Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: W5YI fingerprints all over this POS. http://www.rrsta.com/rain/ncvec.html It's not anything new, Hans. But there is a new twist - see end of this post. And yes, W5YI had a big piece of developing it. The rationale for it was written up in an article called "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" by KL7CC. I did a commentary/reply on that paper, which I sent to its authors and also posted here some months back. "Entry Level" 20-item examination, renewable forever. It's worse than that. The 20 questions would include very little of the regulations or theory. No homebrewing allowed. Only the assembly of "approved" kits. 30 Volt limit to the final stage on all transmitters. Something about shock hazard. Yet the same person can work on any other type of electronic, electrical or radio equipment with high voltages present and no license. Why house current is not considered hazardous is left unexplained. What the 30 volt rule effectively does is outlaw anything with tubes for those with the proposed license. Got an old TS-520 or FT-101 that would get a beginner started? Sorry, they can't use it legally. Ghetto-ized with distinctive call signs (similar to the "Star of David" sleeve insignia seen in Warsaw during WW-II?) Paging Mr. Godwin... Restricted to legacy modes (stifling experimentation with emerging amateur techniques, SS for example) Hopefully this one doesn't ever see daylight as an FCC docket. It's already got an RM-number. *D-H = Dump Huck That's putting it mildly. There's one other point, which everybody seems to have missed first time through: The proposed "Communicator" license doesn't conform to S25, nor to CEPT requirements. Holders of such a license would probably not be eligible for CEPT reciprocal licensing. (Just like how the UK "Foundation" licenses are only good in the UK). Simply a collection of very bad ideas. Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I can provide a link if you want. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 11:06 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio service as defined in Part 97. OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator" license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate either the spirit of the letter of the law... The purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under the supervison of an experienced operator. We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the mike, taps on the keyboard. Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it? We're (supposedly) talking about a new entry license to promote the service. A "student operator" would not only be cumulative towards a higher grade license, it would encourge mentorship. Student operators could be given a certain amount of independence even, by allowing approved mentors to "sign off" thier card and operate under the mentor's call, ie: KN/K4YZ. The precedent is already federal practice for student pilots. Can't solo until the IP signs you off! 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. Then after some period of time or minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade? Based on what other requirements? Take a shot, Jim...This was a general discussion...Not definitive proposals. Let's rehash the previous "Novice license", as it seemed to work, update the technical standards, and determine where we would like new operators to be in terms of skill level, then set up the new license from there...(We are only using the "old" Novice as a guideline...NOT the standard to set) Such a system would essentially require that a prospective ham would have to know a more-experienced ham in order to operate. Why do we need such complications? Would it hurt? And you're at least tentatively supporting the idea of yet another license class...so if you're going to go that far, go a bit farther and consider ALL possibilities. The biggest "drawback" to my idea as I see it is that a lot of folks who are TALKING about Elmering and mentoring would actually have to do it, and may even have to take a bit of responsibility for it. Heaven forbid! And who said this would be the ONLY way to enter Amateur Radio? There's a lot of folks out there who never operated a day with a Novice, Tech, General or Advanced licenses... Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and just "get on with it"...??? What "quagmire"? The FCC amateur radio license system today is far simpler and more accessible than at any time in the past 35 years. The "quagmire" of proposals that continue to arrive the FCC, including the present NCVEC "plan"... As you and I have both pointed out on numerous occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's little validation for a new "entry class" license... That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Do you *really* think the current Tech is the best we can do for an entry-level license? I don't. Why not? YOU have said that gradeschool kids are passing this test...Then it can't be all THAT bad! That "entry-level" license already bestows over 97% of all Amateur allocations with it. Unless you want to suggest that we cut back privs from the E's, A's, and G's (and remaining N's) and redistribute it in thirds? (Fourths?) What is wrong with the "Basic" license I propose above? If you don't like the name, call it something else, but what's wrong with the *concept*? Now...if the POOLS were closed and the applicants actually HAD to LEARN something, there MIGHT be a reason to have a simpler test to get started with.. Write up a proposal to close the Q&A pools and submit to FCC. Be sure to explain in a convincing manner: - why this change needs to be done How can we really expect that the material that is PRESENTLY in the tests is "learned" when the verbatim questions are public knowledge - how the pools will be used and safeguarded I thought I already addressed that, Jim... Fines and/or prison for the abusers. Period. A new paragraph in Part 97 that speicifes that the questions are sequestered, and that publishing them is a violation. The VEC's can still prepare and distribute appropriate exams. They can even solicit questions just like they do now...It would just be illegal to publish them. - how prospective amateurs will know what to study without access to the pools Uhhhhh...the same way it was done BEFORE Bash...Study guides with outlines of the required material... - who is going to do all the work needed to make the change The VEC'sAND the FCC. - how the whole system will be protected against "Son of Bash" Fines and/or prison for the abusers. - how all of this can be done without it costing more FCC resources You mean and not use more resources than they already use to hash and re-hash numerous licensing structure plans? Most of the "changes" would be in the purview of the VEC's. They need the letter-of-the-law to back them up, which means the FCC would need to little more than get the laws enacted and on the books. Then do exactly like they've been doing for other Amateur matters...Encourage Amateurs to take care of it with internal programs and then only use the hammer as a last resort. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio service as defined in Part 97. OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator" license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate either the spirit of the letter of the law... One theme of the B&P is that hams are skilled operators. Another is that they are technically knowledgeable. 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. So does a license which disallows homebrewing or requires some sort of Big Brother protection against the horrific dangers of 32 volt power supplies. Somewhere in this thread maybe it was pointed out that here in the US we don't really need a student operator license since an unlicensed person can operate with a control operator? Steve, I do like your idea. I think it might be well implemented as a concept and program instead of a specific license. Getting a person to operate is half the battle IMO. At least it worked for me. Working field day with a control operator got me hooked. Any ideas there? The purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under the supervison of an experienced operator. We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the mike, taps on the keyboard. Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it? Actually, yes it is. 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*. Hehe, I guess someone did point this out! For this entry grade license, the operation under a control op would almost have to be eliminated? I dunno, there is a bit of interference between the concepts there. the rest snipped for brevity What Steve proposes is a good idea that just has a few bugs in it. the major one is that in principle, the situation already exists, just not "officially". In other words, an unlicensed person can operate a station under the "steely eye" ;^) of a control Op. Let's take a step back now to Field day. I have run the GOTA station at our FD since it's inception. I know of at least two people that have become interested by use of it and have gone on to become active hams. It is a good concept, and I think that getting people on the air in a low-pressure environment is key to getting prospective Hams hooked. It works. Now to the subject at hand. If instead of a separate license class, why not have an ARRL sponsored initiative, similar to "Kids Day", in which an effort to get anyone that has some interest to work HF and VHF to come out to the local mall or wherever and operate. The same can be done at a club's radio site. It would not only be good from a "getting people interested" perspective" but would be good to potentially get more league members. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/13/2004 6:41 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 11:06 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio service as defined in Part 97. OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator" license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate either the spirit of the letter of the law... One theme of the B&P is that hams are skilled operators. Another is that they are technically knowledgeable. Uh huh... 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"...?!?!..The "operator only" license idea is the very epitome of "supervised" licenses, 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! So does a license which disallows homebrewing or requires some sort of Big Brother protection against the horrific dangers of 32 volt power supplies. The purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under the supervison of an experienced operator. We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the mike, taps on the keyboard. Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it? Actually, yes it is. 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. We're (supposedly) talking about a new entry license to promote the service. Right. Something like the old Novice, which got me and hundreds of thousands of others started in amateur radio. And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?! A "student operator" would not only be cumulative towards a higher grade license, it would encourge mentorship. But why is it necessary or even beneficial? If the "student operator" cannot use the rig unless a mentor is present, why have a student operator license at all? Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the new ops. Student operators could be given a certain amount of independence even, by allowing approved mentors to "sign off" thier card and operate under the mentor's call, ie: KN/K4YZ. That's somewhat different. How is the mentor ham supposed to judge when the student is ready to solo? 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. The precedent is already federal practice for student pilots. Can't solo until the IP signs you off! Sure - but is that what's really best for amateur radio? I don't know...Do you? 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. Do YOU have THE one failure-proof idea? I Sure don't. 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. And tomorrow it may have ANOTHER "precise meaning". I am not talking about TODAY'S Amateur Radio, Jim... Then after some period of time or minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade? Based on what other requirements? Take a shot, Jim...This was a general discussion...Not definitive proposals. I say it unnecessarily hampers the new ham. OK...Your opinion noted. 674,999 others to go. What if somebody wants to bypass the whole student operator thing and go straight for a higher-class license? Would that be forbidden? If I was clairvoyant I'd be buying Lottery tickets. And in my opinon, no...If someone wants to just dive right in, let'em. 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 have=ing taken a written test. I should say "I accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted". Let's rehash the previous "Novice license", as it seemed to work, update the technical standards, and determine where we would like new operators to be in terms of skill level, then set up the new license from there...(We are only using the "old" Novice as a guideline...NOT the standard to set) OK, fine. How about this: 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF and 25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure limits). Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data modes like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or club trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum. Basic is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's still a reason to upgrade. Why not digital voice? And I wouldn't be so quick to dole out that much sprectum. Otherwise, why not? What's wrong with that concept for an entry-level ham license? Such a system would essentially require that a prospective ham would have to know a more-experienced ham in order to operate. Why do we need such complications? Would it hurt? Yes. No...It wouldn't. Local ARRL Special Service Clubs could sponsor Mentorship training and pair up volunteers and students. Students would get immediate exposure from working directly with a mentor...Not a video tape. What if a prospective ham doesn't know any other hams who are willing to be mentors and who are interested in the same things the student is interested in? What if a prospective Ham just woke up from a 25 year coma, doesn't know about the Internet or search engines. What if... My point here Jim is that the programs will eventually become self sustaining with word of thier existence speading. What if the student and mentor cannot match schedules? What about kids who don't drive yet? Who checks out the mentors' backgrounds? If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors. And kids can get around. And local clubs can screen mentors. nd you're at least tentatively supporting the idea of yet another license class... No, I'm not. My discussion proposes three classes, like today. so if you're going to go that far, go a bit farther and consider ALL possibilities. I have. The requirement for a mentor is unnecessary and hinders the process. OK...If you say so. I say that mentors will put out more responsible and well trained "new licensees"... The biggest "drawback" to my idea as I see it is that a lot of folks who are TALKING about Elmering and mentoring would actually have to do it, and may even have to take a bit of responsibility for it. Heaven forbid! 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? Shall we base ALL future expectations on how well you did...??? And who said this would be the ONLY way to enter Amateur Radio? There's a lot of folks out there who never operated a day with a Novice, Tech, General or Advanced licenses... So you would allow the student license to be bypassed? Someone could get an Extra "right out of the box"? Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and just "get on with it"...??? What "quagmire"? The FCC amateur radio license system today is far simpler and more accessible than at any time in the past 35 years. The "quagmire" of proposals that continue to arrive the FCC, including the present NCVEC "plan"... The NCVEC plan isn't new; it got an RM number quite a while ago. We're just taking another look at it. Still looks as bad as it did before. Worse, even. That's how the democratic process works. And it's not the only "license restrcturing" plan to cross thier paths, Jim. As you and I have both pointed out on numerous occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's little validation for a new "entry class" license... That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Do you *really* think the current Tech is the best we can do for an entry-level license? I don't. Why not? Because: - The Tech is VHF-UHF centric. It pushes new hams into one type of amateur radio operation, and isolates them from HF. It also put's them in the MAINSTREAM of Amateur Radio by virtue of exposure to 2 meters...The Amateurs Campfire, if you will. I'll get the rest later...It was a loooooooong night. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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: In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 11:06 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio service as defined in Part 97. OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator" license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate either the spirit of the letter of the law... One theme of the B&P is that hams are skilled operators. Another is that they are technically knowledgeable. Uh huh... Yep. 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. 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. The "operator only" license idea is the very epitome of "supervised" licenses, Which is a bad idea. 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. So does a license which disallows homebrewing or requires some sort of Big Brother protection against the horrific dangers of 32 volt power supplies. The purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under the supervison of an experienced operator. We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the mike, taps on the keyboard. Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it? Actually, yes it is. 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? We're (supposedly) talking about a new entry license to promote the service. Right. Something like the old Novice, which got me and hundreds of thousands of others started in amateur radio. And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?! And the Tech is not the best we can do. For a whole bunch of reasons. A "student operator" would not only be cumulative towards a higher grade license, it would encourge mentorship. But why is it necessary or even beneficial? If the "student operator" cannot use the rig unless a mentor is present, why have a student operator license at all? Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the new ops. Why is that needed? Student operators could be given a certain amount of independence even, by allowing approved mentors to "sign off" thier card and operate under the mentor's call, ie: KN/K4YZ. That's somewhat different. How is the mentor ham supposed to judge when the student is ready to solo? 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? The precedent is already federal practice for student pilots. Can't solo until the IP signs you off! 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. 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. 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. 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. And tomorrow it may have ANOTHER "precise meaning". Until it is redefined, we should use it as it is defined now. I am not talking about TODAY'S Amateur Radio, Jim... Then don't pull a Vipul and use different defintions. Then after some period of time or minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade? Based on what other requirements? Take a shot, Jim...This was a general discussion...Not definitive proposals. I say it unnecessarily hampers the new ham. OK...Your opinion noted. 674,999 others to go. Has anyone here said the student operator idea is a good one? What if somebody wants to bypass the whole student operator thing and go straight for a higher-class license? Would that be forbidden? If I was clairvoyant I'd be buying Lottery tickets. 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. 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 have=ing taken a written test. I should say "I accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted". On that we agree. Let's rehash the previous "Novice license", as it seemed to work, update the technical standards, and determine where we would like new operators to be in terms of skill level, then set up the new license from there...(We are only using the "old" Novice as a guideline...NOT the standard to set) OK, fine. How about this: 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF and 25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure limits). Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data modes like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or club trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum. Basic is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's still a reason to upgrade. Why not digital voice? Once it's documented, sure. And I wouldn't be so quick to dole out that much sprectum. I am. Offer a reasonable set of choices. The sunspots come and go, people can put up different kinds of antennas, etc. Otherwise, why not? There ya go. What's wrong with that concept for an entry-level ham license? Such a system would essentially require that a prospective ham would have to know a more-experienced ham in order to operate. Why do we need such complications? Would it hurt? Yes. No...It wouldn't. Yes, it would. Local ARRL Special Service Clubs could sponsor Mentorship training and pair up volunteers and students. Right. And if there's nobody nearby, or on the same schedule, or interested in the same things, Newbie is out of luck. Students would get immediate exposure from working directly with a mentor...Not a video tape. Don't need a new class of license for that. What if a prospective ham doesn't know any other hams who are willing to be mentors and who are interested in the same things the student is interested in? What if a prospective Ham just woke up from a 25 year coma, doesn't know about the Internet or search engines. What if... Now you're being silly. My point here Jim is that the programs will eventually become self sustaining with word of thier existence speading. My point is that they don't need a new class of license to exist. What if the student and mentor cannot match schedules? What about kids who don't drive yet? Who checks out the mentors' backgrounds? If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors. Are you volunteering? 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? And local clubs can screen mentors. None of which requires any changes to the present rules. nd you're at least tentatively supporting the idea of yet another license class... No, I'm not. My discussion proposes three classes, like today. so if you're going to go that far, go a bit farther and consider ALL possibilities. I have. The requirement for a mentor is unnecessary and hinders the process. OK...If you say so. I say that mentors will put out more responsible and well trained "new licensees"... Without any rules changes. The biggest "drawback" to my idea as I see it is that a lot of folks who are TALKING about Elmering and mentoring would actually have to do it, and may even have to take a bit of responsibility for it. Heaven forbid! 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. 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. And who said this would be the ONLY way to enter Amateur Radio? There's a lot of folks out there who never operated a day with a Novice, Tech, General or Advanced licenses... So you would allow the student license to be bypassed? Someone could get an Extra "right out of the box"? Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and just "get on with it"...??? What "quagmire"? The FCC amateur radio license system today is far simpler and more accessible than at any time in the past 35 years. The "quagmire" of proposals that continue to arrive the FCC, including the present NCVEC "plan"... The NCVEC plan isn't new; it got an RM number quite a while ago. We're just taking another look at it. Still looks as bad as it did before. Worse, even. That's how the democratic process works. And it's not the only "license restrcturing" plan to cross thier paths, Jim. Yep. Ain't it a great process? As you and I have both pointed out on numerous occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's little validation for a new "entry class" license... That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Do you *really* think the current Tech is the best we can do for an entry-level license? I don't. Why not? Because: - The Tech is VHF-UHF centric. It pushes new hams into one type of amateur radio operation, and isolates them from HF. 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step. A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Control freaks are big on supervision and rank and being in charge. People who propose the freedom to take sole responsibility for their own actions scare the bejeebers out of them. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step. A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Control freaks are big on supervision and rank and being in charge. People who propose the freedom to take sole responsibility for their own actions scare the bejeebers out of them. I take it you agree with me that the "student operator" idea isn't a good one. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: "KØHB" Date: 8/14/2004 11:34 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: "N2EY" wrote Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step. A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Control freaks are big on supervision and rank and being in charge. People who propose the freedom to take sole responsibility for their own actions scare the bejeebers out of them. There's nothing in anythiing I've said, Hans, that makes this THE way for somoene to get into Amateur Radio...This is but ONE way. This is not about "control"....It's about a way for TEACHING others to be licensed, SKILLED Amateur Radio operators. There are already 675,000 people out there with Amateur Radio licenses who are "in control" of thier own actions and I hope there will someday be another 675, 000. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Control freaks are big on supervision and rank and being in charge. People who propose the freedom to take sole responsibility for their own actions scare the bejeebers out of them. How long does it take a new ham to get the basics of operating down anyway? A few hours of operating? Once he has a rig, antenna and such set up. When I got my HF privrledes when I got my "extra lite", I spent a lot of time listening to QSOs to try to figure out the methods used. Then started responding to CQs and such. One problem I find is that I can never remember the other guy's callsign... But if it's a contester I just listen to subsequent QSOs he has to get his call for the log. I don't compete myself. Having a supervised only license is more brearucratic hassle than that met learning how to operate anyway. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1412 Â September 3, 2004 | General | |||
Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuringdepends | Policy | |||
NCVEC files license resstructuring proposal | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy | |||
NCVEC Position on Code | Policy |