(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...

Sorry you think differently. Seems to me that those who yell the loudest
about others being "in control" are themselves the ones worried about WHO is
going to be in control.

Kinda like you.

Steve, K4YZ

"Sorry Hans, Dialing...."

Hi, hi!

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on
1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC]

The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004.

Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment
as well as the petition itself.

Your comments include
errors of fact and
misleading information.

Such as?

Read the reply comments
and find out. Think about
whether all Technicians
are non-code-tested, as
claimed by Len.

Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you
want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!?

Is continued
discussion forbidden?

Only by non-amateurs.

Says who? The above-
named non-amateur
is one of the most
frequent and verbose
"discussers" here.

It is Len who tells
others to shut up,
tells them which
subjects are and
are not to be discussed
here, and in general
behaves like the southern
end of a northbound
equine.

Everyone else can carry on.

How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and
otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY
DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!?

We ask you the same question.

Did you arrive at a different answer?

Yes.

In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"Robert Casey" wrote

Having a supervised only license is more brearucratic hassle than
that met learning how to operate anyway.

Hi Bob,

I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you
how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new
ham 'wannabes'.

Hard-wired into the bedrock DNA of the Amateur Radio service is the
notion of experimentation, inovation, and "let's try and see if this
works". The old Novice license, with it's elementary easy examination,
and it's attitude of "Hey, kid, welcome to Amateur Radio --- now build a
station and let's see what you can do with it" appealed to this trait.

Exactly. Particularly with young people.

We should lobby like hell for a return to such a license, including the
non-renewable nature of it, rather than some
"store-bought-only-equipment-supervised-operation" license which would,
IMNSHO, carve the very heart and soul out of the attraction of a ham
license to the adventuresome tinker/experimenter mindset that we
desparately need to attract.

While I disagree with the nonrenewable thing, all the rest is dead-on target.

Quite frankly, anyone who was attracted to such a structured supervised
license environment doesn't belong in *MY* Amateur Radio service.

Nor mine!

(Watch LHA spin up his rotors over that comment!)

You mean the non-ham who suggested an age requirement of 14 years to FCC,
and who stated he has always had trouble integrating young people into
what he considers an adult activity?

Perhaps he would agree with you about the undesirability of a student license.
After all, who would mentor *him*?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/14/2004 10:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/13/2004 6:41 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

By reducing the license tests to the point that there would be a class of
license which did not allow unsupervised operation works against those
goals.

WHO SAID "unsupervised"...?!?!..

I did.

And what is wrong with a "supervised training license", Jim?

You're approaching this as if it were the ONLY way to do this.

I for one never suggested that.

What we have now, and have always had in the USA, is the concept that a ham
can
operate an amateur station *unsupervised* within the limits of his/her
license
privs. And nobody else can.

IOW, either you is a control operator, in charge and responsible, or you
ain't.


Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step. A
"licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say.

Un-necessary to YOU, Jim.

Imagine...a whole new "crop" of licensees TRAINED as they learned....No
more nets interrupted...No more autopatches initiated in the middle of a
QSO...No more 10-4 good buddy language.

Yep...I can see how you might find that untenable!~

The "operator only" license idea is the
very epitome of "supervised" licenses,

Which is a bad idea.

To you.

Not to the new students.

and would probably provide that
""skilled operator" a heck of a lot faster than the present "here's your
license now go learn" situation we have now!

I don't see how.

Sheeeeesh.

By not having to "relearn" everything from the git-go...From HAVING a
knowledgeable, capable mentor to direct those "dumb" questions to.

All to the Orwellian doublespeak on 11 meters is the most obvous example
of what I am trying to avoid...The misadventures of many who either "thought"
that this was "the way" things were done because "no one told me..."

There's no present need for a "student license" because someone who wants
to
learn amateur radio operating techniques "by doing" can do so without any
license at all - *as long as there is a control op*.

OK, Jim.

Isn't what I wrote true?

Sure it's "true".

It's also not very productive.

See my comments above. Yet another "Novice" class without some kind of
mentorship will create a whole yet another subclass of Hams trying to reinvent
the wheel...Why not implement a REAL training-level license that REALLY trains
them...?!?!

And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?!

And the Tech is not the best we can do. For a whole bunch of reasons.

OK...Ante up.

Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of
the new ops.

Why is that needed?

To put some quality into the program.

When the student has met the criteria for a "solo", whatever those final
criteria may be later determined to be...Just like a CFI allowing a Student
Pilot to take it around the patch with the right seat empty.

So would this be by mode or band or what?

Make a suggestion, Jim.

Sure - but is that what's really best for amateur radio?

I don't know...Do you?

I think I do. I think it's not a good idea.

OK...So you make the rules Jim and the rest of us will just follow. Then
we will know who to blame!

The FCC get's a dozen petitions a year suggesting new license proposals
that will immeidately and undoubtedly save Amateur Radio from certain
impending failure.

I'm not saying that at all. Just that there's no reason to implement what you
suggest.

There's no reason to implement what NCVEC suggests either, but it made it
to RM status. It's a heck of a lot more dangerous to Amateur Radio than a
program that mentors trainees

Do YOU have THE one failure-proof idea? I Sure don't.

It's not a question of perfect, but of better and worse ideas.

Sorry, Jim.

I don't acccept the idea of "Whelp...it's better than nothing..."

The words "operate an amateur radio station" have an exact definition
under FCC rules. It means to be in charge of the station, even is
someone else does the actual knob turning, etc.

Words written by people can be changed by people, Jim.

Even the Constitution has ammendments.

Point is, right now the term has a precise meaning.

Uh huh.

Yep.

You have yet to show me where in the Constitution it is prohibited from
changing federal regulation, or definitions within those regulations, Jim.

And tomorrow it may have ANOTHER "precise meaning".

Until it is redefined, we should use it as it is defined now.

And with THAT suggestion, nothing at all will change.

I thought you were a bit more open minded than that, Jim.

I am not talking about TODAY'S Amateur Radio, Jim...

Then don't pull a Vipul and use different defintions.

I am not trying to redefine TODAYS Amateur Radio with made-up words or
concepts, Jim.

We are talking about potential FUTURE programs.

OK...Your opinion noted. 674,999 others to go.

Has anyone here said the student operator idea is a good one?

Is this forum even remotely represntitive of a valid cross section of the
Amateur demograpic, Jim?

I forget the exact numbers, but at one time we figured out that the
"regulars" and "occassional" posters here (the one's we can verify as being
licensed, active Amateurs) was something like 0.015% of the Amateur community.


And in my opinon, no...If someone wants to just dive right in, let'em.

I predict most folks would do just that, rather than hunt down a mentor ham
every time they want to call CQ.

They don't HAVE to "every time they want to call CQ", Jim...I didn't have
to hunt down my CFI everytime I wanted to do some touch and go's after he
signed me off as qualified. A student Amateur wouldn't have to either.

Today, and for more than a quarter century, a person who can go for Extra
"right out of the box". Would you change that?

Only that I would like to see a return to the "time-in-service"
requirement that used to be part of the Extra. The Extra SHOULD represent
evidence of more than having taken a written test. It should say "I
accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted".

On that we agree.

Whew...I was beginning to wonder.

If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors.

Are you volunteering?

Absolutely. And I already do.

And kids can get around.

Depends where you live. You going to send your 9 year old daughter to a
stranger's house 25 miles away?

No, but I'd TAKE her to a stranger's house and be there...Just like I did
when Samantha was in Brownies...Just like tens-of-thousands of other parents
take thier kids to "special activites".

If I'd had to search for a mentor and wait around until both of us had
available free time, just to operate, I'd might never have gotten past that
stage. Instead, I was able to get a Novice license, build a station, and go
on
the air unsupervised. I don't see anything wrong with keeping that concept.

Were you the exception or the rule?

The rule.

Uh huh! =)

Shall we base ALL future expectations on how well you did...???

We should base them on what works. The reality is that reducing requirements
and pushing VHF/UHF hasn't done much.

=0

Jim...there was less than 400K Amateurs whe I got licensed...There's now
almost 700K.

There are more "coded" Amateurs now than in recent history.

HOW can you say it hasn't done much...?!?!

It also put's them in the MAINSTREAM of Amateur Radio by virtue of
exposure to 2 meters...The Amateurs Campfire, if you will.

In some places. In others 2 meters isn't much.

Why not set them down with a whole choice of options?

Why not? And why not provide them an option that provides them with a
structured training and qualification program?

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/14/2004 8:08 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Robert Casey" wrote


Having a supervised only license is more brearucratic hassle than
that met learning how to operate anyway.


Hi Bob,

I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you
how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new
ham 'wannabes'.

Hans, where's the "wrong message" about offering a program that provides a
structured training program for those that want it?

We ALREADY have a "wrong message" out there that says 'No one wants to
help me and I have so many questions to ask..."

A program that identified qualified "mentor stations" and "training clubs"
would directly couple these folks with people who want to help and have the
knowledge and skills to help.

Quite frankly, anyone who was attracted to such a structured supervised
license environment doesn't belong in *MY* Amateur Radio service.
(Watch LHA spin up his rotors over that comment!)

So as far as Hans Brakob is concerned, anyone who WANTS some sort of
training to help them, they can get lost.

THAT sends a message, for sure.

I am sure most of us already know what the message is.

Steve, K4YZ

"KØHB" wrote in message k.net...

Quite frankly, anyone who was attracted to such a structured supervised
license environment doesn't belong in *MY* Amateur Radio service.
(Watch LHA spin up his rotors over that comment!)

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans, you saying, "*MY* Amateur Radio Service," just smacks of "Old
Flatulencism."

(Sorry Hans, I CAN"T say O.F. or the Semi-Moral Minority will
cane me. Hi, hi!)

Numerous people wanted to join the amateur service because of the
emergency service aspect of our hobby. They may have no interest in
building NE602 receivers or CW memory keyers. As such, the Technician
exam is too complex material for a person with such intentions.

On the other hand, a student license with mandatory hand holding is
lunacy. So in the end, I agree to not have such a license class. But
remember, Jim says that we need more license classes. Apparently it
doesn't matter how he gets them.

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


A program that identified qualified "mentor stations" and "training
clubs"
would directly couple these folks with people who want to help and
have the
knowledge and skills to help.


Perhaps it escaped your notice, but such a nationwide program already
exists, without big-government establishing a "supervised only, store
bought rigs only" operator class.

At their web site ARRL lists all their affiliated clubs, including
services those clubs offer such as organized training programs, club
stations, etc.

They also have established a four-level mentoring program which include
ARRL Club Mentor, ARRL Mentor, Interactive Mentor and Special Interest
Mentor.

The ARRL Club Mentor will involve the participation of ARRL-affiliated
clubs in close cooperation with ARRL Headquarters staff. Affiliated
clubs will be encouraged to actively participate in this program to
"mainstream" more people, licensed and otherwise, into Amateur Radio.
The club mentor program also has the additional benefit of potentially
increasing a club's membership as well.

The ARRL Mentor program will work through ARRL Headquarters. An ARRL
mentor is a person with an interest in mentoring--or "Elmering"--new
licensees who may or may not be members of an ARRL-affiliated club. ARRL
Headquarters staff will support these mentors, who must be ARRL members.

The Interactive Mentor is intended to aid enterprising new hams via the
ARRL Web site by providing answers to basic questions and through chat
rooms, where discourse between new hams and mentors would help new hams
to get on the air.

The Special Interest Mentor is intended to match people with interests
in advanced, specialized areas of Amateur Radio technology with mentors
who are experienced in these technologies.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


So as far as Hans Brakob is concerned, anyone who WANTS some sort of
training to help them, they can get lost.


Pure fantasy, Steve. I have 'Elmered' dozens of new hams (and continue
to), am affiliated with the MNYARC ( http://www.mnyarc.org/ ), am an
ARRL registered instructor, a Handi-Hams volunteer, and am a contributor
to the Ham-Elmer yahoogroup, just for a few examples of my contributions
to the volunteer training of new hams.

But I don't support (in fact I vehemently oppose) the notion of
"supervised operations only" ham radio license. If that makes me a "bad
person" in your eyes, then I guess I'll just have to live with the
horrible stigma of your disapproval. Why does that not bother me?

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article ,
(William) writes:

Hans, you saying, "*MY* Amateur Radio Service," just smacks of "Old
Flatulencism."

Hans is a radio amateur. His use
of the possessive is common and
proper English. Just as someone
will speak of "my church", "my
school" or "my community" even
though the speaker does not own
them.

"LHA" is not a radio amateur, and
so cannot say it is "his" amateur
radio.

(Sorry Hans, I CAN"T say O.F. or the Semi-Moral Minority will
cane me. Hi, hi!)

You can write whatever you wish. But
then you must allow others the same
freedom. This seems to be a problem
for you.

Numerous people wanted to join the amateur service because of the
emergency service aspect of our hobby.

Whom? How many? Who are
these people?

They may have no interest in
building NE602 receivers or CW memory keyers.

Is that a problem?

As such, the Technician
exam is too complex material for a person with such intentions.

What is your solution?
Is the Technician test
so difficult that it
represents a barrier to
the entry of new hams?
Is it full of questions on
NE602 receivers and
memory keyers?

On the other hand, a student license with mandatory hand holding is
lunacy.

Not lunacy. Simply not
a good idea, in our opinion.

So in the end, I agree to not have such a license class. But
remember, Jim says that we need more license classes. Apparently it
doesn't matter how he gets them.

To which "Jim" do you refer?
We have read posts here recently
from AA2QA, N2EY, and at least
one other "Jim".

The only one we recall who
has recently written about the
number of license classes is
the "Jim" with the callsign N2EY.
He proposed three license classes.

So it cannot be "Jim/N2EY" to
whom you refer.

Is there another "Jim" who "wants
more license classes"?

How many?

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


Hans, where's the "wrong message" about offering a program that
provides a
structured training program for those that want it?


Nothing wrong with that at all. ARRL and hundreds of clubs across the
country offer "structured training programs".

What IS wrong with your proposed program is the notion of "you can't
operate with this license unless you're supervised".

Our beloved ham radio service has thrived over the years because a
fundamental feature of its charter (97.1) is the encouragement of
independent tinkering and just plain "I wonder if this would work"
experimentation. It'd be a very stagnant and uninteresting place if
that individual exhuberace were replaced with supervisors who taught
only the "right way to be a ham".

If you want "structured", join MARS or CAP, where structure is important
and very desireable for uniform and consistent styles of operation. Let
amateur radio remain vibrant, free-spirited, and willing to try a lot of
"crazy crap" just to see if it works if for no other reason. That's how
many of our contributions to SOTA came about, not by "supervision".

73, de Hans, K0HB