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.

We have intentional QRM on
the bands already.

Haven't heard any on CW, myself...

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.

We have intentional QRM on
the bands already.

Haven't heard any on CW, myself...

I suspect any animosity would be short lived anyway.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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

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

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"

"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

Len Over 21 wrote:

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. :-)

I'm not enough of an old timer to remember hams losing the 11m band. It
took place five years before I obtained my first license. I am pleased
that you've been provided a haven for your HF radio activity.

By the way, radio amateurs are "ordinary civilians" who happen to have
passed a license exam.

Dave K8MN

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:23:16 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
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.

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?

Good point - aside from the obvious lack of technical knowledge of the
two parties, this convesation was certainly no sillier than the ones
that are frequently heard on SSB HF - excessive use of Q-codes instead
of plain speech, saying 'hi hi' instead of just laughing, and using
non-standard phonetics ("this is WXX Really Big Antenna, name here is
Mike, Mary India Kilowatt England, QSL?")

Jeez!


Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

73, Leo

Bill Sohl wrote:

"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.

They certainly understood each other. Neither understood the concept of
a repeater. Now, to what I understand: I understand that both of these
ops have brought their bad habits from CB radio with them. Neither has
bothered to listen to other hams. These two were joined by a new YL op
the other day. She was a "do you want me to pick up bread and milk?"
type. I'll be very surprised if any of the three will be active on the
ham bands in five years.

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?

I do.

We've even got a new op who can be heard moving between the several
local repeaters for a goodly part of each day saying, "This is KC8***
radio check". He'll sometimes pull this stunt on top of an ongoing
QSO. He has been informed on a number of occasions about how to make it
clear that he is seeking a contact and how not to QRM an existing
contact but he persists. When he does enter a QSO, he normally asks the
individuals he contacts if they have any radios they'd like to part
with. He has now asked me about six times. This fellow is annoying and
others--old timers and recent licensees--are beginning to avoid him.

There is another new ham in the area who was previously a CBer. He was
licensed only this past May. He quickly became adjusted to how things
are done on the ham bands. He asks questions about antennas, modes
other than FM, bands other than 2m and about operating practices. He
aroused interest in his grandson, who is now licensed. I'm betting that
these two will stick.

Dave K8MN