| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#10
September 23rd 04, 04:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Alun
writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in : In article , Alun writes: I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others. The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century ago, altered my thinking about "radio." Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth. It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some, but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and continue was my way. I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other radio services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year I operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB transceiver, designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's company...both sadly SK now] As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested: Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society. Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz. I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various "classes" beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is that it is an artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants. Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a guild, not a union, not a working craft. Why have all those "classes" that will, auto- matically, lead to internal conflict of some "better" than others? Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but many others are that way] 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. All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for amateur radio but adopted for that particular market. I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain how to make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10 KHz references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if they knew how a DDS works... :-) 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. Those vests (of the ones in here) are over-stuffed... |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
| 1960's incentive licensing proposal | Policy | |||
| My restructuring proposal | Policy | |||
| Why You Don't Like Warmed Over Incentive Licensing | General | |||
| Why You Don't Like Warmed Over Incentive Licensing | Policy | |||
Threaded Mode
