"Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote So wouldn't it make sense for FCC to conclude that there are *not* a lot of people who are "being kept out" by the code test? I don't think the code test keeps anyone out of the Amateur Radio service. Agreed! The people who disagree are those who say the code test must go to "foster and insure growth", that it is a "barrier", etc. On a somewhat related matter, I also don't think that we need a code test to prove anyone's worthiness to operate on amateur frequencies below 30MHz. I agree partially - if it were up to me, all amateur licenses would require a code test, not just those with privileges below 30 MHz. (But it's not up to me). 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something (Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you may never use. One can't "sell" the hobby while imposing things no longer necessary to it. Who decides what is "necessary"? What happens when (not if) that same argument is applied to the written exams? Most of what is in the written exams is no longer necessary for the legal operation of an amateur radio station. Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! People have been saying that since day one. So what else is new... The result is bad ideas like NCVEC's "Communicator" license. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB uh-oh, Hans, now you've done it...... You've used historical fact to prove that Lenover21 is mistaken about something. I'll 'draw fire' with some more historical facts: - Hams were responsible for and successful at staying inside their allocated bands and subbands (phone-image vs. cw-data) long before 1968 or "modern frequency synthesizers". - The concept of "subbands by license class" was proposed no later than 1964 and accepted in principle by FCC no later than 1965 - without "modern frequency synthesizers". - Some HF ham band and subband edges are/were not multiples of 100 kHz (top end of 20 and 15, for example, or the edges of the old 11 meter amateur band). Many have been that way since long before 1968 or "modern frequency synthesizers". - With the exceptions of beacon and repeater operation, hams are not required by regulation to operate on specific spot frequencies or channels. Nor are they required to know their precise operating frequency other than that it is inside the allocated band or subband. Nor are they required to use "modern frequency synthesizers" or crystal control. - Inexpensive, stable, precise, accurate self-controlled variable frequency oscillators have been available for hams to build or buy since long before 1968. - The concept of "subbands by license class" is intended to reward the passing of more-advanced written tests. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Alun
writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for the whole band. They are a good idea because they act as an incentive. Of course if there were only one class of license, they would no longer exist. Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the spectrum. How restricted, and which bands? I think that an ideal entry level license would include parts or all of *all* HF/MF amateur bands. Here's why: 1) Propagation on the various bands varies widely with time of day, time of year and sunspot cycle. Having the widest possible selection of bands would allow an entry-level amateur to use the best band for a given set of conditions and resources, and also affords an opportunity to learn about the various bands, propagation, etc. 2) One of the biggest problems facing many amateurs is antenna restrictions. Another is equipment cost. Often an amateur has to make do with compromise antennas and equipment which limit the choice of bands. Having the widest possible selection of bands would allow an entry-level amateur to use the best band for a given antenna/rig combination, and also affords an incentive to upgrade so more space on most bands could be earned. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this idea impracticable. Not at all! All that would be required would be: 1) Existing license classes other than Extra closed off to new licenses after a certain date. They keep their existing privileges and can renew/modify indefinitely. 2) Existing license holders could upgrade to Extra by passing the required written tests. 3) The new entry-level license class has its own privilege set. 4) Existing license holders other than Extra get the combined privileges of their existing license and the new entry level license. Eventually everyone in the closed-off license classes will either upgrade or leave by attrition, and the rules governing them can be removed without an NPRM. For example, we're down to about 30,000 Novices now, and dropping every month. When the last Novice is gone from the database, the rules about that license class can be removed from Part 97. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Alun" wrote in message ... [snip] I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for the whole band. It's not a matter of propagation. It's simply that band restrictions are far easier to enforce. With a quick lookup of the call sign, you can tell if the operator is staying within his privileges. Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this idea impracticable. Enforcement issues make this idea impractical not the "vested interests" of those already licensed. It is impossible to determine if a person is staying within his/her power restrictions unless you are right next to the transmitter to make measurements. I've worked QRP stations that nearly pegged my meter and other times could not pull a kilowatt station out of the mud. Power limits would rely solely on the honor system. This has worked reasonably well so far for two reasons: 1) the majority of hams are decent people and 2) the basic radio comes out of the box with 100 watts, which works reasonably well so there is not a lot of temptation to hook up an amplifier and work illegally. However you say "very restricted power". I'm assuming that you mean something substantially less than today. So then you would have a situation where the beginner has purchased a radio that significantly exceeds his power privileges with no one being able to detect that he/she is exceeding those privileges if they choose to operate it at full power. Or are you going to propose that they cannot purchase or own a radio that exceeds their power privileges?? This would be a very bad proposal. That would require mandating that hams show their licenses to purchase equipment. It would have to also be illegal for a non-ham to purchase such equipment even for a gift. It would be illegal for a beginner to purchase almost all used equipment on the market. He'd, by law, have to take the expensive, new equipment route. Or the manufacturers might respond with cheap, low quality equipment that would be unsuitable to connect to an amplifier (once the beginner upgraded) as it would have the same problems as amplified CBs do now. There may even be other ramifications of "very limited power" privileges. It is far better to select easily enforced requirements (i.e. band limits) than items that are not easily enforced or items that require creating an entire hierarchy of new regulations to support it. Most of the rewards and privileges we get in life often have little relationship to what we did to get them. Just look at our jobs. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test. Need? I doubt that the one classer's want the test level at the Extra level to begin with, and might go apoplectic if the Tech and General tests were included! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote Need? I doubt that the one classer's want the test level at the Extra level to begin with, and might go apoplectic if the Tech and General tests were included! My proposal to FCC asks for a one-term, privilege-rich beginners permit, and a "full-privilege" standard license with an exam including the material currently covered on the Tech/General/Extra written examinations. Current licensees could continue to renew in their existing class, or upgrade to the new "standard" license class. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com