|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article et, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Robert Casey writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't think it has a snowball's chance in [expletive deleted] of getting approved by the FCC. One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code for extras. That's the key question these days for any license requirement these days. You make an excellent point. Good...so far. The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?" Then will we expect you to make that argument to the FCC when you comment? HECK NO, BILL! The answer to that question could very well be "Gee, we *don't* get anything out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!". As the treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why bother. Because hams *do* use it. Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be allowed to use morse. If a "no-code" tech decides to operate morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would be true for Novice and Generals on HF also. There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested, or without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests before, say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current tests should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't. Some other services use it too, but not to any great extent. And certainly not to any extent that one would expect any ham to need to know code to read or operate with nay of those other services. By the way...what other services are you thinking of? There is still some maritime Morse code use, and it is used for ID in some applications. The FCC isn't in the business of giving out gold stars for the [expletive deleted] Jim, even I am not offended by "hell" It was a joke, Bill ;-) of it. Not about "gold stars". About qualifications. Of course there's differences of opinion on what qualified means. The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no code for all others makes even less sense. I disagree. Morse code is the second most popular mode in amateur radio. For even the most privileged license to require no skill in its use makes no sense. Code isn't a lid filter, *No* test is a perfect "lid filter". No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below. You misunderstand what I wrote. No test is a *perfect* lid filter. Particularly not a test given one time. There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through much more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not filtered out by those testing and education systems. I repeat...NO test is a lid filter. If that's true, why have tests at all? No test is a *perfect* lid filter. as witness 14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there. You mean before 1990? (medical waivers) Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical waivers? Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did. Remember this: All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple written exams, yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests aren't a perfect lid filter either. Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter". Shall we dump the rules and regs from those written exams because they didn't do the job? oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level! A point we agree on. Exactly. 73 de Jim, N2EY NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. Further testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and development. This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges not to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have but don't want to learn. This is the way society, in general, works. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article et, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Robert Casey writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't think it has a snowball's chance in [expletive deleted] of getting approved by the FCC. One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code for extras. That's the key question these days for any license requirement these days. You make an excellent point. Good...so far. The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?" Then will we expect you to make that argument to the FCC when you comment? HECK NO, BILL! Thought that'd be the case. The answer to that question could very well be "Gee, we *don't* get anything out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!". Except they'd be violating there own charter to take a totally hands off position. As the treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why bother. Because hams *do* use it. Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be allowed to use morse. If a "no-code" tech decides to operate morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would be true for Novice and Generals on HF also. There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested, or without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests before, say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current tests should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't. But the morse test is a skill test that someone can pass and know nothing about the technical aspects of using morse code. On a par with PSK-31, it would be like having a keyboard test of sending PSK-31. Some other services use it too, but not to any great extent. And certainly not to any extent that one would expect any ham to need to know code to read or operate with nay of those other services. By the way...what other services are you thinking of? There is still some maritime Morse code use, And the liklihood of any ham needing or using morse code to engage in a contact with such a morse maritime operation is nil. and it is used for ID in some applications. And why would any ham need to know morse to understand such an ID? The FCC isn't in the business of giving out gold stars for the of it. Not about "gold stars". About qualifications. Of course there's differences of opinion on what qualified means. The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no code for all others makes even less sense. I disagree. Morse code is the second most popular mode in amateur radio. For even the most privileged license to require no skill in its use makes no sense. WHY? No one is required to exhibiit ANY specific skill in the USE of any other mode. The fact that hams around the globe use languages other than English doesn't require any specific ham to exhibit or show an ability to speak English or any other language. Code isn't a lid filter, *No* test is a perfect "lid filter". No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below. You misunderstand what I wrote. No test is a *perfect* lid filter. I repeat, no test in any way is a lid filter. Particularly not a test given one time. There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through much more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not filtered out by those testing and education systems. I repeat...NO test is a lid filter. If that's true, why have tests at all? The tests for ham radio are NOT intended to ferret out idiots and jerks who, having passed a test, decide they don't want to operate within FCC rules or the rules of common courtesy. No test is a *perfect* lid filter. Ditto my prior comments again. as witness 14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there. You mean before 1990? (medical waivers) Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical waivers? Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did. Agreed, but as long as one passed a code test of 13 or even 20 wpm, then your comment about waivers is invalid. Yes, some may have gotton there with a waiver...but not all. Remember this: All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple written exams yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests aren't a perfect lid filter either. Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter". I repeat again, none of the ham tests today or in the past ever had any expectation of keeping out 'lids'. Knowledge of right and wrong itself has never prevented some people from violating the law. We see that everywhere...from petty criminals to such well educated proffesions as legal, clergy, politics, accountantants, medical...etc. No proffesion, regardless of the knowledge one needs or is tested for to gain entrance has ever been able to devise any specific testing to exclude the equivalent of "lids." Perhaps some professions (e.g. police) make a more concerted effort via the use of pschological testing and evaluations but even those don't screen all bad apples. Shall we dump the rules and regs from those written exams because they didn't do the job? oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level! A point we agree on. Exactly. BUT, again, knowledge of rules has never, in itself, served as a deterent to people who choose to deliberately (note I said deliberately, not by virtue of lack of knowledge) break the rules. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William) Date: 4/2/2004 7:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... In which FCC or other pertient federal law or regulation were they obligated to announce that they were, Brain? Steve, K4YZ What? What are you talking about? You're harrassing Dee about some perceived failure of the ARRL to "announce" that they used "Farnsworth" methodology for code test preparation. I want you to please provide some reference to a law, regulation or other federal mandate that directed them to do so. Also, since you are insinuating that some 'specification' has not been met, I'd like for you to provide us with a URL or other reference to said 'specification' as to HOW a code test should be prepared. Steve, K4YZ |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. I guess it all depends on how we define "lid filter". If it means that some sort of test is supposed to guarantee that everyone who passes it will somehow be a fully qualified, skilled, courteous, law-abiding radio amateur who will advance the state of the art, then there is no such test and no test was ever intended to do that job. But if it means that the test will help to insure that those who pass it have at least some minimum level of qualifications (knowledge and skill) to be hams.... It all boils down to what constitutes "basic knowledge to allow people into [amateur] radio". For some that includes a basic test of Morse code skill, for some others it does not. For some it includes technical and regulatory knowledge and for others it does not. Further testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and development. Agreed - all the way back into the 1930s, when the Class A license was invented. Or even earlier, if we count the old Amateur Extra First Class license. This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges not to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have but don't want to learn. That's an excellent point, Dee. But it's exactly what some people call "jumping through hoops", "hazing rituals", "giving out gold stars" and such. Now we see the same arguments that were used against the code test being used against the written test in the NCVEC proposal. How do we argue against it? Unless I am mistaken, at least one of the folks behind the NCVEC petition was/is on the NoCode International board. And the whole thing was clearly laid out in the "21st Century" paper. This is the way society, in general, works. Agreed. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len! From: (William) Date: 4/2/2004 7:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... In which FCC or other pertient federal law or regulation were they obligated to announce that they were, Brain? Steve, K4YZ What? What are you talking about? You're harrassing Dee about some perceived failure of the ARRL to "announce" that they used "Farnsworth" methodology for code test preparation. I want you to please provide some reference to a law, regulation or other federal mandate that directed them to do so. Also, since you are insinuating that some 'specification' has not been met, I'd like for you to provide us with a URL or other reference to said 'specification' as to HOW a code test should be prepared. As a point of historical comparison, Steve, I wonder if "back in the good ol' days" the FCC itself tested using Farnsworth Morse? Anyone know? - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Dee D. Flint" writes: NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. I guess it all depends on how we define "lid filter". I'm not necessarily looking for a "lid filter". But I do believe that having a certain minimum level of knowledge, be that Morse code testing or the written testing, makes for ensuring that the applicant really wants to be a ham and isn't just getting a license because they didn't have anything else to do one weekend. Obviously others differ. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article et, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Robert Casey writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't think it has a snowball's chance in [expletive deleted] of getting approved by the FCC. One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code for extras. That's the key question these days for any license requirement these days. You make an excellent point. Good...so far. The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?" Then will we expect you to make that argument to the FCC when you comment? HECK NO, BILL! The answer to that question could very well be "Gee, we *don't* get anything out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!". As the treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why bother. Because hams *do* use it. Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be allowed to use morse. If a "no-code" tech decides to operate morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would be true for Novice and Generals on HF also. There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested, or without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests before, say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current tests should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't. Some other services use it too, but not to any great extent. And certainly not to any extent that one would expect any ham to need to know code to read or operate with nay of those other services. By the way...what other services are you thinking of? There is still some maritime Morse code use, and it is used for ID in some applications. The FCC isn't in the business of giving out gold stars for the [expletive deleted] Jim, even I am not offended by "hell" It was a joke, Bill ;-) of it. Not about "gold stars". About qualifications. Of course there's differences of opinion on what qualified means. The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no code for all others makes even less sense. I disagree. Morse code is the second most popular mode in amateur radio. For even the most privileged license to require no skill in its use makes no sense. Code isn't a lid filter, *No* test is a perfect "lid filter". No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below. You misunderstand what I wrote. No test is a *perfect* lid filter. Particularly not a test given one time. There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through much more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not filtered out by those testing and education systems. I repeat...NO test is a lid filter. If that's true, why have tests at all? No test is a *perfect* lid filter. as witness 14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there. You mean before 1990? (medical waivers) Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical waivers? Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did. Remember this: All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple written exams, yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests aren't a perfect lid filter either. Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter". Shall we dump the rules and regs from those written exams because they didn't do the job? oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level! A point we agree on. Exactly. 73 de Jim, N2EY NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. Further testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and development. Radio licenses are just a regulatory tool used by the Commission. Radio operator licenses were never, are still not any form of academic certificates of achievement. The Commission is not chartered by law to be an educational or academic agency. Possession of a radio operator license, any kind, is proof only of having passed a license test according to Commission regulations. This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges not to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have but don't want to learn. This is the way society, in general, works. In our [USA] society, laws and regulations have been decided largely by political and legislative actions. Learning ability and qualifications in the same are tested and graded by academic organizations. The FCC is not an academic organization. There is no evidenciary Divine Law which dictates certain avocational radio activity "must" be done in a certain way or that certain skills and knowledge "must" be possessed, nor is there any Divine Judgement which ascertains the sagacity of such "musts." There are only self-righteous, sanctimonious self-styled "radio gods" who demand obediance to certain "rules" because they think all should think like they do. Through political pressure, many of those "rules" make it into codified law...ergo, it is "right." :-) ------- Now back to more interesting amateur radio policy discussions concerning immunization, medicine, and urban myths concerning those, along with national policy on health care. LHA / WMD |
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len! From: (William) Date: 4/2/2004 7:50 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier to copy than using slow letters. Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable. No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that information has set themselves up for failure. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that they were doing so. Sorry but it was published. Years later. Brain, you have yet to answer my question as to WHAT FCC or federal law mandated any "declaration" about using Farnsworth methodology for code test preparation. Brian did not bring this "declaration" up...that was another. You are free to find your own sources of offical statements at the FCC website using their own, publicly-available search facilities. You DO have an answer, don't you? You CAN do your own searches, but contentiousness is so much easier to do, a sort of instant satsifaction of personal irritation. I've read Part 97 a couple times and find nothing there that mandates it. And I am also awaiting your answer as to WHAT "specification" exists for "Morse Code". 97.3 (a) (27) - CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984), Division B, I. Morse code. That is as stated in the 1 October 2003 printed form of Title 47 C.F.R. available from the Government Printing Office. That same definition existed in the October 2005 Code of Federal Regulations. There are several adult education courses available in your area to improve your personal reading comprehension skills. More assertions without validation? Or is it OPINION, expressed just because you like to see your name in print...?!?! You have been repeatedly informed of the existing regulatory specifications of and about International Morse Code. For years. There is no point in you trying to argue the same subject with constant obvious contentious behavior and trying to promote verbal battles that irritate others. It is much better to concentrate personal efforts on very real, serious problems facing your remaining "service" days, such as Access BPL and a possible future regulatory restructuring of amateur radio. LHA / WMD |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Dee D. Flint" writes: NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. I guess it all depends on how we define "lid filter". I define it to be someone who operates poorly or illegally on a deliberate basis (emphasis on deliberate). If it means that some sort of test is supposed to guarantee that everyone who passes it will somehow be a fully qualified, skilled, courteous, law-abiding radio amateur who will advance the state of the art, then there is no such test and no test was ever intended to do that job. Agreed. But if it means that the test will help to insure that those who pass it have at least some minimum level of qualifications (knowledge and skill) to be hams.... Which is the only purpose for the testing today and in the past. It all boils down to what constitutes "basic knowledge to allow people into [amateur] radio". For some that includes a basic test of Morse code skill, for some others it does not. Correct, and the FCC has been pretty clear on the point that morse as a skill is NOT needed, except to be compliant with the now vacated treaty code requireent for HF. For some it includes technical and regulatory knowledge and for others it does not. I am one that agrees there should be both technical and regulatory knowledge. Further testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and development. Agreed - all the way back into the 1930s, when the Class A license was invented. Or even earlier, if we count the old Amateur Extra First Class license. No argument on that. It is clearly the intent of incentive licensing. This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges not to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have but don't want to learn. That's an excellent point, Dee. But it's exactly what some people call "jumping through hoops", "hazing rituals", "giving out gold stars" and such. BUT code testing is a motor skills test, not a technical nor regulatory one. No other mode is tested at the use level as is morse code. Now we see the same arguments that were used against the code test being used against the written test in the NCVEC proposal. How do we argue against it? You just do on the belief the FCC won't buy the NCVEC proposal on that point. Unless I am mistaken, at least one of the folks behind the NCVEC petition was/is on the NoCode International board. And the whole thing was clearly laid out in the "21st Century" paper. Fred W5YI is both NCVEC and an NCI Board Member. For the record, I am also an NCI Bd member and I individually oppose the NCVEC RM except as to it calling for a total end to all code testing. On the NCVEC petition itself, NCI, as an organization, has not taken any official stand for or against. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com