| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 19th 05, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very strange thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician operators. On the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are all the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass the code (as some would have us believe)? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures, substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the Techs that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the emergency communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically stay on FM. The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so have moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have moved on. There are none who cannot learn the code. Really? Why do you say that? Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code. What kind of things? Not all items apply to all people but here are a few: Walking, talking, reading, writing, riding a bicycle, skating, mathematics, any sport at even the the most rudimentary level, playing any musical instrument at even the most rudimentary level, computer literacy, typing, college courses. The list could go on, but just about everything mental or physical a person has learned is harder than code. Can you play the string bass? There's an FCC sticker on teh back of my stereo. What if the FCC were to make it a requirement that you have to pass a string bass exam in order to play music on your stereo? However there are those for whom other activities can and should have priority on their time. However that is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same argument can be applied to the theory. You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element? No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc. No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That makes it arbitrary. All the tests are arbitrary as well as is the material chosen for coverage. They are? I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer serves a regulatory purpose. That's a matter of opinion. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use provides. The regulator purpose of the exam is that it shows the candidate knows that particular basic of ham radio. But why no other practical operating exam for other modes? No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB, non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose. No mode is mandated, yet we have a practical operating pass/fail exam for one mode. That is arbitrary. However throwing that comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not only the test but the use of CW. Dee, not at all. I wish only the arbitrary Morse/Farnsworth Exams to be retired. But recognize that the FCC mandates the use no particular mode. You can use CW all you want or not us it at all. So why is there a practical operating exam for this one mode but not all other modes? And why is CW use allowed by No-Code Technicians on VHF, but not HF? Why did Jim Miccolis N2EY say about Hans restructuring proposal, that a CW exam would be a barrier to CW use? So I will not continue to participate in this thread. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I understand how uneasy it must make you to have to face the truth of arbitrary licensing requirements and still advocate a Morse/Farnsworth Exam. If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart. Best of Luck, Brian |
|
#2
June 19th 05, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very strange thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician operators. On the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are all the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass the code (as some would have us believe)? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures, substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the Techs that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the emergency communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically stay on FM. The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so have moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have moved on. There are none who cannot learn the code. Really? Why do you say that? Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code. What kind of things? Not all items apply to all people but here are a few: Walking, talking, reading, writing, riding a bicycle, skating, mathematics, any sport at even the the most rudimentary level, playing any musical instrument at even the most rudimentary level, computer literacy, typing, college courses. The list could go on, but just about everything mental or physical a person has learned is harder than code. Can you play the string bass? There's an FCC sticker on teh back of my stereo. What if the FCC were to make it a requirement that you have to pass a string bass exam in order to play music on your stereo? However there are those for whom other activities can and should have priority on their time. However that is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same argument can be applied to the theory. You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element? No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc. No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That makes it arbitrary. All the tests are arbitrary as well as is the material chosen for coverage. They are? I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer serves a regulatory purpose. That's a matter of opinion. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use provides. The regulator purpose of the exam is that it shows the candidate knows that particular basic of ham radio. But why no other practical operating exam for other modes? No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB, non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose. No mode is mandated, yet we have a practical operating pass/fail exam for one mode. That is arbitrary. However throwing that comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not only the test but the use of CW. Dee, not at all. I wish only the arbitrary Morse/Farnsworth Exams to be retired. But recognize that the FCC mandates the use no particular mode. You can use CW all you want or not us it at all. So why is there a practical operating exam for this one mode but not all other modes? And why is CW use allowed by No-Code Technicians on VHF, but not HF? Why did Jim Miccolis N2EY say about Hans restructuring proposal, that a CW exam would be a barrier to CW use? So I will not continue to participate in this thread. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I understand how uneasy it must make you to have to face the truth of arbitrary licensing requirements and still advocate a Morse/Farnsworth Exam. Ok, one more round but that's it. All the licensing requirements are arbitrary. Every single one of them. There are several radio services for which no testing is required. So if some services do not need testing, then it is arbitrary for those that do. However the goals and purposes of amateur radio make it desireable to test candidates for these licenses. If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart. Best of Luck, Brian The problem with the Morse discussion is that every possible conceivable argument on either side has been aired dozens, if not hundreds, of times. It is not healthy to continue discussing this policy issue. No new data comes to light. No new rational has come up. There's no point in rehashing the same issues. Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to live with the consequences good or bad. If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more than they are now. If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators than the rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the NCTAs imply they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room. On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact will be insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have been, then there is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have little to no noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#3
June 19th 05, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Dee Flint on Jun 19, 1:40 pm
"bb" wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: I understand how uneasy it must make you to have to face the truth of arbitrary licensing requirements and still advocate a Morse/Farnsworth Exam. Ok, one more round but that's it. All the licensing requirements are arbitrary. Every single one of them. HERESY! Wash your mouth out with soap! How dare you say that?!? Test Element One is the LAW! That LAW! can't be changed! There are several radio services for which no testing is required. Irrelevant. OTHER radio services are NOT amateur radio! So if some services do not need testing, then it is arbitrary for those that do. However the goals and purposes of amateur radio make it desireable to test candidates for these licenses. EVERYBODY has to test for morsemanship for below 30 MHz. FINAL. The Elite PCTA have spoken. No arguments against. If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart. Best of Luck, Brian The problem with the Morse discussion is that every possible conceivable argument on either side has been aired dozens, if not hundreds, of times. Elite PCTA have spoken. No arguments against them. It is not healthy to continue discussing this policy issue. True. Two Elite PCTA have died since 1999. No new data comes to light. NO new data PERMITTED in here. No new rational has come up. WRONG. Rationales and rationalizations of ancient reasons abound. Elite PCTA have spoken. No arguments against them. There's no point in rehashing the same issues. Elite PCTA have spoken. No arguments against them. If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more than they are now. Who say "big wave on HF coming if no code test?" Who? WHO? Show reference, show work. If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators than the rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the NCTAs imply they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room. Ham bands get crowded? Hams ask for more bandwidth. Simple. Ask ARRL to lobby for more bandspace. ARRL "representative of 'all' hams." Not too swift. ARRL try to get new band at 60 meters, get only five channels. League not very good now. Why not? PCTA Elite at "inside" of league, should be able to effect what they want. FCC no give. Why that? On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact will be insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have been, then there is NO reason to change the requirements. Old = Good. Change = bad. Changes that have little to no noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing. "I'm all right, Jack!" [old Brit saying] "We've got ours, nyah, nyah, nyah" [old childhood taunt] All must show DEDICATION and COMMITMENT to AMATEUR COMMUNITY by learning and testing for morse code! [PCTA mantra] Meanwhile, since 1991, that no-code-test (horrid!) Technician class license got OVER a HUNDRED THOUSAND *NEW* radio amateurs BEFORE restructuring. Many, many more new than all the other old classes combined and the only ones which contributed to holding the average total licensee numbers not quite constant. Right now, the two Technician class licensees make up 48.4% of ALL invidual (non-club) licensees and it keeps rising and rising and rising. Why that? The Novice class, the supposed "entry level" license NEVER grew like the no-code-test Tech numbers. No way. You don't suppose the (dedicated, committed) code test could have anything to do with it, do you? Of course not. The dedicated, committed amateurs would "always" struggle and work to learn code, the best of all possible modes, right? Ho hum. The "arguments" continue with the PCTA Extras NOT listening. They will not accept arguments against their beloved code test. They are manly macho morsemen, dedicated and committed to their "service." None shall naysay them, no way. Screum say I (in a most non-gender-specific way, of course). Yours most sincerely and with all best wishes, |
|
#4
June 19th 05, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very strange thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician operators. On the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are all the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass the code (as some would have us believe)? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures, substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the Techs that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the emergency communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically stay on FM. The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so have moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have moved on. There are none who cannot learn the code. Really? Why do you say that? Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code. What kind of things? Not all items apply to all people but here are a few: Walking, talking, reading, writing, riding a bicycle, skating, mathematics, any sport at even the the most rudimentary level, playing any musical instrument at even the most rudimentary level, computer literacy, typing, college courses. The list could go on, but just about everything mental or physical a person has learned is harder than code. Can you play the string bass? There's an FCC sticker on teh back of my stereo. What if the FCC were to make it a requirement that you have to pass a string bass exam in order to play music on your stereo? However there are those for whom other activities can and should have priority on their time. However that is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same argument can be applied to the theory. You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element? No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc. No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That makes it arbitrary. All the tests are arbitrary as well as is the material chosen for coverage. They are? I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer serves a regulatory purpose. That's a matter of opinion. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use provides. The regulator purpose of the exam is that it shows the candidate knows that particular basic of ham radio. But why no other practical operating exam for other modes? No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB, non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose. No mode is mandated, yet we have a practical operating pass/fail exam for one mode. That is arbitrary. However throwing that comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not only the test but the use of CW. Dee, not at all. I wish only the arbitrary Morse/Farnsworth Exams to be retired. But recognize that the FCC mandates the use no particular mode. You can use CW all you want or not us it at all. So why is there a practical operating exam for this one mode but not all other modes? And why is CW use allowed by No-Code Technicians on VHF, but not HF? Why did Jim Miccolis N2EY say about Hans restructuring proposal, that a CW exam would be a barrier to CW use? So I will not continue to participate in this thread. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I understand how uneasy it must make you to have to face the truth of arbitrary licensing requirements and still advocate a Morse/Farnsworth Exam. Ok, one more round but that's it. All the licensing requirements are arbitrary. Every single one of them. There are several radio services for which no testing is required. So if some services do not need testing, then it is arbitrary for those that do. However the goals and purposes of amateur radio make it desireable to test candidates for these licenses. Has Jim approved these thoughts of yours? If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart. Best of Luck, Brian The problem with the Morse discussion is that every possible conceivable argument on either side has been aired dozens, if not hundreds, of times. It is not healthy to continue discussing this policy issue. No new data comes to light. No new rational has come up. There's no point in rehashing the same issues. Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to live with the consequences good or bad. If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more than they are now. If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators than the rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the NCTAs imply they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room. I'm not stating that there will be hordes of unwashed nor waves of intelligent technogeniuses. But if the code exam remains, I don't think there's much hope of anything positive happening. On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact will be insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have been, then there is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have little to no noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Of course, I disagree. I think it is worthwhile to have regulations and a licensing structure which makes sense, regardless of negligible impacts. |
|
#5
June 21st 05, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee Flint wrote:
All the licensing requirements are arbitrary. Every single one of them. I would use the phrase "only based on FCC's judgement and experience" rather than "arbitrary", but that's a minor point. Otherwise agree 100%. Not only that, but many if not most of the rules are only based on FCC's judgement and experience too. For example, the maximum power an amateur station may use in the USA is 1500 W peak output. Why 1500 W - why not 1000 W, or 2000 W, or something else? Why not any power level that an amateur can put on the air and still meet RF exposure and spurious emission rules? Tthere are several radio services for which no testing is required. So if some services do not need testing, then it is arbitrary for those that do. However the goals and purposes of amateur radio make it desireable to test candidates for these licenses. And those goals and purposes are based on FCC's judgement and experience as well. FCC could, if they wanted, simply define amateur radio as "hobby radio", but they haven't done so. If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart. Best of Luck, Brian The problem with the Morse discussion is that every possible conceivable argument on either side has been aired dozens, if not hundreds, of times. It is not healthy to continue discussing this policy issue. No new data comes to light. No new rational has come up. There's no point in rehashing the same issues. I disagree! There's always the possibility that some new idea, argument, or information will result from a discussion. Even the passage of time gives new insights. For example, the 2000 restructuring that reduced both code and written testing did not result in sustained growth of the number of US hams. We saw a small rise for a few years, but since April 2003 or so the numbers have been in a slow decline. This data clearly indicates that the license test requirements aren't the limiting factor to longterm growth. Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to live with the consequences good or bad. Yep. But until they do, we can refine and develop our arguments on both sides. As for it being unhealthy to discuss, I'd say that as long as the discussion remains at a civil level, without misquotes and personal attacks, it's healthy. If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more than they are now. That's one big reason we have subbands-by-mode. If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators than the rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the NCTAs imply they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room. Or the data modes. On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact will be insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have been, then there is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have little to no noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing. That's true. But there are other factors: - Reducing the license requirements still further may have negative effects. - If there's no real effect, the solution obviously lies elsewhere. But some may not want to accept that fact. - Once the requirements are reduced, it may be near-impossible to get them raised back up. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
June 21st 05, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
June 21st 05, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
bb wrote: wrote: For example, the maximum power an amateur station may use in the USA is 1500 W peak output. Why 1500 W - why not 1000 W, or 2000 W, or something else? Why not any power level that an amateur can put on the air and still meet RF exposure and spurious emission rules? Why are you telling us this, and not the FCC? He wasn't "telling" anything... They are interrogatives...Questions...Preceeded with "Why" and eneded with a question mark. There's always the possibility that some new idea, argument, or information will result from a discussion. Even the passage of time gives new insights. Ther's not if you continually avoid such discussions. So far, only you and Lennie are avoiding anything... For example, the 2000 restructuring that reduced both code and written testing did not result in sustained growth of the number of US hams. We saw a small rise for a few years, but since April 2003 or so the numbers have been in a slow decline. This data clearly indicates that the license test requirements aren't the limiting factor to longterm growth. Were the sunspots in decline during this period? Does it matter? I don't remember the FCC making a point of sunspot numbers in licensing requirements other than discussing propagation characteristics. Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to live with the consequences good or bad. Yep. But until they do, we can refine and develop our arguments on both sides. Showing disdain for Technicians who cannot or choose not to learn The Code certainly tells a lot. How did you get "disdain" from that...?!?! As for it being unhealthy to discuss, I'd say that as long as the discussion remains at a civil level, without misquotes and personal attacks, it's healthy. Don't worry, be healthy. Good advice, Brian. Are you going to take it, or are you about to take us on yet another "...'they' chased all the Techs away.." story..?!?! If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more than they are now. That's one big reason we have subbands-by-mode. Wow, I never realized that. We have subbands-by-mode so that DX can hide from us. You, as usual, missed the point, Brian. Many of the "dx" operators do NOT have the means by which to obtain megabucks multimode/digital Amateur facilities. Jim is right. Civil discourse leads to new insights on arbitrarines and prejudices. Where did he say that, Brian...?!?! A quote, please, or is this yet another "I said it but I really didn't say it" dance? If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators than the rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the NCTAs imply they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room. Or the data modes. No CW skill required for that. On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact will be insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have been, then there is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have little to no noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing. That's true. But there are other factors: - Reducing the license requirements still further may have negative effects. As it already has, right? The "requirements" (ie required knowledge) for an Amateur license are as steep as they've ever been...But when there's no real incentive to LEARN the material, of what use is it...?!?! - If there's no real effect, the solution obviously lies elsewhere. But some may not want to accept that fact. There may be a number of problems which must be addressed by a number of solutions. - Once the requirements are reduced, it may be near-impossible to get them raised back up. 73 de Jim, N2EY Arbitrariness should be easy enough to increase. That's what makes it arbitrary. In some other universe that made sense...But here...well, it just doesn't work. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#8
June 23rd 05, 12:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: wrote: For example, the maximum power an amateur station may use in the USA is 1500 W peak output. Why 1500 W - why not 1000 W, or 2000 W, or something else? Why not any power level that an amateur can put on the air and still meet RF exposure and spurious emission rules? Why are you telling us this, and not the FCC? He wasn't "telling" anything... I see it differently. They are interrogatives...Questions...Preceeded with "Why" and eneded with a question mark. So why are you nuts? There's always the possibility that some new idea, argument, or information will result from a discussion. Even the passage of time gives new insights. Ther's not if you continually avoid such discussions. So far, only you and Lennie are avoiding anything... We're avoiding your incessant explanations of your claims of seven (7) hostile actions. Hi! (inside joke) For example, the 2000 restructuring that reduced both code and written testing did not result in sustained growth of the number of US hams. We saw a small rise for a few years, but since April 2003 or so the numbers have been in a slow decline. This data clearly indicates that the license test requirements aren't the limiting factor to longterm growth. Were the sunspots in decline during this period? Does it matter? Why wouldn't it? I don't remember the FCC making a point of sunspot numbers in licensing requirements other than discussing propagation characteristics. Hint: they're making a point of it. Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to live with the consequences good or bad. Yep. But until they do, we can refine and develop our arguments on both sides. Showing disdain for Technicians who cannot or choose not to learn The Code certainly tells a lot. How did you get "disdain" from that...?!?! Other posts. You find them. Best of Luck. As for it being unhealthy to discuss, I'd say that as long as the discussion remains at a civil level, without misquotes and personal attacks, it's healthy. Don't worry, be healthy. Good advice, Brian. Good advice for you, too. That's why I gave it. Are you going to take it, or are you about to take us on yet another "...'they' chased all the Techs away.." story..?!?! The attitudes of Dee, Dan, and Dave certainly give insight into such stories. If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more than they are now. That's one big reason we have subbands-by-mode. Wow, I never realized that. We have subbands-by-mode so that DX can hide from us. You, as usual, missed the point, Brian. That was precisely the point that N2EY made. What part of it didn't you understand? Many of the "dx" operators do NOT have the means by which to obtain megabucks multimode/digital Amateur facilities. How can they "hide down on CW EVEN MORE THAN THEY ARE NOW" possible if they don't now have other modes available??? Idiot! And I don't recall David Heil K8MN as RARE DX hiding "down on CW in downtown Dar El Salaam" to avoid calls on SSB from out-of-band Frenchmen on 6 Meters!!! He went for it!!! Jim is right. Civil discourse leads to new insights on arbitrarines and prejudices. Where did he say that, Brian...?!?! A quote, please, or is this yet another "I said it but I really didn't say it" dance? "Jim said it but really didn't say it" If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators than the rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the NCTAs imply they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room. Or the data modes. No CW skill required for that. No CW skills required for that. And why would we "exclude" Japan? On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact will be insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have been, then there is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have little to no noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing. That's true. But there are other factors: - Reducing the license requirements still further may have negative effects. As it already has, right? The "requirements" (ie required knowledge) for an Amateur license are as steep as they've ever been...But when there's no real incentive to LEARN the material, of what use is it...?!?! So make it even steeper. Make them bleed. - If there's no real effect, the solution obviously lies elsewhere. But some may not want to accept that fact. There may be a number of problems which must be addressed by a number of solutions. - Once the requirements are reduced, it may be near-impossible to get them raised back up. 73 de Jim, N2EY Arbitrariness should be easy enough to increase. That's what makes it arbitrary. In some other universe that made sense...But here...well, it just doesn't work. Obviously, you don't understand the concept of arbitrariness. N2EY has it down to an Art! And you have it down to a dumb shrug and a question mark! Let's face it square on. You're just N2EY's unwitting, unintelligent little hatchet man. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#9
June 22nd 05, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: "bb" on Tues 21 Jun 2005 03:33
wrote: Dee Flint wrote: All the licensing requirements are arbitrary. Every single one of them. I would use the phrase "only based on FCC's judgement and experience" rather than "arbitrary", but that's a minor point. Otherwise agree 100%. Not only that, but many if not most of the rules are only based on FCC's judgement and experience too. Well there you have it. Right. The FCC has all the "judgement and EXPERIENCE" even though not a single staffer or Commissioner is required to have an amateur radio license! But here's an interesting point. If the FCC rules in favor of something about morse code, Jimmie will say it was due to the league or other amateur's comments...no credit is given to the FCC. If the FCC rules against morse code in any form, then it is the FCC's "fault" and they are to "blame." :-) For example, the maximum power an amateur station may use in the USA is 1500 W peak output. Why 1500 W - why not 1000 W, or 2000 W, or something else? Why not any power level that an amateur can put on the air and still meet RF exposure and spurious emission rules? Why are you telling us this, and not the FCC? Jimmie IS amateur radio! He is the Lawgiver... :-) Tthere are several radio services for which no testing is required. So if some services do not need testing, then it is arbitrary for those that do. However the goals and purposes of amateur radio make it desireable to test candidates for these licenses. And those goals and purposes are based on FCC's judgement and experience as well. FCC could, if they wanted, simply define amateur radio as "hobby radio", but they haven't done so. There we have it. Amateur radio is a HOBBY activity...but it isn't a hobby activity. :-) There's no such thing as "ham" radio in Part 97 but hams like to use that term almost to a man. Gotta love some of this "reasoning." :-) There's always the possibility that some new idea, argument, or information will result from a discussion. Even the passage of time gives new insights. Ther's not if you continually avoid such discussions. Avoidance and misdirection are a standard ploy of the PCTA extras. They seem to figure that stalling for time will be to their advantage. Like WRC-03 and the rewrite of S25 endorsed and promulgated by the IARU and opposed to by the ARRL. With more stalling of time and some adroit spin by the league the league will say that they no longer oppose that international change. :-) For example, the 2000 restructuring that reduced both code and written testing did not result in sustained growth of the number of US hams. We saw a small rise for a few years, but since April 2003 or so the numbers have been in a slow decline. This data clearly indicates that the license test requirements aren't the limiting factor to longterm growth. Were the sunspots in decline during this period? Jimmie seems to suffer "sunspots" of thinking. He gets his neurons ionized by all of us free radicals...! :-) The NUMBERS are unmistakable. Without the creation of the no-code-test Technician class in 1991, the total number of amateur radio licenses would have continued to DECLINE, "restructuring" or not. The number of Technician class licenses have kept on growing until no-code-test Techs are now 40+% of all U.S. amateur licensees! If there is a "slight decline" in ham numbers (there is), but the no-code-test Tech is markedly INCREASING (it is), then, arithmetically, the total of other classes are DECLINING (they are). Jimmie will probably, as he has in the past, go into some creative rationalizing of DENIAL on that, say "I'm wrong!" and the usual spin (trying to disguise the denial). :-) [that's very predictable] I'm not a part of either growth or decline, just observing the numbers as they change...and he will say I am "wrong," "mistaken," or other equivalent phrases. Jimmie will look around at his immediate "ham neighborhood" and see little change...he gets his ham magazines regularly, hears the beep-beeping every time he turns on his ham receiver...and sees "no change," his little ham world is still intact, no problem. Regretably for the hobby, the ARRL is only RECENTLY starting to realize all those NUMBERS! They aren't attracting the (now) 40% of all licensees as they once expected they would. ARRL membership has declined. Olde-fahrt morsemen hams don't much seem to give a ****. [Hans Brakob seems a rare exception] They strut around, posturing and preening, babbling about "good old days" and emptying their mental chamber pots on the "lesser classes." Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to live with the consequences good or bad. Yep. But until they do, we can refine and develop our arguments on both sides. Showing disdain for Technicians who cannot or choose not to learn The Code certainly tells a lot. It tells a very BAD tale. But, they ARE the self-righteous, self-promoted "superiors" who seem to feel they "control" it all and have some "qualifications" for disdaining those "lesser" folk. But, they cannot be convinced they are hurting the hobby. They RULE it in their minds. As for it being unhealthy to discuss, I'd say that as long as the discussion remains at a civil level, without misquotes and personal attacks, it's healthy. Don't worry, be healthy. Jimmie gonna HAVE to concede that he is NOT the voice of amateur radio. In here. He be only ONE individual licensee. If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more than they are now. That's one big reason we have subbands-by-mode. Wow, I never realized that. We have subbands-by-mode so that DX can hide from us. Jim is right. Civil discourse leads to new insights on arbitrarines and prejudices. Well, adding new fresh blood to the hobby will just upset the hell out of the Elite RF Territory of these extra homies. Their "work DX with CW on HF" sandbox is going to be invaded? If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators than the rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the NCTAs imply they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room. Or the data modes. No CW skill required for that. Operating ANYWHERE below 30 MHz REQUIRES morse code testing! That's the LAW!!! On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact will be insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have been, then there is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have little to no noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing. That's true. But there are other factors: - Reducing the license requirements still further may have negative effects. As it already has, right? The HF sandbox is in DANGER, Will Robinson! - If there's no real effect, the solution obviously lies elsewhere. But some may not want to accept that fact. There may be a number of problems which must be addressed by a number of solutions. Damn, Brian, you're getting GOOD at this Truthspeak! :-) Careful, you are beginning to phrase just like them PCTA extras! - Once the requirements are reduced, it may be near-impossible to get them raised back up. 73 de Jim, N2EY Arbitrariness should be easy enough to increase. That's what makes it arbitrary. FCC needs to hire an Arbitrator? :-) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Policy discussion? | Policy | |||
| Any one recommend a group where they discuss policy? | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
