| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
U.S. Morse Code Solution-Maybe?
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. 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. |
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. 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. Sounds reasonable. Heck, eventually the FCC will acquiesce to those who feel amateur radio privileges are rights rather than privileges. I personally believe the FCC is going to retain Element 1 solely for the Extra class license. This would actually be a more balanced alternative, IMHO. Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384 QRP ARCI #11782 |
WA2SI 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. 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. Sounds reasonable. Heck, eventually the FCC will acquiesce to those who feel amateur radio privileges are rights rather than privileges. I personally believe the FCC is going to retain Element 1 solely for the Extra class license. This would actually be a more balanced alternative, IMHO. We've long since left the American core value of "priviledge is earned", Bert. It started with Johnson's "Great Society". The "Great Entitlement Giveaway" has been gaining momentum since. It's now self-perpetuating. You have a pulse? You're entitled to what ever you want regardless of whether you earned it or not. In any case, I tend to agree with you on the Code issue. I'd go a bit further and grandfather all the Advanced guys into Extra if for no other reason than eliminating some administrative headache. Readjust some of the sub bands a bit, then have it down to truly three classes of license...Not three active and then several other "if you were licensed on this date, "this", if you are one legged and whistle while roller skating, "that" class, etc etc etc... EXTRA: Remain as is. Full privileges and 5 WPM test. ADVANCED: Grandfathered to Extra. Class eliminated from database. GENERAL. Becomes No Code. Present Generals remain. Sub bands adjusted with Advanced "upgrade". TECH PLUS: Must take written for upgrade to General with HF theory/practice/safety questions. "Novice" HF privileges revoked, but CSCE for 5WPM remains valid for future Extra upgrade. NC TECH: No Change. NOVICES: No more renewals. Put on notice that if they don't upgrade by next renewal date, the license is eliminated. Possible alternative, grandfather to NCT? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Dr. Daffodil Swain" wrote in news:7GDTd.14354$x53.711
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net: 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. 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. Why not eliminate all testing? That's the ARRL plan. Ten-Four Good-Buddy? KB7ADL |
"K4YZ" wrote in news:1109339098.970664.145900
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: WA2SI 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. 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. Sounds reasonable. Heck, eventually the FCC will acquiesce to those who feel amateur radio privileges are rights rather than privileges. I personally believe the FCC is going to retain Element 1 solely for the Extra class license. This would actually be a more balanced alternative, IMHO. We've long since left the American core value of "priviledge is earned", Bert. It started with Johnson's "Great Society". The "Great Entitlement Giveaway" has been gaining momentum since. It's now self-perpetuating. You have a pulse? You're entitled to what ever you want regardless of whether you earned it or not. In any case, I tend to agree with you on the Code issue. I'd go a bit further and grandfather all the Advanced guys into Extra if for no other reason than eliminating some administrative headache. Readjust some of the sub bands a bit, then have it down to truly three classes of license...Not three active and then several other "if you were licensed on this date, "this", if you are one legged and whistle while roller skating, "that" class, etc etc etc... EXTRA: Remain as is. Full privileges and 5 WPM test. ADVANCED: Grandfathered to Extra. Class eliminated from database. GENERAL. Becomes No Code. Present Generals remain. Sub bands adjusted with Advanced "upgrade". TECH PLUS: Must take written for upgrade to General with HF theory/practice/safety questions. "Novice" HF privileges revoked, but CSCE for 5WPM remains valid for future Extra upgrade. NC TECH: No Change. NOVICES: No more renewals. Put on notice that if they don't upgrade by next renewal date, the license is eliminated. Possible alternative, grandfather to NCT? 73 Steve, K4YZ There are too many proposals already, that's why the FCC is taking so long, in all probability. FWIW, here's mine:- 1) Drop Element 1; 2) Upgrade Novices and No-code Techs to Tech Plus privileges, but just call it Technician; 3) Upgrade Advanced to Extra 4) 'Re-farm' the Novice subbands as already agreed by the FCC; 5) As (4) above also affects (2), some further adjustments would have to be made to Tech privileges, so I suggest giving them General CW/Data on 80, 40 and 15, plus full privileges on 10. I don't expect everyone to agree, but I can't resist posting my two cents! 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
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. 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. This makes no sense at all. If the so called no-code techs can't do code now, how would giving them access to code only portion of the bands help them learn code? If they want to listen to code, they can do that now without a license. There are code portions of the 2 meter and 6 meter bands that they have access to now, but I'll bet none of them go there to practice code! Five wpm isn't that much, if you know the characters already. If you don't know the characters, then I see no way that you are going to practice sending code? |
Beg to differ -- I have worked several no code techs on six meters who were
practicing their code. -- Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) Help The New Hams Someone Helped You Or did You Forget That ? "whoever" whoever@wherever wrote in message ... Dr. Daffodil Swain wrote: SNIP This makes no sense at all. If the so called no-code techs can't do code now, how would giving them access to code only portion of the bands help them learn code? If they want to listen to code, they can do that now without a license. There are code portions of the 2 meter and 6 meter bands that they have access to now, but I'll bet none of them go there to practice code! Five wpm isn't that much, if you know the characters already. If you don't know the characters, then I see no way that you are going to practice sending code? |
That's sort of what I meant when I said there are places on 2 and 6.
I'll bet the ones you worked could do 5 wpm or at least copy at that speed. I'm saying the ones that can't do code aren't doing it on the bands they have now so why give them more? If they can do it on 6 meters then they can take the code test and they will have all the novice sub bands to use! Caveat Lector wrote: Beg to differ -- I have worked several no code techs on six meters who were practicing their code. |
Agree
-- Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) Help The New Hams Someone Helped You Or did You Forget That ? "whoever" whoever@wherever wrote in message ... That's sort of what I meant when I said there are places on 2 and 6. I'll bet the ones you worked could do 5 wpm or at least copy at that speed. I'm saying the ones that can't do code aren't doing it on the bands they have now so why give them more? If they can do it on 6 meters then they can take the code test and they will have all the novice sub bands to use! Caveat Lector wrote: Beg to differ -- I have worked several no code techs on six meters who were practicing their code. |
"Dr. Daffodil Swain" wrote in message ink.net... 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. 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. That's what I have thought would be a good way to go. Simply make all Tech licenses the equivalent of the current Tech with Morse. That gives them the old Novice code bands and the old "Novice enhancement" of 10m voice. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"whoever" whoever@wherever wrote in message ... That's sort of what I meant when I said there are places on 2 and 6. I'll bet the ones you worked could do 5 wpm or at least copy at that speed. I'm saying the ones that can't do code aren't doing it on the bands they have now so why give them more? If they can do it on 6 meters then they can take the code test and they will have all the novice sub bands to use! Actually it might give them more incentive to work on it since they could use it right away. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
... "whoever" whoever@wherever wrote in message ... That's sort of what I meant when I said there are places on 2 and 6. I'll bet the ones you worked could do 5 wpm or at least copy at that speed. I'm saying the ones that can't do code aren't doing it on the bands they have now so why give them more? If they can do it on 6 meters then they can take the code test and they will have all the novice sub bands to use! Actually it might give them more incentive to work on it since they could use it right away. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Sadly, it's exactly the opposite. They appear to have no wish to "work" for HF privileges. Anything other than a complete "gimme" is unsuitable. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384 QRP ARCI #11782 |
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. 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. |
K4YZ wrote: WA2SI 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. 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. Sounds reasonable. Heck, eventually the FCC will acquiesce to those who feel amateur radio privileges are rights rather than privileges. I personally believe the FCC is going to retain Element 1 solely for the Extra class license. This would actually be a more balanced alternative, IMHO. We've long since left the American core value of "priviledge is earned", Bert. It started with Johnson's "Great Society". The "Great Entitlement Giveaway" has been gaining momentum since. It's now self-perpetuating. You have a pulse? You're entitled to what ever you want regardless of whether you earned it or not. Yep, just like when Ron Reagan said, "Mr Gorbachev, Tear Down That Wall!" And those East Germans got a free ride to freedom. It was all just terrible. Freedom turned out to be free after all. They should have been made to work for it. Uphill both ways. Show the proper attitude and all that. I say, "Mr. FCC Chairman Powell, Tear Down That Wall!" But the bricklayers are busy. Very, very busy. |
On 25 Feb 2005 16:48:01 +0100, "Alun L. Palmer"
wrote: There are too many proposals already, that's why the FCC is taking so long, in all probability. FWIW, here's mine:- Well, here is mine too: 1) New Novice Class (upgrade novices to this.) HF Top 1/3 of SSB and CW bands on each of 80, 40, 15, and 10 meters Maximum Power 20 watts. 2 meters 147-148 MHz Max 20 Watts No other V/UHF 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) 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. This may create incentives for upgrade and reward those who do so. Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible. Buck -- For what it's worth. |
Dee Flint wrote: "Dr. Daffodil Swain" wrote in message ink.net... 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. 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. That's what I have thought would be a good way to go. Yes, yes. And the Titanic should have had a caring CW operator, and a few more life boats. And Leonardo Decappitico. Jim thinks it should have sped up and rammed the iceberg. He's a neocon on icebergology. ;^) |
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. |
This makes no sense at all. If the so called no-code techs can't do code now, how would giving them access to code only portion of the bands help them learn code? If they want to listen to code, they can do that now without a license. There are code portions of the 2 meter and 6 meter bands that they have access to now, but I'll bet none of them go there to practice code! One feature of letting them use HF code bands is propagation. They would more likely be able to find someone else to QSL with somewhere in the country vs only in their county. And as hams already they should know the protocols about listening first to see if the freq is in use at the time or not, etc. |
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 -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
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.... |
"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 |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . "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! It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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. :-) |
It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the time. It's one thing for parents to do that sort of thing, but the FCC isn't our parents. What does the FCC get out of requiring element 1 nowadays? The treaty requirement is gone, and no other service uses Morse code anymore. Radio equipment is more reliable today than 50 years ago. Stuff that took 20 vacuum tubes to do are now on a few ICs, and usually it's the batteries that crap out before anything else goes out. The old argument that code equipment is simple and thus more reliable doesn't really mean much today as it did 50 years ago. If we want to attract younger people to ham radio, it would be counter productive to require stuff no longer relevant to get the license. There's many other activities that don't require licenses that one could do, and they could do exactly the interesting parts and ignore the parts not interesting. |
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . "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! It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So treat prospective hams like errant children? |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . "Dee Flint" wrote in : "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . "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! It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So treat prospective hams like errant children? No not at all. Let's use a workplace example instead. Many people, even if they like their jobs, do have elements of the work they don't like. However they get a reward or privilege in the form of money for performing those elements. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the time. It's one thing for parents to do that sort of thing, but the FCC isn't our parents. What does the FCC get out of requiring element 1 nowadays? The treaty requirement is gone, and no other service uses Morse code anymore. Radio equipment is more reliable today than 50 years ago. Stuff that took 20 vacuum tubes to do are now on a few ICs, and usually it's the batteries that crap out before anything else goes out. The old argument that code equipment is simple and thus more reliable doesn't really mean much today as it did 50 years ago. If we want to attract younger people to ham radio, it would be counter productive to require stuff no longer relevant to get the license. There's many other activities that don't require licenses that one could do, and they could do exactly the interesting parts and ignore the parts not interesting. Actually it appears as if it IS the code that attracts young people simply because it is different. It's the middle aged people who seem to object most strenuously. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
wrote:
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: Apparently the argument causes much pain and suffering among the already-tested-for-code-and-passed individuals. It would seem to have caused some pain and suffering in at least one non-code tested individual. After all, nobody was written more here about morse code tesing in amateur radio than you...and you aren't even involved in amateur radio. Poor baby. The major reason for any sort of "incentive" licensing was to create the artificiality of some being better than others. Incentive license was put into place by the FCC. You'll remember them as the agency responsible for amateur radio licensing and enforcement. The "some being better than others" was and is quite real. Those passing more difficult theory exams and (for some classes) higher speed morse exams were rewarded with more spectrum. Those like yourself, who never passed any amateur radio licensing exams, had access to no amateur radio spectrum. "Upgrades" are rewarded with more status, privilege, and titles. More titles? Really? That's very "feel good" for them, as close as we can get to nobility in this American society. That it chafes you cause me some mild entertainment. 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. More "Fox and the cashews" from our resident curmudgeon? Why are you worried about who might be superior to whom in amateur radio, Leonard. You aren't part of amateur radio. Even if you were, there'd always be many, regardless of license class, whose skills exceeded your own. Those who have passed the "mighty" tests sometimes assume way too much authority for themselves. What about those who have passed none of the tests, have no amateur radio licenses and who are not FCC employees? Do they ever attempt to assume authority over amateur radio for themselves? Would you be such a fellow? 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." :-) Don't worry, Len. I'm sure the manufacturers will still sell you one. You can just leave the callsign portion blank. :-) 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. How about if you "realign" yourself to the fact that amateur radio remains a hobby in which you are not a participant. Amateur radio wasn't created in the olde-tymer's visage and it should be open to all who care to enjoy it. ....and who can pass the exams to do so. But, the olde-tymer's don't want that...they lose their rank, status, title, and privilege if reduced to being just commoners. You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No qualifications. Olde-tymers MUST keep the argument going. Actually, you are the guy who MUST keep the argument going. At present, it isn't going your way. They are "superior" and keep reminding everyone that only They know what is good for everyone. :-) That's awfully cute, Len. You aren't even involved and you keep telling us that you know what's best for amateur radio. :-) Dave |
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . "Dee Flint" wrote in : "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . "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! It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So treat prospective hams like errant children? No not at all. Let's use a workplace example instead. Many people, even if they like their jobs, do have elements of the work they don't like. However they get a reward or privilege in the form of money for performing those elements. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And Morse isn't an element of my operating, but I had to take a test in it. That's like having to take a typing test and then having a secretary to do your typing. |
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the time. It's one thing for parents to do that sort of thing, but the FCC isn't our parents. What does the FCC get out of requiring element 1 nowadays? The treaty requirement is gone, and no other service uses Morse code anymore. Radio equipment is more reliable today than 50 years ago. Stuff that took 20 vacuum tubes to do are now on a few ICs, and usually it's the batteries that crap out before anything else goes out. The old argument that code equipment is simple and thus more reliable doesn't really mean much today as it did 50 years ago. If we want to attract younger people to ham radio, it would be counter productive to require stuff no longer relevant to get the license. There's many other activities that don't require licenses that one could do, and they could do exactly the interesting parts and ignore the parts not interesting. Actually it appears as if it IS the code that attracts young people simply because it is different. It's the middle aged people who seem to object most strenuously. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Children find the code a novelty, but that doesn't mean that they are prepared to learn it |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:49 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com