| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
March 25th 04, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"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"? 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. Anyone who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be offended by the class name Novice. It's been around a long time, still fits, and is recognized worldwide - some other countries even have a beginner class called Novice. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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, 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. 73, Carl - wk3c |
|
#2
March 25th 04, 03:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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! 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. Anyone who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be offended by the class name Novice. It's been around a long time, still fits, and is recognized worldwide - some other countries even have a beginner class called Novice. The word Novice still makes me think of nuns before I think of amateur radio! 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 73, Carl - wk3c 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
|
#3
March 26th 04, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#4
March 25th 04, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. 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. Back in the olden days before Bash published his books, I imagine that some ham clubs had compiled remembered questions from FCC tests. To help members upgrade. And I suppose someone had snuck a peek at those mail in novice and tech tests before the FCC said everyone had to test at a field office (Early 1976 they decreed that, so I had to test at the FCC). However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal to the NCVEC one for the following reasons: 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. 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. A few questions on electrical safety and procedures on the test should address this issue. Besides, other than an FCC inspector paying a visit, how could be enforced? The FCC doesn't have the budget for that. Output power can be limited to say 100W. Easier to enforce, as signal strength can be measured remotely (not foolproof, maybe his beam is aimed right at you). The power limit would avoid the RF exposure issue. and, 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. The old Novice licensees got WN#XXX callsigns to designate them as novices. Other than a few bozos, everyone accepted them as legit hams. When you upgraded to general, the FCC replaced the N with A or B in your callsign. The FCC must have had an internal use only note as to which you'd get when they issued your novice call. Today, you could get a vanity callsign with the WN if you want, even if you're an extra. Wonder if WN2ISE was ever issued? Someone did have WA2ISE before I was issued it in 1976, as a tech (general written and 5wpm). |
|
#5
March 25th 04, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Back in the olden days before Bash published his books, I imagine that some ham clubs had compiled remembered questions from FCC tests. Beginning in the early 1950s there were several hardcover "Q & A" books published on ALL the FCC license exams plus several other areas of licensing exams by other agencies. Those had "typical" exam questions in them including some "typical" schematics required to be drawn during FCC exams. A bookstore in my home town had amateur radio Q&A books but not the Commercial radio license variety back in 1956. I skimmed through one a friend had, saw enough to decide that the theory part wasn't needed and didn't buy one. I borrowed the loose-leaf-bound FCC rules from a nice person at a broadcast station over a weekend and crammed, memorizing the regulatory parts which were new to me. Not a problem. Passed the two-hour test in one sitting at the Chicago FCC field office. Four written examination parts in successive order, a general sort of test first for FCC organization and scope (rather short), followed by successive parts for Third, Second, and finally First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator. Radiotelegraph written test was about the same; three in the office were taking that plus the annoying, audible code cognition tests in the same room at the same time. Back then all the FCC regulations came in loose-leaf form with extra revision-subscriptions, all available from the Government Printing Office. Took at least a week to get a surface mail order back from DC. No Internet then, no "free downloads" from GPO within seconds. No instant test results forwarded direct to DC either...went by surface mail from field offices and DC sent licenses back. Slow movements in all directions. The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one). The surname has emotional connotations handy for those who need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever frustration those people have. Oddly, no one seems to bash the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material long before the Bash company did its thing. LHA / WMD |
|
#6
March 27th 04, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
March 29th 04, 03:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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... |
|
#9
March 29th 04, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (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? By all the time-honored practices used in college and university written exam "cheat sheets" well before there were any radio regulating agencies. Stop trolling for an argument subject. The practice is well known in many activities. It has been explained by others in here. Dick Bash was a late-comer in the FCC examination "typical test question-answer" area in the USA. Many others were ahead of his company. You waste our time, my time, everyone's time. LHA / WMD |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
| My restructuring proposal | Policy | |||
| Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
| What's All Dose Numbers Hams Use | Dx | |||
Hybrid Mode
