwritten law ever since. :-) LHA / WMD |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com