Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuringdepends
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC, ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. Mike, There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level license: 1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't need to be tested on it) Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those giving the tests are being overburdened? It's not about being overburdened, but about matching the test to the privileges. Why test for 1500 W safety if only 100 W is allowed? Well then, why not just limit ALL classes to those low powers an eliminate (mostly) the so called safety problem altogether. Make all appliance equipment mandatory and pot the innards. Make new foolproof connectors, and require all antennas to be installed by properly licensed contractors. There are some folks who would like to do just that! I know answering a question with a question is bad form, but frankly, it isn't much of a leap of imagination to rationalize our cherished privileges right out from under our feet. Which is what those "it's just a hobby" folks are doing, whether they realize it or not. Those people are a shortsighted as the people proposing the "no homebrew" rules. Your wording "avocation" is the proper term AFAIAC. I practive my "hamliness" that way. Is it a hobby to work with disaster preparedness teams? If so we are the only ones classed that way in the group. Is it a hobby to be a part of the Skywarn system? Is it a hobby to volunteer time for public events such as the NYC or LA marathons, or bike races or local charity events? Of course it isn't. And that's why some people deny that hams are a significant part of such activities. DO some hams practice this as a hobby? Sure. But that doesn't make it a hobby. In the overall, it is a service. Or to put it another way, it's a nonprofit, volunteer activity. I assume that you have been in group meetings, where the original idea is mutated beyond recognition? I see it happen all the time. This is only one more reason why I don't like these proposals *at all*. They seem a bit of a Pandora's box IMO. I know exactly what you mean. However, note that for over half a century we've had license classes with reduced power privileges and it hasn't led us down the slippery slope. But we haven't had people suggesting that we have a commercial equipment requirement, we haven't had a commissh that we are annoying with our so called silly concerns about BPL, and concerns for our "safety". Cell phones and HF rigs both use RF correct? So why do hams get to use 1.5 thousand watts of power while those poor cell phone users have to get by on less than a watt? If RF is dangerous, it is dangerous, ....right? Even though I'm being facetious, I can garuntee that I can sell 9 out of 10 non-ham friends I know *that* argument. Yet we have power limits on *all* hams in certain subbands today. Give me a good argument why Hams should need to run power over 100 Watts, 50 Watts, 5 Watts? Because under certain circumstances those levels of power are inadequate. Then just call them on the cell phone if you need to get through that bad! 8^) Actually, you have just expressed the fundamental image problem that Amateur Radio faces in the 21st century. Many people, including some hams, don't really "get" what Amateur Radio is all about. Here's my definition: Amateur Radio is fundamentally about radio as an end in itself, rather than as a means to another end. Otherwise, might as well use a cell phone or email. However, this does not mean that *all* safety questions should be removed - just those connected with high power. And those high power questions must then migrate to the next-higher class of license. If high power RF is dangerous, why should it be allowed at all? It's not dangerous if proper precautions are taken. Bingo! Part of the preocess is education, and the tests show that unless the applicant has cheated, they have picked up *something* in the way of safety knowledge. And that's why it should be in the test, and why the bad parts of the NCVEC proposal must be opposed. For anyone. If we wanna start that game, that question WILL be asked. Do you not talk all over the world with qrp power? I myself have talked to Australia on 10 watts. No record, but just a personal best. They hear those stories, and suddenly it looks like that might be able to protect those self destructive hams from themselves. The point of license testing is not to protect someone from their own ignorance, but to protect others from it. Mostly, but RF safety is one exception. The danegrs of high power RF and High voltages in general is mostly a danger to the operator. I disagree in part. The danger of RF exposure is to anyone in the RF field. Just like cigarette smokers. Cigarette smoking is much more hazardous than RF. Sure, but you do know what my point is, don't you? Not really. There's no safe nonzero exposure level to cigarette smoking. And with the efforts to lower cell phone power going on, plenty of non-technical regulator types will think this is a good idea, no? Now *that's* a valid point, as verified by the Alpine tower folks... So it makes sense that if the entry-level test gets smaller, the next-level test (General) must, of necessity, get bigger to contain the stuff removed. Does the NCVEC petiton even mention this? Nope. That tells ya something. 2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a higher class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why bother to upgrade?) But my idea, or non-idea does just that, without punitive power restrictions based on what I consider bogus rationale. For those that are happy to just ve on VHF and above, the Technician ticket is just the thing. Want HF access? Take the General test! Without Element one, there isn't anything to hold ya back. Here's the problem: What we have now is a VHF-UHF-centric entry level license. The privileges are very heavily weighted towards the bands above 30 MHz and away from HF/MF.This means that most new hams will start off on VHF/UHF. And that means they will also start off with a local/regional focus, and almost certainly with manufactured equipment. The current Tech Q&A pool contains a wide variety of subjects - covered in very little depth. The wide variety of privileges granted requires all those questions. You and I may find them trivial, but some beginners may not. After all, don't you know at least one "professional" who has not even obtained an entry-level amateur license? Wouldn't it make more sense for the entry-level license to contain a balanced mix of privileges, including significant HF as well as VHF/UHF privileges, coupled with a test that matches the privileges granted? That way, new hams can sample more of what ham radio has to offer. Actually, I find the differences between local/regional, (V/UHF) and worldwide (H/MF) to be one mighty and fine incentive to upgrade. That's you. Of course that's me. Does it make as much sense as *protecting* the newbies from High power RF by not allowing them high power, as compared to the alternative of giving them the knowledge? It makes more sense to me that new hams have a sampling of all bands (I'd give them a lot more HF/MF than bits of 80/40/15/10) than to restrict HF and allow full power at "meat cooking frequencies" (tip of the hat to WK3C for that phrase) Which do you think is more common: hams on HF or hams running high power? In addition, given the results of the way the Technician license evolved, from a experimenter's license to the real entry level license, I would have to say that many many hams are happy to stay right there. Many of them only want the type of coverage that the Tech license gives. Maybe. But if that's so, why aren't the repeaters busy 24/7? Depends. Our local club repeater is pretty busy most of the time. Others aren't so busy. I know I've been given a lecture on occasion while traveling by some disgruntled ham when I've called that I'm listening and he comes back with "This is a private repeater - don't use it any more". No mention of the private repeater in the book. Who the heck is going to use that! Funny, I've never run into that. If someone told me a repeate was private, I'd simply say it's not in the book and try a different freq. I believe that the propagation differences between the VHF and up, and HF and down make a natural and rational dividing line between privileges. Well, I have to disagree. I say it's an artificial division foisted upon us by a few people who clamored for a nocodetest license as the savior of amateur radio. Hasn't happened. Perhaps you don't agree with my conclusion, but the propagation differences are pretty much demarcated between HF and VHF All depends on the sunspot cycle. When the spots are down, bands as low as 15 become like VHF/UHF. At the peak, 6 is more like 10. A lot depends on your operating time-of-day, too. It also makes for less of a class system. Go down that road far enough, and you'll have a one class system. I don't propose that, but even THAT is better than what the NCVEC proposes. I almost have to agree. If the Tech has the power and privileges for their respective bands, and they are happy there, then it's a great thing. Seems to me that it would make more sense to offer a wider sampling. Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and arguments? For example, imagine the prospective ham who wants to build kits, restore old gear or even homebrew from scratch. Which do you think would be a more realistic first project - a simple HF rig or a simple VHF/UHF one? Which do you think will result in more QSOs and more "reward" for the builder? Well that isn't going to happen under some of the scenario's. Which is why those scenarios are not good ideas. I'd certainly like that myself. Then let's go for it. Yes, it's possible to work the world on VHF/UHF, but isn't it easier for a beginner to do so on HF? Particularly with limited antennas? That's the basic thinking behind many of the proposals. What they're really trying to do is to reinvent the old Novice license. The Novice concept was to have a very limited license to get people started, so they could learn-by-doing, see what was what and then upgrade if they liked ham radio. From what I see, simply removing Element 1 and letting the dust settle is a better plan than either the NCVEC or ARRL plans. I think way too much is made of Element 1 and way too little of other factors. But consider this: Suppose FCC did just that (dropped Element 1 and let everything else alone). And suppose we did *not* see a big sustained rise in the number of new hams and the number of upgrades. That would prove, once and for all, that Element 1 was *not* the problem at all! Some folks would be very upset..... comments: We would not, yes it would, and yes they would! Of course. Plus if that were done, it would be years before FCC got around to another NPRM cycle. Remember all that "biennial review" stuff? Well, it's been just about 4 years since the 2000 restructuring took effect... The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal accomplishment. "Class" would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible. The term caste is used mainly for the class aspect, not based on the religion aspect. Evil Extra's being reincarnated as CB'ers comes to mind! ;^) Very bad karma! Point is, however, that "caste" implies something that a person cannot change. That's simply not true of the situation we're describing. The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an important part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason. Agreed 100 percent! This is a prime difference between the ARRL and NCVEC proposals. And it must be opposed. No good can come of such requirements. And How! They're open for comments now. Yup, Once you take the really bad stuff out of the NCVEC proposal, you wind up with the ARRL proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NCVEC files license resstructuring proposal | Policy | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part Two (Communicator License) | Policy | |||
Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
Hey CBers Help Get rid of Morse Code Test and Requirement | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |