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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

[snip to following sentence about previous Tech privilege discussion]
Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

How many of these petitions were actually filed by Technicians rather than
people who purport to speak for them? Do the filers really know whether the
Techs are happy with the current privileges. Afterall those who really
wanted more privileges went ahead and upgraded.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 3/27/2004 8:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

[snip to following sentence about previous Tech privilege discussion]
Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

How many of these petitions were actually filed by Technicians rather than
people who purport to speak for them? Do the filers really know whether the
Techs are happy with the current privileges. Afterall those who really
wanted more privileges went ahead and upgraded.

BAM!

(sound of hammer hitting nail on the head!)

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

[snip to following sentence about previous Tech privilege discussion]
Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

How many of these petitions were actually filed by Technicians rather than
people who purport to speak for them?
Do the filers really know whether the
Techs are happy with the current privileges. Afterall those who really
wanted more privileges went ahead and upgraded.

omigawsh, Dee, you just hit the nail and drove it straight through the board!

I agree 100%

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

How many of these petitions were actually filed by Technicians rather than
people who purport to speak for them?

None of the four current petitions.

Folks in the back of the bus aren't allowed to speak for the bus
company.

Do the filers really know whether the
Techs are happy with the current privileges.

Right. All them folks in de back o de bus be happy, singin
an dancin, eatin watermelon...

Afterall those who really
wanted more privileges went ahead and upgraded.

Right. We didn't need any of those Civil Rights laws, either, did
we?

LHA / WMD

N2EY wrote:

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 overburde

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 as 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.

I have letters attesting that those people are wrong. I have experience
with a group trying to replace us with cell phones and failing at it.
The list goes on and on!

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.

Of course! if there are no limits, then we'll have a few hams trying to
use broadcast station powers.



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.

Yes, but that old inverse square law coupled with the hidh voltages
being on the equipment that the ham operates means that they are the
most likely to suffer harm.


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.

Wrong part to make the analogy from. A long time ago when I originally
made the analogy, I was addressing the 'guvmint's proponsity for
protecting us from ourselves.

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 be 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)

I cooked a little bit of meat on my finger one day with somewhere
around 50 watts power. People concerned with this should collect stamps.
My point is that 50 watts can hurt you, so if you are worried about
safety, you better lower it below that, and not cap it at 100.

Safety note addendum:
I just read the part of the ARRL 2003 handbook regarding RF and
electrical safety. Those who want to limit the voltages on the finals
better lower that nomber to 24 volts. Chapter 9 page 19 is my reference.

After all they only have safety in mind, gotta protect the newbies!

Which do you think is more common: hams on HF or hams running high power?

Of corse there are more hams on HF.

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.

Sure, and that's what I did. My point is that just because you don't
hear anyone on it doesn't mean there aren't hams that "might" use it.


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.

As long as it isn't the debacle they propose to foist upon the newbies!


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?

I don't know that any of these petitions are sponsored by Technicians
or Novices. Seems to me that this started when the requirement for
Element 1 testing was made voluntary, and all the worms started crawling
out of the woodwork so to speak.

All the proposals were made by Extras, AFAIK.


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
inthe 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.

Which still doesn't float my boat.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

Right. All them folks in de back o de bus be happy, singin
an dancin, eatin watermelon...

What's it to you? You're some guy standing on the sidewalk, watching
the bus go by.

Dave K8MN

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Those people are as 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.

I have letters attesting that those people are wrong. I have experience
with a group trying to replace us with cell phones and failing at it.
The list goes on and on!

Of course! But some people just don't like facts.

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.

Yet we have power limits on *all* hams in certain subbands today.

Of course! if there are no limits, then we'll have a few hams trying to
use broadcast station powers.

"Tetrode with handles", anyone?

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.

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.

Yes, but that old inverse square law coupled with the hidh voltages
being on the equipment that the ham operates means that they are the
most likely to suffer harm.

In the case of RF, it's distance to the antenna. Which may be closer to a
neighbor than the ham himself. PArticularly at VHF/UHF where the gain of even a
"small" directional array can be over 10 dB. Pump, say, 500 W into a 432 MHz
array with 16 dB gain...

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.

Wrong part to make the analogy from. A long time ago when I originally
made the analogy, I was addressing the 'guvmint's proponsity for
protecting us from ourselves.

Oh, OK.

Is that really a bad thing, in the case of cigarettes? The data clearly shows
the health effects. And remember that those health care costs wind up being
paid by all of us, in a variety of ways. Smokers and nonsmokers don't pay
different Medicare/Medicaid taxes nor get different benefits. Etc.

OTOH, there was a report from some Eastern European country (Czech?) a while
back that touched off a bit of a scandal. Said that smoking was actually *good*
for their benefits system because, while it raised the health care costs, it
also reduced the life expectancy so much that the reduction in old-age pension
payments more than compensated. Of course their health care costs are much
lower than in the USA.

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)

I cooked a little bit of meat on my finger one day with somewhere
around 50 watts power. People concerned with this should collect stamps.
My point is that 50 watts can hurt you, so if you are worried about
safety, you better lower it below that, and not cap it at 100.

Point is that the hazard from 1500 W is much greater.

Safety note addendum:
I just read the part of the ARRL 2003 handbook regarding RF and
electrical safety. Those who want to limit the voltages on the finals
better lower that nomber to 24 volts. Chapter 9 page 19 is my reference.

bwaahaahaa

After all they only have safety in mind, gotta protect the newbies!

Which do you think is more common: hams on HF or hams running high power?

Of corse there are more hams on HF.

There ya go!

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.

Sure, and that's what I did. My point is that just because you don't
hear anyone on it doesn't mean there aren't hams that "might" use it.

Ah.

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.

As long as it isn't the debacle they propose to foist upon the newbies!

Hans is just biding his time, waiting for the right moment...

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?

I don't know that any of these petitions are sponsored by Technicians
or Novices. Seems to me that this started when the requirement for
Element 1 testing was made voluntary, and all the worms started crawling
out of the woodwork so to speak.

Whatever the cause, you can see the "slippery slope" effect. Remember when I
pointed out how the anticode arguments could be used against much of the
writtens? Well, here we are with a major proposal that wants to dump a
significant part of the writtens because they're allegedly "too hard"...

All the proposals were made by Extras, AFAIK.

There you have it!

Once you take the really bad stuff out of the NCVEC proposal, you wind up
with the ARRL proposal.

Which still doesn't float my boat.

Lesser of two evils?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Right. All them folks in de back o de bus be happy, singin
an dancin, eatin watermelon...

Again with racial epithets.

What a putz.

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Right. All them folks in de back o de bus be happy, singin
an dancin, eatin watermelon...

Again with racial epithets.

What a putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Weren't you the one with the little lantern guy?

Yep, I remember. It was you.