|
JJ wrote in message ...
People are more at risk from RF exposure using their cell phones on a daily basis, operating at very high frequencies, where the antenna is less than an inch from their brain than they ever will be from any ham radio transmissions. Cell on VHF? Must be something new. |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... [snip] The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to bypass the Novice. People are strange. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to the vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital modes, etc. Carl - wk3c |
William wrote:
Cell on VHF? Must be something new. Some company wanted to do that with low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites a few years ago. They were eyeing 2m and 222 and 70cm, as well as other spectra. |
On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote:
What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller. Is that a good idea? I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules. Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. There may still need to be *some* evaluation done even at the 100/50W power level, but they are simplified compared to what needs to be known for the whole raneg of amateur power/frequencies. I don't think that safety stops at the "station evaluation level. Agee 100% One of the things that will probably happen if we get out of the mode that makes us even think of doing safety evaluations is that the new hams may not be thinking about RF safety at all. As a novice in the late 50s, RF safety wasn't very much a part of my understanding...beyong the concept of not touching electrical or RF conductors. The "unseen" RF in the air wasn't really the focus of the Novice syllabus either. But then too, Novice was limited then to 75w as measured by plate power. "Remember, don't put the antenna of your handy talkie in the puppy's mouth and press the talk button". Yet we put that antenna within less than an inch of our own brain when we transmit. I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing for the introductory license. I agree and also believ that safety (electrical, RF and mechanical) should be a fundamental part of novice understanding. If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the power to something like 5 watts or so. Better to keep testing on safety. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air I agree 100%! That's the whole point of multiple license classes. It's not in the best interests of amateur radio to require all newcomers to pass the Extra just to get started. Sure. I'm just pretty bullish on the safety requirements. I agree. ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago No it's not clear at all! In fact, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Here's why: Books like "Now You're Talking" are meant to be stand-alone study guides. They contain the entire question pool, with explanations of each question and how to get the answer. And much more. The old License Manuals were not meant to be "one stop" books. They focused on the license process only - where the tests were held, the process, etc. The "study guides" were *not* the actual Q&A, but rather *essay* questions intended to indicate the areas to be tested. If you really want to make a comparison, take an old ARRL License Manual, add on "How To Become A Radio Amateur", "Learning The Radiotelegraph Code" and "Understanding Amateur Radio" and you'll begin to have an apples-to-apples comparison. Or consider these questions from the 1976 ARRL License Manual: Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank, (c) high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? The above were just *some* of the study questions for the *Novice* exam of 1976. Took up less than a page. How many pages of explanation would it take to teach the above material? The actual exam did not use these questions. Instead, it might show, for example, a schematic of the amplifier circuit similar to, but not exactly like the one shown in the license manual, with 5 of the components labeled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" And that's at the *Novice* level. Does anyone think that the current entry-level exams are tougher than that? You know, I can't answer that question very easily. I don't believe that more questions makes for a harder test. And although I wasn't raised on hollow state, I figured out the questions you posed after a little enjoyable study. ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... The NCVEC proposal definitely *is* a dumbing down. The ARRL proposal is much better because it does not set a precedent of no homebrewing, etc. The NCVEC proposal is just plain Dumb. Well certain aspects certainly are. There are, however, a number of identical proposals in NCVEC to the ARRL with which I agree. And I think it is also insulting toward the lowest license class. The "signed statement" thing of the NCVEC proposal is really, really bad. Just like the weird thing I was supposed to sign when I bought that C.B. rig right about the time they gave up on licensing. I agree also. I would favor three aspects to the Novice (and all other tets too): 1 - Some basic electrical/electronic/RF knowledge, 2 - Safety knowledge and 3 - Rules/regs. Each part should be a separately scored subsection with a passing score required in each subsection. This is a point I think Jim N2EY and I have agreed on for a long time. One aspect of the rules/regs questions could deal with operating privileges...BUT I'd suggest that be done with a frequency chart being provided to each test taker to then use to answer specific questions. I see no need to memorize band slots by license class. I sure couldn't parrot what the exclusive Extra sub-bands are for HF if I was asked. Better to know the person can read and use the frequency chart because it does change over time. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... JJ wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing for the introductory license. If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the power to something like 5 watts or so. People are more at risk from RF exposure using their cell phones on a daily basis, operating at very high frequencies, where the antenna is less than an inch from their brain than they ever will be from any ham radio transmissions. No argument there. I hope that newcomers won't try to use their HT's like they do a cell phone, presses up against the ear. But when transmitting with an HT, the antenna IS right in front of the ham's forehead...unless one is using a separate microphone. And many HTs have power output above 5w In contrast, cellphones automatically adjust their power output as needed depending on signaling protocols between the cellphone and the cell site. Most cellphones aren't operating anywhere near their full power which, is below 5w. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Alun wrote in message . ..
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in : "N2EY" wrote in message ... [snipped stuff where we seem to be in agreement] I also dislike the entry level class name proposed by the NCVEC proposal - "communicator" - I prefer retaining the traditional "novice" name, which is recognized around the world (and has been used in other countries as well). How about "Basic"? Why not? It's good enough for the Canadians, eh! Exactly! I still prefer "Novice" ... anyone who's more than a beginner technically will probably go straight through to General, or even Extra, in one sitting. That depends on what is in those tests. Anyone who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be offended by the class name Novice. But what if they are? You're telling other people how they should feel, what they should like... It's been around a long time, still fits, and is recognized worldwide - some other countries even have a beginner class called Novice. Some other countries have a beginner class called Basic. The word Novice still makes me think of nuns before I think of amateur radio! Me too. It's an embarassing name for a license. What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller. Is that a good idea? It's clearly a "learn as you go" proposition any way you look at it ... NOBODY knows everything there is to know from day one. I'm not asking that anyone know everything from day one, just that they be tested on the rules for the license they are granted. That's reasonable. Since the rules can be looked up (just as one can use a "crib sheet" to remember sub-band edges) it seems to me that its not an unreasonable proposition. From the experience of Phil Kane and others, it's just not a good idea at all. Anyone who is a newbie to amateur radio regulations should not have any trouble passing a few questions on the regulations. I'd rather have someone know a bit more about radio and operating and have to refer to the rules as they learn to make sure they did things "by the book" than to shortcut the *basic* theory and operating practices. Why? If they can look up the rules, why can't they look up the other things as well? Sorry, but I think they should have to learn both. If you have a ham licence you should _know_ the rules at least for your own class of licence, period. I agree with Alun 100%. The rules are the one thing that every licensee *HAS* to know *BEFORE* the license is granted. Look at the enforcement letters of FCC, and you'll see that the vast majority of alleged violations by hams are violations of operating rules, not technical violations. However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal to the NCVEC one for the following reasons: 1) less conversion of CW/data space to SSB But it still falls well short of the amount of phone allowed in the IARU Region 2 (North and South America) bandplan. Try reading that particular document. You may find that it's an eye opener. Izzat the one that gives CW and digital about 10-15% of the available HF amateur spectrum? 2) I don't like the "commercial gear only" part of the NCVEC petition because it unnecessarily discourages homebrew and tinkering - something that novices have *always* been allowed (and encouraged by 97.1) to do. Agreed, but the test needs to cover basic electronics theory accordingly Only after it covers the rules. 3) I don't like the "low voltage" only part of the NCVEC petition, because it precludes the new ham from getting a good hamfest deal on an older rig like FT-101, TS-520/820, etc. for no good reason (nothing stops them from building power supplies that use 110VAC or 220VAC on the *primaries*, so what's the sense in this proposal. and, Agreed, but the appropriate safety guidelines should be in the test Ditto. We're not talking a lot, here. The "old" Novice covered all that. No reason the new one can't. 4) I don't like the NCVEC to "put the mark of Cain" on the newbies with a special, never-used callsign block that makes them stand out as targets for those who are disgruntled with ANY change. Agreed, but _only_ if they don't get to take a new ultra-lame theory test It adds an unnecessary level of regs and no real benefits. Instead, just do this: 1) Basic/Novice: Six-character callsigns (including vanity) in 2x3 format. 2) General: Six- or five-character callsigns (including vanity) in 2x3, 1x3, or 2x2 format. 3) Extra: Six-, five- or four-character callsigns (including vanity) in 2x3, 1x3, 2x2, 1x2 or 2x1 format. Nobody in any license class has to give up a callsign they hold now. Closed-off license classes can choose future vanity calls from the groups for the next-lowest license class. Simple, universal, gives an incentive and no "mark". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... [snip] The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to bypass the Novice. People are strange. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to the vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital modes, etc. That's one way to look at it. Here's another: After 1991, newcomers had a choice of two entry licenses (meaning (obtainable with the minimum amount of testing). They could choose the Novice, which required a written test and a 5 wpm code test. This license gave them some HF privileges (mostly but not exclusively Morse Code) and some privileges on VHF/UHF. But they were kept off the most popular amateur VHF/UHF bands (2 meters, 6 meters and 440 MHz) and got six-character callsigns. OR They could choose the Technician, which required two similar written tests but no code test. This license gave them no HF privileges but *all* privileges on VHF/UHF. In many areas they got five-character callsigns, or could get them via the vanity program. And if/when they passed the 5 wpm code test, the HF privileges of the Novice class would be added on. Which is easier to study for: two multiple-choice written tests that are highly similar to each other, or two tests that require completely different study methods? Even before 1987, many if not most new hams bypassed the Novice and went straight for Tech - in large part because they wanted VHF/UHF privileges right off. Particularly 2 meters and/or 440. It should be noted that in the past 4 years the number of new hams has not increased dramatically, even though the code test has been reduced to 5 wpm for all classes. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... [snip] The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to bypass the Novice. People are strange. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to the vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital modes, etc. Carl - wk3c I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental waste of time learning the Morse Code and become. Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired. |
"William" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... [snip] The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to bypass the Novice. People are strange. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to the vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital modes, etc. Carl - wk3c I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental waste of time learning the Morse Code and become. Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired. Boy you certainly know how to jump to erroneous conclusions. I work a full time job, which also entails travel further limiting my time. I found learning Morse to be no more of a waste of time than studying theory. They both take time and both are worthwhile. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Subject: Dee's comments on Novice vs. Tech
From: "Dee D. Flint" Date: 3/27/2004 6:45 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental waste of time learning the Morse Code and become. Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired. Boy you certainly know how to jump to erroneous conclusions. I work a full time job, which also entails travel further limiting my time. I found learning Morse to be no more of a waste of time than studying theory. They both take time and both are worthwhile. It's no more a "monumental waste of time" than learning another language, Dee...yet the same "arguments" against learning another language are employed by those who just don't want to leanr Morse Code. It'a actually easier to do, but then hey, they don'[t want to hear THAT, either... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote: What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller. Is that a good idea? I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules. Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. Carl - wk3c |
|
|
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Phil Kane" wrote in message . net... On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote: What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller. Is that a good idea? I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules. Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. I'll take that to mean you do not support the "signed statement" idea, Carl. What's interesting about the NCVEC proposal is that if you remove the "signed statement" bad idea, and the "no homebrew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the "additional unnecessary widening of the phone bands at the expense of CW/data" bad idea, and the "special beginner callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a proposal that's pretty darn close to the ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5 wpm for Extra thing)/ Personally, I think many of the provisions of the NCVEC proposal actually insult beginners. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
I sure couldn't parrot what the exclusive Extra sub-bands are for HF if I was asked. But as an Extra, you don't *need* to know that, Bill! You just need to know the band and mode subband limits.. As above, have you memorized them all? Well, extras can use any ham frequency. But you still need to know what modes go in what subbands. Better to know the person can read and use the frequency chart because it does change over time. See above. We disagreee then on that. I use a chart when using an unfamiliar band. The concept that you can operate whatever mode you happen to hear on whatever frequency doesn't always work. Like on 80 and 40. |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... I sure couldn't parrot what the exclusive Extra sub-bands are for HF if I was asked. But as an Extra, you don't *need* to know that, Bill! You just need to know the band and mode subband limits. As above, have you memorized them all? Well, extras can use any ham frequency. But you still need to know what modes go in what subbands. Exactly my point. Better to know the person can read and use the frequency chart because it does change over time. See above. We disagreee then on that. I use a chart when using an unfamiliar band. As do I. Additionally, as we have all seen too, band edges for modes of operation can and do change. Memorized spectrum or band edges by mode today may not be accurate tomorrow. The concept that you can operate whatever mode you happen to hear on whatever frequency doesn't always work. Like on 80 and 40. Agree 100%. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. Right. You are already an Extra and none of your amateur privileges will be changed by any of the 4 new proposals. Not to worry. But, only the NCVEC petition calls for total elimination of the morse code test. How does that square with the NCI position on code? LHA / WMD |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Phil Kane" wrote in message . net... On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote: What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller. Is that a good idea? I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules. Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. I'll take that to mean you do not support the "signed statement" idea, Carl? What's interesting about the NCVEC proposal is that if you remove the "signed statement" bad idea, and the "no home- brew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the "additional unnecessary widening of the phone bands at the expense of CW/data" bad idea, and the "special beginner callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a proposal that's pretty darn close to the ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5 wpm for Extra thing). As to support of ARRL petition... I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree). Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%. The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is (as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra. Personally, I think many of the provisions of the NCVEC proposal actually insult beginners. I agree completely. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:27:17 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
As to support of ARRL petition... I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree). Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%. The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is (as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra. That's where I stand as well. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property. In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as receiving stolen goods. Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that action taken..... Need we rehash this again ?? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. Right. You are already an Extra and none of your amateur privileges will be changed by any of the 4 new proposals. Not to worry. Amateurs thought that once before...remember...!??! In any case, any changes to Amateur Radio Service rules or regulations DO affect ANY licensee, regardless of class or years licensed. But, only the NCVEC petition calls for total elimination of the morse code test. How does that square with the NCI position on code? Why does it matter to you? You are not an Amateur Radio licesee and anything that DOES happen will not affect you in ANY case... Steve, K4YZ |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote: In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property. In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as receiving stolen goods. Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that action taken..... Need we rehash this again ?? What for...by your own statements you admit nothing was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't validate anything other than those FCC folks that wanted action couldn't convince their management that the case either had merit or was worth the time and expense. .. All the academic discussion of what may have been the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means nothing in the end. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... [snip] The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to bypass the Novice. People are strange. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to the vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital modes, etc. Carl - wk3c I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental waste of time learning the Morse Code and become. Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired. Boy you certainly know how to jump to erroneous conclusions. Welp, we had a sailor on here long ago who insisted that everyone else devote as much time as it took to learn the code or stay the hell out of ham radio. Where did he learn the code? The Navy taught it to him while he earned 3 hots and a cot, plus a paycheck. I work a full time job, which also entails travel further limiting my time. So did I at the time I was learning the code. Lots of frustrating work. Payoff? I don't use it. I found learning Morse to be no more of a waste of time than studying theory. I do. So much so that I used the description, "monumental waste of time." They both take time and both are worthwhile. Not to me. |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: [snip] I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. I'll take that to mean you do not support the "signed statement" idea, Carl? Correct ... there is much about the NCVEC proposal that I don't like. What's interesting about the NCVEC proposal is that if you remove the "signed statement" bad idea, and the "no home- brew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the "additional unnecessary widening of the phone bands at the expense of CW/data" bad idea, and the "special beginner callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a proposal that's pretty darn close to the ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5 wpm for Extra thing). 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 hell of getting approved by the FCC. As to support of ARRL petition... I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree). Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%. The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is (as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra. Ditto ... Personally, I think many of the provisions of the NCVEC proposal actually insult beginners. Ditto ... I agree completely. Ditto ... 73, Carl - wk3c |
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:26:48 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
What for...by your own statements you admit nothing was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't validate anything other than those FCC folks that wanted action couldn't convince their management that the case either had merit or was worth the time and expense. .. All the academic discussion of what may have been the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means nothing in the end. Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean that the act didn't take place. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
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 hell of getting approved by the FCC. One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code for extras. As the treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why bother. The FCC isn't in the business of giving out gold stars for the hell of it. Code isn't a lid filter, as witness 14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there. |
Subject: Dee's comments on Novice vs. Tech From: (William) Date: 3/28/2004 9:06 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: They both take time and both are worthwhile. Not to me. But who...better yet WHAT are you...?!?!? A person who cannot answer a straight question, that has professed admiration for a known pathological liar and has himself been caught trying to misrepresent the truth and then subsequently trying to hide that with even more misrepresentations. So "we" are impressed by your opinions....WHY...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "Phil Kane" wrote in message . net... On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote: In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property. In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as receiving stolen goods. Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that action taken..... Need we rehash this again ?? What for...by your own statements you admit nothing was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't validate anything other than those FCC folks that wanted action couldn't convince their management that the case either had merit or was worth the time and expense. That's one way to look at it. (insert standard "I'm not a lawyer and the following is just my layman's opinion" disclaimer HERE) Here's another: Perhaps what Bash did *was* illegal, and prosecutable under the rules at the time. Maybe the top folks decided not to go after Bash because (choose any number of the following): - they made a dumb mistake - they were planning to publicize the Q&A anyhow - they wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement - they didn't think they could win - they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would bring other things to light, such as the limited size of the pool actually in use - they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would sell more of his books and encourage imitators to do the same thing All the academic discussion of what may have been the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means nothing in the end. I disagree. It's an example of how things used to work, or not work. Most of all, the fact that no enforcement action was taken does not mean there was no violation. If a driver zips past a police radar setup at, say, 15 mph over the posted limit but the police don't go after that driver, a violatiuon still occurred. The police in that particular case just decided not to go after the violator, for whatever reason. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 28 Mar 2004 23:58:20 GMT, N2EY wrote:
Perhaps what Bash did *was* illegal, and prosecutable under the rules at the time. Maybe the top folks decided not to go after Bash because (choose any number of the following): - they made a dumb mistake - they were planning to publicize the Q&A anyhow - they wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement - they didn't think they could win - they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would bring other things to light, such as the limited size of the pool actually in use - they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would sell more of his books and encourage imitators to do the same thing You left out the real reason - the person who had the obligation to carry any prosecution forward (long since retired and deceased) was an expert in ducking anything that looked like work. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean that the act didn't take place. Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97 clearly states "Morse Code." |
William wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net... Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean that the act didn't take place. Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97 clearly states "Morse Code." They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used? |
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. The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?" As the treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why bother. Because hams *do* use it. Some other services use it too, but not to any great extent. The FCC isn't in the business of giving out gold stars for the [expletive deleted] of it. Not about "gold stars". About qualifications. Of course there's differences of opinion on what qualified means. Code isn't a lid filter, *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. as witness 14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there. You mean before 1990? (medical waivers) 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. 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! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Len Over 21) writes: The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one). Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical In your opinion, anyway. Mine and that of many others, including at least one communications attorney and engineer. and arguably illegal at the time. a legal argument in academic concept only. Since the FCC never tested the legality, the legal issue is moot. That's like saying that if someone drives 85 mph in a 65 mph zone and is not prosecuted for it, that the violation is an academic concept only. The surname has emotional connotations handy for those who need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever frustration those people have. Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and arguably illegal at the time. Ditto my last. Do you think it was ethical to obtain information the way Bash did? Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies. Not at all. It would be the equivalent of a techer using the SAME test questions over and over again and in recognition of same, a frat house eventually compiles a list of those questions based on the memory of those frats that had taken the tests before. Nothing about what bash did is equivalent to sneaking into the teacher's office. What's the difference? If the teacher left the door and his/her desk unlocked, and there was an unmonitored copy machine in the office, would it be ethical for a student to sneak in, find the test, make a copy and put everything back as it was? Why or why not? But let's use your analogy and see where it leads. Suppose the university had an "honor system" policy that specifically prohibited divulging what was on a test. Would it be ethical for a frat to compile question lists? Oddly, no one seems to bash the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material long before the Bash company did its thing. That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that would be on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with other information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with FCC knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of the study guides. In the end it made no difference. It makes a difference in that ARRL followed the rules and Bash did not. Bash obtained his materials by other methods, And those methods were NEVER chalenged as to the means being legal or not. Just as some drivers go way over the limit and yet never get a speeding ticket. and his books did not explain how the material was obtained. As if anyone buying the Bash books cared. I know hams who did care. In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property. In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as receiving stolen goods. How about this, then: There was a time (several decades long) when ham license exams were given by mail if the ham-to-be met certain criteria. The written exams were sent to the volunteer examiner (no capitals) in a sealed envelope with a lot of instructions explaining how the materials were to be handled. Included in those instructions were warnings not to divulge the contents of the test. Would it have been unethical to make a copy of the test? Why or why not? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one). Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and arguably illegal at the time. So did the Q&A book folks. How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information? The surname has emotional connotations handy for those who need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever frustration those people have. Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and arguably illegal at the time. So did the Q&A book folks. How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information? Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies. So did the Q&A book folks. One more time: How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information? Oddly, no one seems to bash the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material long before the Bash company did its thing. That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that would be on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with other information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with FCC knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of the study guides. The Church of St. Hiram is sacrosanct, can do no wrong. If you say so, Len ;-) Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain how the material was obtained. So did the Q&A book folks. How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information? In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property. Poor baby. You are mad as heck and you can't stand it anymore! I'm simply stating an opinion on what Dick Bash did. Do you think his actions were legal? Do you think they were in the best interests of amateur radio? Take Bash to civil court then, nothing stopping you from trying. Actually, there is: - Statute of limitations - Rules changes since then Avenge all foes! Sound the hue and cry!! Love the ARRL!!! Well, you're staying right on topic, Len. You're wrong yet again. That done, maybe you can fight against "J. K. Lasser's Your Income Tax" annual publications. Why? I really think you ought to review Title 17, USC, Copyrights. If you do, you will find that the United States government cannot copyright its own works. It's not about copyrights at all. That's been in the United States Code for quite a while. The ARRL did not need to "seek any permission" for republishing any FCC public material. They still don't need to, just repro it and mention the source. No fees, nothing. Anyone can. Then what's your problem? There's a legal area that is a "grey area" for many on what constitutes "ownership" of test materials. I'll leave that up to attorneys and judges to thrash out... In the instructions for the by-mail test I took for Novice, their were explicit directions not to copy or divulge the contents of the test. The signatures of the applicant and the volunteer examiner certified compliance with all of those instructions. Most of us took them very seriously. Bash didn't. Of course you wouldn't know about that, never having had an amateur license of any type... |
JJ wrote:
William wrote: "Phil Kane" wrote in message . net... Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean that the act didn't take place. Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97 clearly states "Morse Code." They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used? Don't do it, JJ! Brian will argue that one for weeks! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
JJ wrote: William wrote: "Phil Kane" wrote in message . net... Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean that the act didn't take place. Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97 clearly states "Morse Code." They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used? Don't do it, JJ! Brian will argue that one for weeks! - Mike KB3EIA - A lot of people like to argue a point even if they are wrong. |
N2EY wrote:
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] Okay, didn't think that word was that expletive. The FCC allows it. And heard it in church today.... 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. The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?" Was going to say "less heat from congressmen", but the BPL lobby will take care of that.... As the treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why bother. Because hams *do* use it. Some other services use it too, but not to any great extent. If a ham decides to use it, he can then learn it. Perhaps some of the old novice subbands can be informally reserved for fumbling beginners to QSO with elmers willing to train them. They may need to use phone on another frequency to assist the learning process. Shouldn't be a problem as long as one doesn't talk *and* send code at the same exact time (there's a rule saying not to use more than one slice of bandwidth (frequency) at a time). Split band and split mode is okay. The FCC isn't in the business of giving out gold stars for the [expletive deleted] of it. Not about "gold stars". About qualifications. Of course there's differences of opinion on what qualified means. Also what qualifications are really needed for the license. As if I need more knowledge to operate on 14.155 vs 14.277MHz.... Knowledge of rules, electrical and RF safety, how to identify and resolve RFI problems (which includes transmitter and receiver theory), knowing what constitutes intentional interference vs accidental QRM, what "Pecuniary interest" means and that that rule actually protects the ham bands from being invaded by business users.... VHF and above users have limited range, and thus cannot cause global disruption. HF users can. So maybe that's an argument to restrict novices to VHF and above, or low power HF. As the FCC allows us to take the covers off our transmitters, and lets us homebrew them as well, we should be expected to pass a test to demonstrate basic knowledge of how this stuff works, and what sort of problems can be caused by mis designed or mis adjusted equipment. Code isn't a lid filter, *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. as witness 14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there. You mean before 1990? (medical waivers) 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. Shall we dump the rules and regs from those written exams because they didn't do the job? Those clowns knew full well that they were breaking rules. "Oh, you mean I can't use expletives, maliciously interfere, and not ID?" I don't know the answer as to how to construct a lid filter in the license testing process. But the FCC said itself that things did not degrade after restructuring (5wpm generals and extras set loose on HF). Once everyone learned to fix their newbie type errors. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com