Robert Casey wrote:
KØHB wrote:

"Robert Casey" wrote



How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model


railroading


doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur


astronomy.



OK folks, you saw it first here! The founder of NLI.



Nah, that's 11 meters. Nobody wants that mess on the ham bands. My point
was to mention competing hobbies that do not require a license to do. Also
an additional point I wanted to make was that we need to avoid excessive
grades or levels of ham license.

perhaps they compete for participation, but they certainly not the
same. I also do amateur astronomy, and can't do much harm if I have a
poor telescope or don't know how to use it properly.

If I don't know anything about RF safety or if I can't adjust my radio
or if I put up a station that puts out RFI I can certainly have an
impact on myself and others.


- Mike KB3EIA -

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/28/2004 7:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Inflamatory questions won't be answered.

So far that's been just about ANY question put to you.

Hey! Whatta you know? I agree with that.

Which pretty much makes you a coward, especially in as all of the
questions were the result of stupid statements YOU made...Like how
"unlicensed
radio services play a "major role" in disaster communicaitons".

Still waiting for you to pull THAT rabbit out of your....hat.


Steve, K4YZ

Try stuffing this stupid statement back into your....hat.

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

MARS IS Amateur Radio.

There's nothing to "stuff". MARS, under current regulations and plans,
would cease to exist without Amateur Radio Operators to flesh it out.

Sorry you don't agree.

Sorry you're not man enough to understand.

Steve, K4YZ

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that
we need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that
will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.

Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.

With all due respect, Carl, I don't think you're the most objective
observer of people's interest in Morse Code. Nor do I think you'd be
quite the best salesperson for the mode...

Here's testimony from someone (not me!) who actually works with *lots*
of kids on a long-term basis. This guy is right here in EPA, closer to
your QTH than to mine. His program goes after the exact kinds of kids
we say we want to attract. These are *his* words and experiences, not
mine:

BEGIN QUOTE:

"I have had the privilege of teaching an after school activity,
at the local middle school, for five years. I named it Tune in
the World, and it covers many aspects of radio and television,
and of course, pushes ham radio. Each year I have had several
students, both boys and girls, obtain their license and try to
help them continue on the hobby."

"With this as my basis, I can tell you that 95% of the students
were a pleasure to work with and each year the district offers
me a nice salary to teach the class and each year I decline it.
Yes, it is a lot of work, but the students enjoy it and come away
with a very positive idea of ham radio."

"The attention span varies, but I have found that I have to
work at making sure I have an interesting program and that no
part of it goes on and on and on. I set the rules at the first
meeting and have not had any serious problems. (My son and his
friends have been my biggest problem.) If one expects the
students to sit in their chairs and listen to a presentation
for an hour, after being in school all day, they good luck. I
combine power point presentations, live demonstrations, part
of ARRL videos, short movies, simple building projects and
computers. Interestingly, the students are always VERY
interested in the Morse code and seem less so in
modes connected with the computer."

"I am not a STRONG disciplinarian, but we have rules and the
kids obey them and something must be going right, a few kids
who were in the previous class always take the next year's
class and we always have 35 to 40 students. In fact, my
biggest problem is that other students want to join the class
after it has been on a few weeks."

"Last year at the last minute, I offer the Radio Merit Badge
at Boy Scout Camp. I was given a terrible time and hoped for
six kids. I had over 1/4 of the camp at the classes and more
wanted to attend. We got a dozen hams out of that one."

"So, if we want to get new, young hams, then think about
reaching out to the Middle Schools, and Scout Camps. Just
the camp alone, with eight weeks of camp, would produce
between 80 and 100 new hams....with about 400 Scout
Camps in the USA, (Cub and Boy Scout) that would mean a
very nice increase in our membership."

"I do agree, that like every previous generation, the new hams need
help in
getting into the hobby and if nothing else, get their email address
and send
them info as well as forwarding the address to the ARRL, and local
clubs.
We can sit here and complain about the lack of young people in our
hobby, or
we can do something, or expect someone else to do it. Ahhh, it is
easier to
complain...right?"

END QUOTE

Note that sentence at the end of the third paragraph. The emphasis is
his:

"Interestingly, the students are always VERY
interested in the Morse code and seem less so in
modes connected with the computer."

Just one teacher's experience in one middle school and one Boy Scout
camp. But he's there, with the kids, doing the teaching and recruiting
on his own time.

Who are any of us - including you, Carl - to say he's wrong?

What evidence do you have to counter what he says, Carl?

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

All hams should certify that they have read and understand the rules.
That's not a substitute for testing. But NCVEC's proposal wants to do
just that. Read the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal. The proposers don't think new hams will learn the
rules well enough to pass a test on them!

Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

If 2/3 of the extant holders of a license haven't passed the written
test for that license, the standards have been weakened.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.

Why is such an adjustment needed at all? We've had 3 classes of
"legacy license" for over 4 years now. What's the problem?

I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

What "fiasco" of 50 some years ago?

In 1951, FCC replaced the old ABC incentive licensing system with the
Novice/Technician/Conditional/General/Advanced/Extra incentive
licensing system that still forms the basis for our system today.

In 1953, FCC reversed its 1951 program and gave all operating
privileges to all US hams except Novices and Technicians, effective
mid-Feb., 1953. (51 years ago - was that the fiasco you meant?)

I wasn't around for those two. Some folks were bitter about the 1953
changes (no kids no lids no space cadets). The "legacy" Advanced class
was kept separate by FCC for more than 14 years.

In 1968, FCC reinstituted differences in operating privileges between
the Extra, Advanced, and General/Conditional licenses. These were
expanded in 1969. I was there, I lost privileges, and I had to wait
two years before I was even allowed to take the tests to get them
back. I wasn't bitter then, nor now. Other folks feel differently. But
most hams today weren't hams when those changes took place.



73 de Jim, N2EY

NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.



Who determines what is "harmful"?

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.

the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?

I'm a bit curious too...........

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

All hams should certify that they have read and understand the rules.
That's not a substitute for testing. But NCVEC's proposal wants to do
just that. Read the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal. The proposers don't think new hams will learn the
rules well enough to pass a test on them!

This was exactly the response I got from one of the guys who wrote that
paper. I e-mailed him a lengthy resposne and got a very pleasant reply. I
believe them to have the right "motivations", but thier executions will be
wrong, wrong, wrong...

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with
the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.

Why is such an adjustment needed at all? We've had 3 classes of
"legacy license" for over 4 years now. What's the problem?

Agreed.

The "numbers" continue to demonstrate that plenty of people are able to
pass the requisite examinations. If there's ANY "upgrade", it should include a
written exam on the added privileges and pretinent HF propagation and
practices, even if the "upgrade" does NOT include Morse Code.

I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years
ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

What "fiasco" of 50 some years ago?

In 1951, FCC replaced the old ABC incentive licensing system with the
Novice/Technician/Conditional/General/Advanced/Extra incentive
licensing system that still forms the basis for our system today.

In 1953, FCC reversed its 1951 program and gave all operating
privileges to all US hams except Novices and Technicians, effective
mid-Feb., 1953. (51 years ago - was that the fiasco you meant?)

I wasn't around for those two. Some folks were bitter about the 1953
changes (no kids no lids no space cadets). The "legacy" Advanced class
was kept separate by FCC for more than 14 years.

In 1968, FCC reinstituted differences in operating privileges between
the Extra, Advanced, and General/Conditional licenses. These were
expanded in 1969. I was there, I lost privileges, and I had to wait
two years before I was even allowed to take the tests to get them
back. I wasn't bitter then, nor now. Other folks feel differently. But
most hams today weren't hams when those changes took place.

The FCC won't do that twice...I hope.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"N2EY" wrote

But NCVEC's proposal wants to do just that. Read
the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal.

I'm having some doubts about the "21st Century" paper authorship.
KL7-whatever-his-call-is claims W3BE as a co-author, yet W3BE in
his comments to FCC comes down in opposition to most of those
ideas like free upgrades as looney-tune-stupid (which they are).

73, de Hans, K0HB

Robert Casey wrote:


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.




Who determines what is "harmful"?


I wrote a couple sentences/questions to that effect, that you snipped out.


Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

Nothing is improved by lowering the bar. If most General hams have only
taken the Technician test, then the average tested level is brought down
to somewhere between Technician and General.

None of this is subject to spin, it is just how it is. Simple
mathematics is all it is.

If it isn't improving things, or at least neutral, then it is harming
things.

Database administration isn't a good excuse at all. just imagine how
much database administration would be eased if there were only one
class. So why don't we simply "one time adjust" every ham in the country
to Extra? Everyone will have all the same privileges, so no wondering
what ham is supposed to be at what frequency. That would make
administration EASY.


Would one time adjusting *everyone* to the Extra level be harmful to
the ARS?

Adjusting the Technicians to the next level is an incremental
adjustment of the same. At what level is incrementalism not harmful?


Quick note here. I do not oppose one license class. But it would be at
the Extra level at least.

- mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini bra my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...


Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?


Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".


Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?


In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.


Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?


And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?


The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.


the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?


I'm a bit curious too...........


If I were to butt in here, I would say that aside from the obvious CW
transceiver, simple and easy to build, There are plenty of other
possibilities.

AM transmitters. - Yeah, groan.

Simple SSB transmitters. There appear to be a few out there that can be
homebrewed. If not, Jim should design one!

All these would be somewhat more complex than the classic CW
transmitter, but that brings me back to the point I like to make about
what hams "should know". Now that we are probably moving beyond the time
when a super simple transmitter is the rig of choice for the budding
homebrewer, it is more important than ever that the same should have a
well grounded knowledge of basic electronics.

Aside from homebrewing entire radios, the youngster can do things like
building interfaces to their computers from their radios. Note that
there is a PSK31 Transceiver that can be built from Rocky mountain Labs
IIRC that while it isn't quite a homebrew design, it isn't a bad start -
it's like building a modern da version of a Heathkit.

Antennas are another matter. There is a lot of quackery on the matter
of antennas these days, and some serious guidance is needed to keep the
kids from getting discouraged. And yaknow, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!


Someone oughta write a book. hmmmmmmm.


Discouraging homebrew is possibly the most damaging part of at least
one of the proposals out there as far as attracting young people.

I just don't think that there are that many youngsters that want to
simply mash the PTT button on their Yeacommwood transceiver and yak as
their primary activity in the ARS. We won't attract too many people that
way.

I'm firmly convinced that kids that might want to join the ARS want to
BUILD!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And ya know, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!


Antenna tuners (more properly called feed line tuners) are a crutch for
people who can't manage to build a proper antenna to fool their
transmitter into thinking it has a proper antenna.


73, de Hans, K0HB