Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 9th 04, 01:06 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in
om:


Alun wrote in message
...


The ITU requirement for a code test was dropped on July 5th, 2003, so
evidently a majority around the world agree with you.

A majority of the world's governments that bothered to attend and vote
on the issue.

And all they did was change the rules so each country can decide for
itself what is required - just like the written test.

Although a suggested standard for written tests was added at the same
WRC, it's really more of a suggestion than anything else. Countries
can have wide-ranging interpretations of what's "needed". For example,
do you think ol' JY1 and his family had to sit for written and code
exams that were equivalent to what US or UK hams had to pass for the
same privileges? Or do you think the US writtens compare with, say,
those in the UK?

If I'm not mistaken, getting a license in some countries *requires*
successful completion of an approved training course. (I know the
"Foundation" license has this requirement). Doesn't matter if someone
is a Ph.D. in EE, they have to attend and pass the ham radio classes
to get the license - even though such courses are not part of any
treaty and not required in many other countries.


Actually, they only have to do the practical assesments, it's not necessary
to attend the course.


"Practical Assesmants" - as in tests? What, exactly, is required?

Imagine the reaction here in the USA if the code test were dropped
*and* getting a license required attendance at an approved ham radio
training course. Not a "one day wonder" course such as was recently
the subject of an article on the ARRL website ("Is Your License Class
Efficient" or some such title), but rather a multisession course with
quizzes and a final test that were not from a published pool.

Point is, just because it's not in the treaty anymore doesn't mean all
countries will or should drop it.


Another point is that requirements vary from country to country, even
with CEPT and S25.5

I think the FCC will drop it, but they move at a snail's pace.

They're busy with other things. And perhaps they don't see what all
the fuss is about. After all, we're talking about a 5 wpm code test
that can be passed in a number of ways, with all sorts of adaptations
and accomodations (tone, volume, headphones, typewriter, flashing
light, Farnsworth, etc.) Add to this the fact that today there are
training aids undreamed of in the past - most of them free or quite
inexpensive.


I doubt if they even think about any of that


Why? Those accomodations and adaptations are all part of the rules. In
fact, a lot is left to the VE's judgement. For example, a *sending*
test can be substituted for the receiving test if the VEs think it is
justified.

I didn't think it would survive
for as long as a year after it was no longer needed, but it's only
nine months so far, so I could still be right.

I think you meant 'no longer required by treaty'. Whether something is
needed as a license requirement is purely a matter of opinion.


I meant both, since I agree with the FCC that it was only needed because of
the treaty

It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.


That may be, although I still think it will be earlier than that. How do we
stand with the pool, BTW?


I just did an update. Google up the thread - WK3C wanted to change his
date!

Most of all, note that the 2000 restructuring did not result in lots
of new hams, even though the requirements for all classes of license
were lowered and the whole structure simplified.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I think abolishing the code test will remove a block in the system, but
won't have much effect unless we actively do something to recruit new hams.
I don't really see much of that happening right now.


What would you suggest?

Here's what one ham is doing - and has been doing for years. I don't
know this ham personally, but he is right here in EPA. Note the
results and the reactions he gets. The following is a direct quote:

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, parts 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 particularly when he writes:

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

A block to the license process?

I guess the question is "What are YOU doing to recruit more hams",
Alun? The torch is being passed, and it is being passed to those that
"won" the code/no code debate.


Exactly.

I'm pretty new as a Ham, I try to recruit whenever possible, and will
welcome new hams regardless of their education. Some people might feel
otherwise at this point, having the wind knocked out of their sails, so
to speak.


My policy has always been that if they have the license, they're a
ham.

You guys won. You have the ball now. Using the NCI's polled membership
as an example, you now want to make all Technicians Generals, and
advanced, Extra's. A drastic reduction in entrance requirements seems to
be the rationale du jour for the brave new Amateur Radio Service.


Exactly!

And who can really argue against it? Remember the question "why does
someone have to learn code to operate voice"? Well, if you accept that
argument, then what do you say when someone says "Why does it take a
Technician license to operate legal limit SSB on 2 meters but a
General to do the same thing on most of 20 meters?" and "Since the
Technician written allows maximum authorized power on all authorized
modes allocated to hams above 30 MHz,why is more theory testing needed
to do the same thing below 30 MHz?"

Etc.

Really it's your ball and your game now. Godspeed!


Don't hold yer breath, Mike.

73 de Jim, N2EY
  #2   Report Post  
Old May 9th 04, 01:02 AM
Phil Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 May 2004 10:23:31 -0700, N2EY wrote:

It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.


The NCI Petition for Rulemaking gave the FCC a quick out to drop
Element 1 immediately, with sufficient legal foundation to do so
without an NPRM (I read that part thoroughly, and it's right on the
mark).

The fact that it hasn't been done means that "someone's" fire hasn't
been lighted. This is a phenominon that I am all too familiar with
when dealing with The Monkey House whether from within or from
without.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane


  #3   Report Post  
Old May 9th 04, 12:48 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 7 May 2004 10:23:31 -0700, N2EY wrote:

It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.


The NCI Petition for Rulemaking gave the FCC a quick out to drop
Element 1 immediately, with sufficient legal foundation to do so
without an NPRM (I read that part thoroughly, and it's right on the
mark).


I recall that even before any petitions were filed, both of us agreed
that if FCC "wanted to", Element 1 could be simply dropped once the
treaty changed. I believe the procedure is called "Memorandum Report
and Order" (could be some other name) but in any event a lot quicker
and simpler than a complete NPRM cycle.

The fact that it hasn't been done means that "someone's" fire hasn't
been lighted.


Right. Could also be that "someone" doesn't want to get in the middle
of the catfight and get scratched by both sides. In which case the
thing to do is to entertain all sorts of petitions, (we're up to what
- 17-18 of them so far?!) collect comments and reply comments and even
ex partes on each of them, and allow the whole thing to percolate
through the great bureaucratic machine. Then, when the flood of
petitions has been reduced to a trickle, issue an NPRM with long
comment time (like 98-143). Resolution of the issue could take years -
and every new petition just resets the clock.

IOW, don't hold yer breath. Lookit how long it took for the "incentive
licensing" proposals of the '60s to take place. First proposals in
1963, final plan in 1966, major changes in 1968 and 1969. And they had
far fewer proposals back then.

This is a phenominon that I am all too familiar with
when dealing with The Monkey House whether from within or from
without.


"Welcome To The Monkey House" ...

73 de Jim, N2EY
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 9th 04, 01:35 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

N2EY wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...

On 7 May 2004 10:23:31 -0700, N2EY wrote:


It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.


The NCI Petition for Rulemaking gave the FCC a quick out to drop
Element 1 immediately, with sufficient legal foundation to do so
without an NPRM (I read that part thoroughly, and it's right on the
mark).



I recall that even before any petitions were filed, both of us agreed
that if FCC "wanted to", Element 1 could be simply dropped once the
treaty changed. I believe the procedure is called "Memorandum Report
and Order" (could be some other name) but in any event a lot quicker
and simpler than a complete NPRM cycle.


Yup! And do me that is the most damning indictement of the NCI crowd.
Simply petitioning to simply dropo Element 1 would have been consistent
with what we had heard their aims were all along.

But that wasn't quite enough was it?

The fact that it hasn't been done means that "someone's" fire hasn't
been lighted.



Right. Could also be that "someone" doesn't want to get in the middle
of the catfight and get scratched by both sides. In which case the
thing to do is to entertain all sorts of petitions, (we're up to what
- 17-18 of them so far?!) collect comments and reply comments and even
ex partes on each of them, and allow the whole thing to percolate
through the great bureaucratic machine. Then, when the flood of
petitions has been reduced to a trickle, issue an NPRM with long
comment time (like 98-143). Resolution of the issue could take years -
and every new petition just resets the clock.


With all the complicated petitinos out there, I think it is time to add
mine. Maybe in a year or so, when the initial furor dies down....

IOW, don't hold yer breath. Lookit how long it took for the "incentive
licensing" proposals of the '60s to take place. First proposals in
1963, final plan in 1966, major changes in 1968 and 1969. And they had
far fewer proposals back then.


I *really* like my prediction in the poll. 8^)


This is a phenominon that I am all too familiar with
when dealing with The Monkey House whether from within or from
without.



"Welcome To The Monkey House" ...


- Mike KB3EIA -

  #5   Report Post  
Old May 9th 04, 02:03 PM
Alun
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(N2EY) wrote in
om:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...
On 7 May 2004 10:23:31 -0700, N2EY wrote:

It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.


The NCI Petition for Rulemaking gave the FCC a quick out to drop
Element 1 immediately, with sufficient legal foundation to do so
without an NPRM (I read that part thoroughly, and it's right on the
mark).


I recall that even before any petitions were filed, both of us agreed
that if FCC "wanted to", Element 1 could be simply dropped once the
treaty changed. I believe the procedure is called "Memorandum Report
and Order" (could be some other name) but in any event a lot quicker
and simpler than a complete NPRM cycle.

The fact that it hasn't been done means that "someone's" fire hasn't
been lighted.


Right. Could also be that "someone" doesn't want to get in the middle
of the catfight and get scratched by both sides. In which case the
thing to do is to entertain all sorts of petitions, (we're up to what
- 17-18 of them so far?!) collect comments and reply comments and even
ex partes on each of them, and allow the whole thing to percolate
through the great bureaucratic machine. Then, when the flood of
petitions has been reduced to a trickle, issue an NPRM with long
comment time (like 98-143). Resolution of the issue could take years -
and every new petition just resets the clock.

IOW, don't hold yer breath. Lookit how long it took for the "incentive
licensing" proposals of the '60s to take place. First proposals in
1963, final plan in 1966, major changes in 1968 and 1969. And they had
far fewer proposals back then.

This is a phenominon that I am all too familiar with
when dealing with The Monkey House whether from within or from
without.


"Welcome To The Monkey House" ...

73 de Jim, N2EY


If you are right, then the US will be the last country with a code test,
decades after it no longer exists anywhere else. I don't think it will take
that long, though.

Firstly, I think the reason they didn't go for a memorandum report and
order is more mundane. They don't care about any catfight because they
don't care about amateur radio, period.

Secondly, I don't think they will wait for any more petitions.

Thirdly, I think that when the dust settles they will just do what they
were going to do anyway. Eliminate Element 1.

In the recent NPRM I submitted comments that many of the proposed changes,
although good, were mooted by the fact they referred to the former ITU code
test requirement as if it still existed. If they don't issue an NPRM on
this matter they will get comments on it submitted in every other one. I
know this because I will personally see to it.

As for any further restructuring, there are two separate issues:-

1) Re-farming the Novice frequencies an increasing the phone allocations.
Here there is already an NPRM, and I think they will carry it out. It just
gives the same amount of additional spectrum to phone as is now Novice CW.
This is what they are going to do. It's less than I wanted, and even less
than the ARRL or the NCVEC asked for, but I'm betting it's all done;

2) Eliminating supefluous licence classes. They will ultimately just do the
obvious, i.e. give Novices and Advanceds a free upgrade. They won't revive
the Novice and kill off the Tech. They will view that as a waste of time.
The FCC is all for simplification, and they will point to the petitions as
providing the consensus they were looking for, even thought they are
slightly different.

73 de Alun, N3KIP


  #6   Report Post  
Old May 10th 04, 05:20 AM
Robert Casey
 
Posts: n/a
Default







"Welcome To The Monkey House" ...




So how many bananas will this require? :-)

  #7   Report Post  
Old May 6th 04, 06:15 PM
Tony P.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , daviesl2003
@aol.com says...
I think that since Morse Code is old, but not completely useless, I feel it
should no longer be made to be learned to gain access to the HF bands.

Do I feel that Amateur Radio be made a free for all? No, it should not. There
should be a test, but not a really hard test, but not a easy one either.

I'll even admit, I'll never get a new Icom 7800, at $10,000.00 - I'll be lucky
to maybe get a used 706 at about 400 or 500 or so.


I didn't find the series of tests difficult at all. The 5WPM and 13WPM
were fairly easy too, as I had time to practice the 5WPM while on a
rainy camping trip. Good thing I brought plenty of batteries and a code
practice tapes.

13WPM was gotten by actually working HF with what privileges I had as a
Tech+. From there, up to 20WPM and all done.

I think the biggest detriment to testing now is the publication of the
question pools. People can get into the hobby via rote memorization,
which by the way is what schools teach kids, not how to think but how to
memorize.

So over time the hobby is just going to be awash in nitwits, and then
fade away. There are too many other options to communicate.

  #8   Report Post  
Old May 6th 04, 09:30 PM
Alun
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tony P. wrote in
:

In article , daviesl2003
@aol.com says...
I think that since Morse Code is old, but not completely useless, I
feel it should no longer be made to be learned to gain access to the
HF bands.

Do I feel that Amateur Radio be made a free for all? No, it should
not. There should be a test, but not a really hard test, but not a
easy one either.

I'll even admit, I'll never get a new Icom 7800, at $10,000.00 - I'll
be lucky to maybe get a used 706 at about 400 or 500 or so.


I didn't find the series of tests difficult at all. The 5WPM and 13WPM
were fairly easy too, as I had time to practice the 5WPM while on a
rainy camping trip. Good thing I brought plenty of batteries and a code
practice tapes.


I'll grant that 5wpm is relatively easy, but still a lot of work

13WPM was gotten by actually working HF with what privileges I had as a
Tech+. From there, up to 20WPM and all done.


I'd say it's a bit harder for those with no interest in using CW

I think the biggest detriment to testing now is the publication of the
question pools. People can get into the hobby via rote memorization,


True in some instances, but most people don't have photographic memory

which by the way is what schools teach kids, not how to think but how
to memorize.

So over time the hobby is just going to be awash in nitwits,


I don't think so. Not any more than it already is, anyway!

and then
fade away. There are too many other options to communicate.



....which is another issue altogether. The Internet has hit the hobby pretty
hard.
  #9   Report Post  
Old May 6th 04, 11:24 PM
Dave Heil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alun wrote:

I'll grant that 5wpm is relatively easy, but still a lot of work


There's a gaping contradiction buried in there some place.

Dave K8MN
  #10   Report Post  
Old May 7th 04, 07:49 AM
Alun
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Heil wrote in news:409ABB0C.C1D993E8
@earthlink.net:

Alun wrote:

I'll grant that 5wpm is relatively easy, but still a lot of work


There's a gaping contradiction buried in there some place.

Dave K8MN


Not atall. Something doesn't have to be hard to take a long time to do.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1415 ­ September 24, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 September 24th 04 05:52 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1412 ­ September 3, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 September 4th 04 08:34 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1394 - April 30, 2004 Radionews Policy 0 April 30th 04 05:48 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1394 - April 30, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 April 30th 04 05:47 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 Radionews Policy 0 January 18th 04 09:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017