Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
Buck wrote in : On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey wrote: 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? Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802 groups on wireless standards (among other things). Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle? Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping" update of amateur radio regulations. 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! That would be since 1913. I don't think so. In 1913 amateur radio was ALL about morse code. ARRL had its "president for life" (H.P.Maxim) set to go but wasn't fully formed yet as an actual local New England amateur radio club organization. [ARRL was incorporated in 1914, two years after the first U.S. radio regulating agency was created] The no-code-test amateur radio license advocacy began in the late 1970s. That grew until the FCC (in copying other countries' license classes) released FCC 90-53, the NPRM for creation of the no-code-test Technician class. That was in 1990 (first two digits indicate the year) and the Report & Order granting the sixth license class was released in 1991. 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. Apparently the argument causes much pain and suffering among the already-tested-for-code-and-passed individuals. Some of those, not receiving their (intrinsic?) due of respect and admiration from others, grow livid with rage that such arguments exist today. Poor babies. The PCTA should be appeased. They've had their way since 1912 amidst noble backing from Big Brother in Newington and they demand capitulation to their wishes. 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. The major reason for any sort of "incentive" licensing was to create the artificiality of some being better than others. "Upgrades" are rewarded with more status, privilege, and titles. That's very "feel good" for them, as close as we can get to nobility in this American society. The ARRL encouraged stepping up the "ladder of success" in their printed propaganda for several reasons: 1. It was something members and prospective members wanted to hear, thus encouraging membership and renewal for same; 2. League hierarchy were conservative traditionalists and they had all been morsemen long ago in their youth; feeling that they were self-righteous role models they set up and maintained morsemanship as the ultimate skill of radio amateurs; 3. League lobbying of the FCC saved individual radio amateurs from petitioning the government by themselves, a complicated process prior to opening up of the Internet to file petitions and comments within the last decades. All other "reasons" for support of the "incentive" licensing are holier-than-thou rationalizations by the PCTA. What seems to have been put aside is that amateur radio activity is basically a hobby, a personal recreation activity involving radio, something done for fun. To many, however, it is a self-righteous quest to be a "somebody," to be more "superior." By having federal regulations support their views, they fool themselves into believing they are superior. Ergo, certain "qualifications" for amateur radio licensing must remain forever (or as long as the "superior" ones live) because those "superiors" bought into the old ideas and passed those requirements. Those who have passed the "mighty" tests sometimes assume way too much authority for themselves. What must be the peak (or perhaps nadir) of that is the market appearance of radio "badges" resembling public safety officers shields but marked with amateur radio callsigns. Those who have a foolish need to show they are "somebody" can purchase one and posture that they are "official" and thus "very important." :-) This is the year 2005 and radio as a communications tool is 108+ years old. Radio has been continuously evolving in both technology and application. Governments now have plenty of radios and communications to do their tasks, outnumbering amateurs. It is high time that some olde-tyme hammes realign themselves to the cold, hard facts that amateur radio remains a hobby. Amateur radio wasn't created in the olde-tymer's visage and it should be open to all who care to enjoy it. But, the olde-tymer's don't want that...they lose their rank, status, title, and privilege if reduced to being just commoners. Olde-tymers MUST keep the argument going. They are "superior" and keep reminding everyone that only They know what is good for everyone. :-) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Morse Code: One Wonders... and Begins to Think ! [ -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ] | Shortwave | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC | Policy | |||
Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |