"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...


Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible.


Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the
privileges are revalent to modern ham radio.

Why should ham radio be different than other activities? Most of the things
we do to gain privileges in this world are not relevant to the privilege
itself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Phil Kane wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey wrote:


Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the
privileges are revalent to modern ham radio.


Revalent ?? What dat means English ?? ggg


Oh, it's one of those words I can't spell and the stupid
spell checker can't figure out. The word that means stuff
that is logically connected to a goal and sensible. Code
was very realivlent 50 years ago but less so today. Damn
spell checker still can't get it....

This is why real (paper) dictionaries still exist. Just by looking up the
first three letters (rel...) one can scan the entries and find it and thus
find how to spell it. Just an example of how "old" methods have relevance to
modern life.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

bb wrote:
Dr. Daffodil Swain wrote:
Why not maintain the 5WPM requirement in the U.S., but give No-Code
Techs
access to the 80, 40, 15, and 10 meter old novice sub-bands.

Hey, you have an excellent idea that should have flown in the 1970's.
Maybe early 80's. Way too late for that kind of nonsense today.

It DEFINITELY would NOT have "flown" in the 70's, and wouldn't have
even made it to the airport in the 80's. Not only was there NOT the
support of the public for such an idea, the ITU treaty was very much in
place with NO broadbased support in the International Community for
it's removal.

This would
allow aspiring upgraders a place to hone their skills without
having
to
just listen to recordings. Also, the sending skills can be
developed
as
well. A side benefit would be hearing the sound of CW again ( even
if it's
bad) in these largly unused segments. Just a thought.

The people that were once willing to learn Morse Code have done so.
You saw the end of the line some time ago.

Yet another absolutely stupid assertion unsupported by reasonable
documentation.

Steve, K4YZ

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
wrote:



2) General Class (Upgrade Techs upon renewal, change of
address, etc.)
Top 2/3 of each cw and ssb band on HF 160, 80, 40, 30, 20, 17,
15, 12, and all 10 meters. Max Power 500 Watts (even in
novice bands)

Power levels are hard to enforce from a remote listening
post. Frequency is easily enforced; that's why they
do subbands for differing license grades.

Full 60 Meter as regulated.
All V/UHF priviliges up to 500 watts.

3) Amateur Extra Class (Upgrade Advanced upon renewal etc.)
All HF VHF and UHF priviliges with 1500 watts. (except 60 or
others as regulated.)
Require element 1 and the same tough exam.

THe FCC was thinking that if they get rid of code tests,
that would reduce workload and administration duties.
Keeping code for extras and not generals doesn't get
them this. In which case they may decide to leave things
as is.

This may create incentives for upgrade and reward those who do so.

Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible.


Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the
privileges are revalent to modern ham radio.

I haven't made the proposal and if I did I suspect it would fall on
deaf ears. regardless, it was/is nothing more than my opinion about
something I would think is fair for Amateur Radio with incentive
licensing. without incentive licensing, take one general class exam
and become extra without code.

When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
"Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so this
25 year argument will finally come to an end.

Your points may be valid, but I can't say what the FCC can and can't
figure out with their equipment. Their equipment is more
sophisticated than most of what I have seen or used.


Buck
--
For what it's worth.

K4YZ wrote:
I'd go a
bit further and grandfather all the Advanced guys
into Extra if for no
other reason than eliminating some administrative
headache.

What headache? License class is just one entry in the database.

If any existing Advanced wants the Extra, all they need
do is pass Element 4. Which has been done by at least one third
grader.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...


Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible.


Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the privileges
are revalent to modern ham radio.

Why should ham radio be different than other activities? Most of the
things we do to gain privileges in this world are not relevant to the
privilege itself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




Oh, so everything else is messed up, so ham radio should be messed up too?
Even if I thought it were true, that would still be the worst argument I
have heard yet, ROTFLMAO!

Buck wrote in
:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
wrote:



2) General Class (Upgrade Techs upon renewal, change of
address, etc.)
Top 2/3 of each cw and ssb band on HF 160, 80, 40, 30, 20, 17,
15,
12, and all 10 meters. Max Power 500 Watts (even in novice
bands)

Power levels are hard to enforce from a remote listening
post. Frequency is easily enforced; that's why they
do subbands for differing license grades.

Full 60 Meter as regulated.
All V/UHF priviliges up to 500 watts.

3) Amateur Extra Class (Upgrade Advanced upon renewal etc.)
All HF VHF and UHF priviliges with 1500 watts. (except 60 or
others as regulated.)
Require element 1 and the same tough exam.

THe FCC was thinking that if they get rid of code tests, that would
reduce workload and administration duties. Keeping code for extras and
not generals doesn't get them this. In which case they may decide to
leave things as is.

This may create incentives for upgrade and reward those who do so.

Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible.


Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the privileges are
revalent to modern ham radio.

I haven't made the proposal and if I did I suspect it would fall on
deaf ears. regardless, it was/is nothing more than my opinion about
something I would think is fair for Amateur Radio with incentive
licensing. without incentive licensing, take one general class exam
and become extra without code.

I didn't file my proposal either. I did have a petition ready to go, but I
wa stalked out of filing it by NCI, as they thought they could get Elemnt 1
abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle. We all know what
happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?


When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
"Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so this
25 year argument will finally come to an end.


Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of, but WTH!

If there's one thing that we should all be able to agree on, this is an
argument that can only end in one way, and maybe not even then. As long as
there's a code test there will be an argument. I agree, it needs to be
over.

Your points may be valid, but I can't say what the FCC can and can't
figure out with their equipment. Their equipment is more
sophisticated than most of what I have seen or used.


Buck

Power limits can't be enforced, but they are the right way to distinguish
between ability levels, and different slices of the same band aren't. The
former mitigates the msitakes of the less qualified much more effectively,
and most people are relatively law abiding. If you had to be an Extra to
own a big linear, most people would think twice.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Buck wrote in
:


On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
wrote:


2) General Class (Upgrade Techs upon renewal, change of
address, etc.)
Top 2/3 of each cw and ssb band on HF 160, 80, 40, 30, 20, 17,
15,
12, and all 10 meters. Max Power 500 Watts (even in novice
bands)

Power levels are hard to enforce from a remote listening
post. Frequency is easily enforced; that's why they
do subbands for differing license grades.


Full 60 Meter as regulated.
All V/UHF priviliges up to 500 watts.

3) Amateur Extra Class (Upgrade Advanced upon renewal etc.)
All HF VHF and UHF priviliges with 1500 watts. (except 60 or
others as regulated.)
Require element 1 and the same tough exam.

THe FCC was thinking that if they get rid of code tests, that would
reduce workload and administration duties. Keeping code for extras and
not generals doesn't get them this. In which case they may decide to
leave things as is.


This may create incentives for upgrade and reward those who do so.

Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible.


Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the privileges are
revalent to modern ham radio.

I haven't made the proposal and if I did I suspect it would fall on
deaf ears. regardless, it was/is nothing more than my opinion about
something I would think is fair for Amateur Radio with incentive
licensing. without incentive licensing, take one general class exam
and become extra without code.


I didn't file my proposal either. I did have a petition ready to go, but I
wa stalked out of filing it by NCI, as they thought they could get Elemnt 1
abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle.

Mistake number one!



We all know what
happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?

I think he got his chops busted pretty badly after supporting reductions
in the test requirements (beyond elimination of Element 1) when he
previously said he would never do such a thing.


When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
"Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so this
25 year argument will finally come to an end.



Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of, but WTH!

If there's one thing that we should all be able to agree on, this is an
argument that can only end in one way, and maybe not even then. As long as
there's a code test there will be an argument. I agree, it needs to be
over.

Appeasement!

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:12:07 GMT, robert casey wrote:

Revalent ?? What dat means English ?? ggg

Oh, it's one of those words I can't spell and the stupid
spell checker can't figure out. The word that means stuff
that is logically connected to a goal and sensible. Code
was very realivlent 50 years ago but less so today. Damn
spell checker still can't get it....

"realivlent" ? Do you mean "real-alive-ment"?? ggg

(Good one, Robert....!!)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:05:47 -0500, Buck wrote:

Your points may be valid, but I can't say what the FCC can and can't
figure out with their equipment. Their equipment is more
sophisticated than most of what I have seen or used.

Take it from me that measuring the frequency and occupied
bandwidth of a signal is much easier and more efficient for field
enforcement) than making a measurement of transmitter power. The
former can be accomplished by one person at a remote location while
the latter involves simultaneous measurment of transmitter power
output while observing antenna direction/placement and received
signal strength to ensure what is being tested is in fact what was
being used before the inspection. Those observations must be made
at a point sufficiently removed from the antenna to avoid instrument
overload, and therefore requires at least two people and communication
between them.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane