|
.. At this point in time I think they can, but it depends on one's
definition of 'too many'. In what ways is the code test a nuisance to the FCC? Used to be the waivers for 13wpm, but that's no longer. And in another sense, as VEs do all the testing, any of the tests are of little nuisance to the FCC. Every so often some VEs cheat, but that's another issue. As for what knowledge should be tested for, as we are allowed to modify/build/hack our equipment we should know how to determine performance of our transmitters and such so we don't splatter/trash the RF spectrum. Also TVI issues. Also need to know safety issues, high voltage and RF. Rules and regs, what constitutes deliberate interference and what is just life on a crowded band. That ham radio is mostly 2 way comms (no broadcasting, no music). 3rd party rules and such for HF access licenses. Heard it said that the FCC finds that hams are for the most part well behaved and don't require much enforcement actions compared to other services. |
5WPM. Not the 13-15WPM exam currently administered by the ARRL and W5YI VECs. There are only 5 words sent in each minute of time. There are no tests being administered at this time in the ARS where more than 5 words are sent in one minutes time. Farnsworth method. 13wpm characters sent at 5wpm spacing. Supposedly you start newbies like this and soon they can handle faster code than if you used slow 5wpm characters to start. |
robert casey wrote:
. At this point in time I think they can, but it depends on one's definition of 'too many'. In what ways is the code test a nuisance to the FCC? Used to be the waivers for 13wpm, but that's no longer. How were they a nuisance? And in another sense, as VEs do all the testing, any of the tests are of little nuisance to the FCC. Every so often some VEs cheat, but that's another issue. Exactly! All FCC does is approve new questions for the pools. VEs and QPC do the grunt work. As for what knowledge should be tested for, as we are allowed to modify/build/hack our equipment we should know how to determine performance of our transmitters and such so we don't splatter/trash the RF spectrum. Also TVI issues. Also need to know safety issues, high voltage and RF. Rules and regs, what constitutes deliberate interference and what is just life on a crowded band. That ham radio is stly 2 way comms (no broadcasting, no music). 3rd party rules and such for HF access licenses. All of that is tested for in the Technician exam, isn't it? Techs have all amateur radio operating privileges above 30 MHz, so all that stuff must, by definition, be contained in the 35 question Technician written test. Even some HF stuff must be in the Tech test because Techs who pass or have passed Element 1 get some HF privileges. In fact, FCC *decreased* the written exam for Tech back in 2000 by about 46%. Heard it said that the FCC finds that hams are for the most part well behaved and don't require much enforcement actions compared to other services. Probably true - because hams tend to follow the rules even if no one is watching. A big part of that is tradition and the 'culture of values' in amateur radio, IMHO. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... wrote in news:1109760226.362991.253290 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: [snip] Making a requirement optional is indistinguishable from abolishing it. It's just a different form of words used to keep some countries happy. Abolishing the requirement would have meant that all countries would have had to drop code testing. That is not what the ITU did. Not so. Abolition of a requirement doesn't stop any member state from retaining it, so I repeat, there is no difference between abolishing a requirement and making it optional. An optional requirement is not a requirement, and thence a nullity. [snip] I think they have beleived that since the '70s, but have hung onto the code test under pressure from some hams, including the League. The question is not whether their minds have changed (I beleive they haven't) but whether they beleive they can get rid of the pesky code test without upsetting too many hams. At this point in time I think they can, but it depends on one's definition of 'too many'. In what ways is the code test a nuisance to the FCC? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . Michael Coslo wrote in : [snip] It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the closed classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their licences for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating those licences and upgrading them. Alun N3KIP Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam by a certain date? It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie. Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due to circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade. Those who don't care won't be any great loss. Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find out how many hams we really do have. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices that would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are any active Novices? 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
Dee Flint wrote: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . Michael Coslo wrote in : [snip] It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the closed classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their licences for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating those licences and upgrading them. Alun N3KIP Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam by a certain date? Like the old Novice.. It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie. Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due to circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade. I still remember the screaming from 1968 when "incentive licensing" went back into effect. What you propose would be worse. Those who don't care won't be any great loss. There's also the group who don't know. It's almost 5 years since restructuring and I still read/hear questions from hams about what the license structure and test requirements are, particularly from inactive or narrow-focused hams. Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find out how many hams we really do have. What good would that really do, Dee? If nothing else, it would give folks like the BPL companies ammunition against us. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Brian Burke wrote on Thurs, Mar 3 2005 7:06 pm concerning the Avenging
Angle's further adventures in "waste of time": K4YZ wrote: robert casey wrote: N2EY wrote: What if their minds *have* changed? Perhaps they have looked at the arguments provided by pro-code-test folks, and at the results of the reduction/elimination of code testing in the USA and other countries, and have concluded that Element 1 is no big deal. Maybe they've even concluded that it *does* serve a useful, regulatory purpose! The FCC noted that there's been no noticeable increase in violations in HF since they let 5wpm'ers loose on it back in 2000. Trouble spots like 14.313 predate that by many years. So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose, and the FCC isn't in the business of handing out "gold star" awards. No, they're not. Nor merit badges. The Amateur Radio Service is not the Boy Scouts. The FCC is not BSA Headquarters. Guess who used to remark that Boy Scout leaders are pedophiles? :-) Can't have any pedophiles in ham radio, no sir! All hams must be white males of deeply-rooted conservative everything rigidly preserving the traditions, standards, and practices of the 1930s. But they ARE in the business of making sure that thier rules meet the test of the enabling regulations. They should start with the "rule" requiring a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM refer to another "rule" defining Morse Code and how to derive a 5WPM rate. Then then need to explain how a 13-15WPM character rate can be legal for a 5WPM exam. Or not. I rather think that the FCC (that all-powerful adjunct secondary to the real leader of American ham radio, ARRL) cares much about a bunch of amateurs fooling around in a hobby activity. It's been nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed, noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!" :-) [both guys at the FCC prolly threw up their hands and pigeon- holed all 18 while they concentrated on other things in their apprenticeship duties there] Part 97.1 establishes the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. The B&P continues to establish an expectation of self training and communications skills that prepare the licensee to meet the needs of the B & P. The Basis and Purpose does not specify your favorite mode as the one, true path to rightiousness. Avengining Angle is a PCTA extra! He always Right, never wrong. So...Until Part 97 is altered per process otherwise, Morse Code is still required for access to HF allocations. 5WPM. Not the 13-15WPM exam currently administered by the ARRL and W5YI VECs. Irrelevant to the PCTA extras. Code test IS THE LAW! [no one, repeat no one, is allowed to change the law!] And as Jim noted, so far, the overwhelming opinion of those who have cared to express an opinion is "Morse Code skills are needed"...Even if Lennie says they aren't... Then Jim and his commenting cronies march to the beat of a different drummer. The Avenging Angle marches to an even stranger drummer... he thinks I'm here and commenting, saying things even when I'm not. Weird. He wired. Wired up differntly than others, always in overload conditions, no fusing. Tsk. [I been off for several days] Jimmy Who and cronies have had their craniums dutifully washed years ago, thinking that morsemanship is a vital, needed skill to "operate" any radio on HF or below. They had to take a morse test so EVERYONE has to take a morse test forever and ever to be allowed in a hobby activity. The ARRL's scientific survey of 1998 said that there was no clear concensus. Since then the ITU has eliminated the requirement for a Morse Code Exam for HF access. ARRL's only "science" is that of trying (vainly) to get more members and to keep the Hq staff on the payroll by selling lots of ham publications. Their publishing business is still working well but the membership numbers are rather stagnant at old numbers. The ITU-R overhauled and revised nearly ALL of S25 at WRC-03. One revision allowed individual administrations the option of keeping their code tests or eliminating them. The mandatory requirement of a code test for privileges below 30 MHz was removed, but the OPTION remains. There's no "necessity" of any logical or legislative kind to keep the code test in U.S. regulations except in the fantasies of olde-tyme conservative traditionalist hammes who psychologically need the rank/status/titles of high- rate code-tested extra to show they are "better" than others. They need federal subsidies for the righteousness, all at the expense of newcomers who aren't coming in under their shining glory of ham greatness. |
|
"Cry Baby K4YZ" whined in message Lennie, you have once again DISproven your own assertions of who attacks who rather than discusses "subjects". Thanks. Putz. Steve, K4YZ Oh wissen to wittle cwy baby thievie cwy cwy cwy. He always wants the wast word. Cwy cwy cwy, that is all thievie does. Little thieve always wants the wast word. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com