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

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.

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?

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.

Ther's not if you continually avoid such discussions.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

- 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.

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

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

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? :-)