|
|
Steve,
The comment period isn't OPEN yet (the release of the NPRM by the FCC doesn't "start the clock," it's the publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet happened. Thus, technically speaking, while the docket is open in the ECFS, comments filed now are "premature," so I would suggest you consider refraining from "dis-ing" people over something where they are behaving in a completely appropriate manner. I fully intend to file my comments on the NPRM within the appropriate, prescribed time window. I expect others who understand the comment/reply comment process, as prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act will likewise file their comments in the appropriate, prescribed time window. 73, Carl - wk3c "K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... Well, well, well.................... After I posted my comments and recovered from laughing at Lennie's predictably pessimistic and mistruthful diatribe, I started to look over some of the other comments. Then I decided to just cut to the chase and search by names for the rest of you. Other than myself and Lennie, I only found ONE other semi-regular of this group had cared enough to comment: WA2ISE. Missing? K0HB, W5TIT, N8UZE, W5DXP, K2UNK, N2EY, AA2QA, K3LT, W3RV, KB9RQZ, N0IMD, WK3C, W1RFI, N3KIP, KC2HMZ, K8MN. Soooooooooooo...... Where is everyone from BOTH sides of the aisle? On another note, I notice both Maia and West haven't said a word either...guess they figure they'll sell books one way or the other... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
John Smith wrote: N2EY: Yes, your list there shows how quite insane FCC licensing has been, however, the arrl has to bear a lot of this blame also, they used political pressures for their personal gains. The longest journey begins but with the first step, there are many necessary steps now to bring amateur radio back in line with sanity... John So what is your solution? Would you eliminate the technical parts of the tests because hams aren't required to build or fix their rigs? Would you eliminate all mode-specific and band-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific band or mode? Would you eliminate all technology-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific technology? *Besides* eliminating the code test, what would *you* change about the license tests? On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:50:13 -0700, N2EY wrote: wrote: Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF phone..... For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on homebrewing to use manufactured radio sets. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on voice modes to use Morse Code and data modes. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on the limits of VHF/UHF ham bands to operate on the HF/MF ham bands. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on RF exposure and electrical safety to use low power battery-operated rigs. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on transistors and ICs to use vacuum tube rigs. Etc. Suppose someone wanted to operate a low-power Morse Code amateur radio transceiver on 7020 kHz. Just a simple 50 watt transceiver and dipole antenna, with key and speaker. To operate legally, such a person would need an Extra class license, which requires passing tests that include all sorts of stuff that is unnecessary for the legal and correct operation of the above station. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Steve, The comment period isn't OPEN yet (the release of the NPRM by the FCC doesn't "start the clock," it's the publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet happened. Thus, technically speaking, while the docket is open in the ECFS, comments filed now are "premature," so I would suggest you consider refraining from "dis-ing" people over something where they are behaving in a completely appropriate manner. I fully intend to file my comments on the NPRM within the appropriate, prescribed time window. I expect others who understand the comment/reply comment process, as prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act will likewise file their comments in the appropriate, prescribed time window. Yo: Welcome back. Right on. Lotta premature all of it. Like my Economics 101 prof would probably describe it "it's the result of pent up adrenaline". Been meaning to get to you about the tower. I'll drop you a line over the weekend. dit-dit? 73, Carl - wk3c w3rv |
|
wrote in message oups.com... Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF phone..... John T. W5KXO San Antonio, Texas Because it is one of the basics of amateur radio. There are a number of things that you have to learn as basics that you may never use. A fundamental introduction to these basics is valuable in allowing the operator to better judge whether the subject is interesting enough to pursue further. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... Well, well, well.................... After I posted my comments and recovered from laughing at Lennie's predictably pessimistic and mistruthful diatribe, I started to look over some of the other comments. Then I decided to just cut to the chase and search by names for the rest of you. Other than myself and Lennie, I only found ONE other semi-regular of this group had cared enough to comment: WA2ISE. Missing? K0HB, W5TIT, N8UZE, W5DXP, K2UNK, N2EY, AA2QA, K3LT, W3RV, KB9RQZ, N0IMD, WK3C, W1RFI, N3KIP, KC2HMZ, K8MN. Soooooooooooo...... Where is everyone from BOTH sides of the aisle? On another note, I notice both Maia and West haven't said a word either...guess they figure they'll sell books one way or the other... 73 Steve, K4YZ I haven't decided whether to comment or not. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: I haven't decided whether to comment or not. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I'd strongly suggest that you comment, Dee, regardless of what your comments are. And regardless of whether they affect the outcome at all. For one thing, although some folks claim to know what the majority wants, the fact of that won't be known until all the comments are in. Last time, the majority didn't get what they wanted, though.... Of course someone trustworthy will have to read and categorize all the comments for us to know what the majority wants. That was done back in 1998. If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. -- One thing that I found unsettling about 98-143 was how *few* comments were filed. FCC was proposing the biggest shakeup of the license and test structure in many years, and they got maybe 2200 comments - from an amateur population of almost 700,000 hams (not counting expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses, clubs, etc.) Such a low turnout is troubling, particularly considering how easy FCC has made it to file comments. There's ECFS, which can accept a brief comment typed-in, or a lengthier one as a file attachment. There's comments by mail, in paper or electronic format. 98-143 had a very long comment period, yet only about 1 in 300 US hams commented at all. Back in the 1960s, when FCC proposed the changes that came to be known as "incentive licensing", they got over 6000 comments. There were only about 250,000 US hams back then, with no internet, no email, no word-processing, etc. Last time I looked there were over 600 comments on file. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
K4YZ wrote: b.b. wrote: K4YZ wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: I figured that I would reserve my comments for a place that had a better chance of having an effect on the decision. That would be in rrap! ;^) I gave up on RRAP being any usable place for ANY kind of debate No kidding? You're the #1 problem. Actually, I'd put myself around 5th or 6th. We're making progress, then. I'm suprised you even think that you're on the problem list. |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Steve, The comment period isn't OPEN yet (the release of the NPRM by the FCC doesn't "start the clock," it's the publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet happened. Thus, technically speaking, while the docket is open in the ECFS, comments filed now are "premature," so I would suggest you consider refraining from "dis-ing" people over something where they are behaving in a completely appropriate manner. I fully intend to file my comments on the NPRM within the appropriate, prescribed time window. I expect others who understand the comment/reply comment process, as prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act will likewise file their comments in the appropriate, prescribed time window. 73, Carl - wk3c Same stuff, different day. And at the end of the day, Steve's still an idiot. |
wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: Yes, your list there shows how quite insane FCC licensing has been, however, the arrl has to bear a lot of this blame also, they used political pressures for their personal gains. The longest journey begins but with the first step, there are many necessary steps now to bring amateur radio back in line with sanity... John So what is your solution? Would you eliminate the technical parts of the tests because hams aren't required to build or fix their rigs? Would you eliminate all mode-specific and band-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific band or mode? Would you eliminate all technology-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific technology? *Besides* eliminating the code test, what would *you* change about the license tests? what I would do? gee id change the structure of the tests a pared down basic test of rule regs, rf safety, bands stuff like, and several (Passing only one of these) each test covering a type of operation in detail, would even aloow a code test as an option for this second test, so I kidnly like the Canda changes esp if theyd go a bit further down that line On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:50:13 -0700, N2EY wrote: wrote: cut |
|
|
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: Yes, your list there shows how quite insane FCC licensing has been, however, the arrl has to bear a lot of this blame also, they used political pressures for their personal gains. The longest journey begins but with the first step, there are many necessary steps now to bring amateur radio back in line with sanity... John So what is your solution? You must be kidding, Jim! Not at all, Mike. Of course some folks who poat to rrap tend to pose a sort of Zen problem - they tell you what a thing is not, or what it shouldn't be, but never say what it is, or how it should be. You watch. If Element 1 is dumped, as seems highly likely, there will be a burst of license activity, then same old same old as far as the numbers go. Then watch as the written tests and other regs are attacked as "barriers". Heck, it's already started with the free upgrades thing. FCC rejected that - this time. 73 de Jim, N2EY "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" (snaps fingers) |
wrote in part:
Would you eliminate the technical parts of the tests because hams aren't required to build or fix their rigs? No. But I would emphasize troubleshooting strategy, which would help hams at all levels from the appliance operators to the one-handed-behind-the-back surface-mount circuit homebrewers. Would you eliminate all mode-specific and band-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific band or mode? Nope. But know the best operating procedures for each band and mode. And why, from a basic radio science perpective. Would you eliminate all technology-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific technology? No. Keep the introductory electronics, but strongly emphasize the science behind the RADIO WAVES you're EMITTING and RECEIVING, and the media in which they propagate. This means that even appliance operators, so maligned on this group and elesewhere, will have as firm foundation in the actual activity of communications as the electronics wizard. *Besides* eliminating the code test, what would *you* change about the license tests? It's the Operator Techniques, stpuid. ($1) With fewer LIDS, people won't care what electronics skill level you have when the mike is off. And ham radio will be less of the circle jerk it has become. And eliminate the swimsuit competition as stated in previous message. I mean, the Huntsville Hamfest is coming up and man, I don't even want to think about it. 73 Corry K4DOH -- It Came From C. L. "Yes, I could drop a few pounds myself" Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example" |
From: on Aug 4, 1:08 pm
Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF phone..... Heyo John T., Oh, my, that IS a long story, but it begins in 1896 and the first demonstration of radio as a communications medium. Back then, before transistors, even before vacuum tubes (!) this "radio" thingy was VERY primitive. One could turn the Tx ON and OFF, though, so all turned to the Morse-Vail telegraph code which was now 52 years old and mature. Okay, 18 more years to 1912, the appearance of the first U.S. radio regulating agency and the sinking of the Titanic. This fledgling radio regulating agency had no precedent, played it by ear and eventually made radiotelegraphy a necessary test for applicant radio operators. Almost ALL radio transmitters used on-off keying. Damn simple technology, if you can call it "technology" in radio. On-off keying is a no-brainer thing. Two more years to 1914 and Saint Hiram of Maxim, the new "leader" of hamdom who, with a couple buddies, establishes the ARRL. [never mind that the Radio Club of America was formed a lot earlier as well as some competitors] Things were very competitive amongst the ham clubs then. Cut to 1919 and Hiram Goes To Washington to lobby for the restoration of the amateur bands...which had been shut down for World War One. Big Publicity is later made of this successful lobbying...even though Maxim wasn't the only one... in the ARRL's telling of the tale Saint Hiram did everything but walk on the reflecting pool of the Mall in DC. ARRL has made it to the top of the club heap after WW1 with a neat trick: Becoming a publisher...of books on ham radio, of a periodical called QST. EXCELLENT base for spreading the ARRL's word, it's "maxims" as it were. H.P.Maxim does a regular column (he is now virtually President for Life) under the pen name "T.O.M." ("the old man") and talks a lot about sending good code, behavior, and all the other things. Publishing MAKES MONEY and they can get away with it on taxes because the League is ALSO a "membership organization." With profit the League can afford a legal firm in DC to represent them before the various radio commissions. New findings, new rulings. Hams are banished from the "BC" band and "vanquished" to "wavelengths shorter than 200 meters." I.e., frequencies above 1500 KC (as they usta call KHz), or MF and HF the "short waves." Oh, wow, lots to write about, lots of "technology" to publish about with this new "shortwave" stuff. Between the Wars the world's hams begin to converse, but in the newly-standardized (more or less) International Morse Code (standardized for international commercial telegraphy). Vacuum tubes begin to be available and the radio technology starts looking like technology. But... The Great Depression hits with over a quarter of the workforce in the USA out of work (but almost three-quarters still work). Tough times, little income. Tube radio parts are expensive and radiotelegraphy is the cheapest mode in hardware...AM voice sounds too "commercial" like professional broadcasting. Very few hams know about "sideband" which the telephone long-lines folks started on land, then pioneered on HF with four voice channels per transmitter. T.O.M. hung in there into the thirties and kept on plugging morsemanship. Vive la beeping! "The Amateur's Code" came out in the 1920s, one item of which was a shameless plug for the League ("owe your allegiance to the ARRL" etc.). Come WW2 and there's another blackout of ham radio. QST keeps being published, yielding free publicity for income-producing ham books. ARRL makes a big thing about hams being a "national resource of trained radio operators for the nation" and that notion will hang on for six decades plus. "CW" is King in the ham world. But...with the revolution in post-WW2 technology arrives the single-channel single sideband technology for voice at lower power, somewhat lower cost. The military starts the demand and Collins Radio leads the commercial pack in producing the bestest SSB rigs...which they also market to hams. Oboy, new technology in 1950 (although lagging the commercial radio field by at least two decades). QST and some olde-tyme hams bring back the hoary old saying "CW gets through when nothing else will" in defiance of this new voice mode and new technology (who the #$%^!!! ever heard of "sidebands" and what's all this "vector" crap?). ARRL starts making good bucks in publishing after WW2 and several other publishers start up. Profits for all. Standard of living improves, money is spent. But, the leaders at the League are still of the "old school" where Code is King. Now back in that prehistory, few hams lived close to DC and the Internet wasn't even a pipe-dream. Communications with one's government had to be done by surface mail (slow) or telegram (fast but expensive). Few could afford Telex things except maybe the attorneys who worked over the gubmint for their clients. The League got terribly Conservative in the post-war time and that spread throughout the world. Political tensions were high all over and the "Reds" were waving sabers and tossing test nukes. Instability after a terrible Second World War. Conservatism and simplicity looked good, a comfort. Olde-tymers at the League pushed for "CW" to be at the top of the heap and there it stayed for decades. ARRL had the MAJOR publicity vehicle and monopolized the influence on ham hobbyists. Olde-tymer ham conservatives ruled the IARU and did their thing with the newly-formed ITU for ham radio standards. Things didn't go as well for the olde-tymers as they thought. New blood was out there and flowing hotly. At the WARCs this progressive group were able to set the "code test mandatory" rule of the ITU to just below 30 MHz. The "T-hams" started up in various other nations before the USA made the no-code-test Tech in 1991. Domestically, the no-code-test movement was stirring and sounding off during the 1980s (they pushed the no-code-test Tech creation, NOT the League). But, comms on legal matters took TIME and effort for all but the attornies. Conservatives in the League were entrenched now and were determined not to give up at any cost! Behold the Internet, finally public in 1991...then the push in the government to take advantage of that, to eventually integrate it into the DSN as a part. Pow! Suddenly the lowly citizen with a PC could now TALK DIRECT with their government! Wondrous! Something they never really had before...no need to "filter" things through some "membership organization." Internet exploded in many directions and the convservative olde-tymers groused and grumbled. Their INFLUENCE was waning and they could no longer "direct traffic" of members to THEIR way of thinking. Cellular telephony, CDs, dial-direct-wired phones, DVDs and VHSs and a burgeoning fun-with-any-electronics in hobby things vied for attention among hobbyists. The WORLD was open to explore and didn't depend on the vagaries of the ionosphere or solar index. Olde-tyme conservatives were ****ed and strutted around with hoary old phrases, cussing at evil CB types (now 47 years old), and making big big with morsemanship. The League managed to hang onto its core membership but the core was olde-tyme conservatives who prized morsemanship above everything else. The League fought tooth and nail for maintenance of the status quo since their black-ink ledger notations needed MORE $$$. By 2005 there are MORE cell phone subscriptions than there are wired phone subscriptions, one in five families have some kind of Internet access, and the League membership has shrunk to less than a quarter of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs. ARRL was seemingly unaware that the two Technician class license totals had reached 48% of all licensees in this year...they have never really reached out to them. Why, I don't know, but the League is hide-bound to their olde-tyme core conservative membership desires. The numbers of amateur licensees is NOT growing, actually slightly dropping (small but continuous). The newcomers are getting in via the NO-CODE-TEST class and most are staying there. They do NOT want, en masse or not, to be the greatest 1930s radiotelegrapher possible in 2005. In 2000 the IARU defied the ARRL and pushed for no-code. By mid-2003 the ITU-T *finally* got S25 rewritten and the mandatory code test for a below-30-MHz license was removed, deleted, made defunct. Trouble is, all them olde-tyme conservative hams had been so thoroughly brainwashed by code testing that they opposed U.S. code test deletion like it was a battle for life itself. For some that may have been true...morsemanship was THE thing in their radio world and that world would END on code test elimination! Olde-tyme mentalities are VERY stubborn. Trouble is, them morse lovers are outnumbered 3:1. They just don't realize it yet... yee haw |
From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 4, 1:55 pm
Steve, The comment period isn't OPEN yet (the release of the NPRM by the FCC doesn't "start the clock," it's the publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet happened. Heyo Carl! Welcome again. Sunnuvagun you are RIGHT! I checked the FR at the GPO site and there is nothing there yet from 15 July (the NPRM release date) through 4 August! Amazing...two weeks gone on this NPRM and it hasn't started yet! Even worse, at least a dozen ham-interest websites have made it a cause celebre, front-page headline thing (which it is)...and lots of folks are now urging Comments to be sent in! Everyone from Nancy Kott at FISTS on out... :-) Thus, technically speaking, while the docket is open in the ECFS, comments filed now are "premature," so I would suggest you consider refraining from "dis-ing" people over something where they are behaving in a completely appropriate manner. Stebie don' need no steenking rules! :-) See 25 Jan 99 on 98-143, 10 days AFTER the supposed window close on the Restructuring NPRM. Stebie was in there dissing me. :-) He hasn't stopped since. I fully intend to file my comments on the NPRM within the appropriate, prescribed time window. I expect others who understand the comment/reply comment process, as prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act will likewise file their comments in the appropriate, prescribed time window. No problem here. I can resend my Comment in the click of a few mouse buttons. It will still apply. Morse code is only 161 years old...it's had its time in the sun. Thanks for the advisory. Will have to check the Federal Register daily now to see if 05-235 has had its window open. No breeze. Or, as Shakespeare almost wrote it, "Lo, what ball through yonder window breaks?" :-) dit bye |
N2EY:
Has our society been so dumbed down you must even ask a question like that? I would have question fitting using a commercial radio for those whose only use is to buy the damn thing and chat... of course the question of rf hazards would always be important and should be included. I would have tech questions fitting those who wished to build their own equip, so I knew they were properly prepared... For those constructing their own antennas, proper tower, mast, etc questions to make sure they were prepared to do so safely... Of course, you would need a group of minds to arrange the question properly and sanely... You should be able to extrapolate from the above and see how it would apply to and given situation--hardware--software--rules--regs--etc John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:36:15 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: Yes, your list there shows how quite insane FCC licensing has been, however, the arrl has to bear a lot of this blame also, they used political pressures for their personal gains. The longest journey begins but with the first step, there are many necessary steps now to bring amateur radio back in line with sanity... John So what is your solution? Would you eliminate the technical parts of the tests because hams aren't required to build or fix their rigs? Would you eliminate all mode-specific and band-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific band or mode? Would you eliminate all technology-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific technology? *Besides* eliminating the code test, what would *you* change about the license tests? On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:50:13 -0700, N2EY wrote: wrote: Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF phone..... For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on homebrewing to use manufactured radio sets. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on voice modes to use Morse Code and data modes. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on the limits of VHF/UHF ham bands to operate on the HF/MF ham bands. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on RF exposure and electrical safety to use low power battery-operated rigs. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on transistors and ICs to use vacuum tube rigs. Etc. Suppose someone wanted to operate a low-power Morse Code amateur radio transceiver on 7020 kHz. Just a simple 50 watt transceiver and dipole antenna, with key and speaker. To operate legally, such a person would need an Extra class license, which requires passing tests that include all sorts of stuff that is unnecessary for the legal and correct operation of the above station. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
UCM:
The new surface mount technology will now require highly trained "Gnome Technicians", the ones with the smallest of hands will be most suited, with very, very small soldering irons... and BIG magnifying glasses... John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:02:52 +0000, Unclaimed Mysteries wrote: wrote in part: Would you eliminate the technical parts of the tests because hams aren't required to build or fix their rigs? No. But I would emphasize troubleshooting strategy, which would help hams at all levels from the appliance operators to the one-handed-behind-the-back surface-mount circuit homebrewers. Would you eliminate all mode-specific and band-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific band or mode? Nope. But know the best operating procedures for each band and mode. And why, from a basic radio science perpective. Would you eliminate all technology-specific questions because hams aren't required to use any specific technology? No. Keep the introductory electronics, but strongly emphasize the science behind the RADIO WAVES you're EMITTING and RECEIVING, and the media in which they propagate. This means that even appliance operators, so maligned on this group and elesewhere, will have as firm foundation in the actual activity of communications as the electronics wizard. *Besides* eliminating the code test, what would *you* change about the license tests? It's the Operator Techniques, stpuid. ($1) With fewer LIDS, people won't care what electronics skill level you have when the mike is off. And ham radio will be less of the circle jerk it has become. And eliminate the swimsuit competition as stated in previous message. I mean, the Huntsville Hamfest is coming up and man, I don't even want to think about it. 73 Corry K4DOH |
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF phone..... For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on homebrewing to use manufactured radio sets. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on voice modes to use Morse Code and data modes. Apples vs oranges. No other mode requires a "skill" test which is exactly what the current CW test is...a skill test. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on the limits of VHF/UHF ham bands to operate on the HF/MF ham bands. Ditto my last For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on RF exposure and electrical safety to use low power battery-operated rigs. Ditto my last For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on transistors and ICs to use vacuum tube rigs. Ditto my last Etc. Suppose someone wanted to operate a low-power Morse Code amateur radio transceiver on 7020 kHz. Just a simple 50 watt transceiver and dipole antenna, with key and speaker. To operate legally, such a person would need an Extra class license, which requires passing tests that include all sorts of stuff that is unnecessary for the legal and correct operation of the above station. But not one of those subject areas stands alone as a pass/fail gate as does the CW test. THAT is the difference. You want some questions added to the pool regarding morse as a mode, no problem. That is, however, not the same as having a single stand-alone morse profficiency test. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
Bill:
Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols... John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF phone..... For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on homebrewing to use manufactured radio sets. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on voice modes to use Morse Code and data modes. Apples vs oranges. No other mode requires a "skill" test which is exactly what the current CW test is...a skill test. For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on the limits of VHF/UHF ham bands to operate on the HF/MF ham bands. Ditto my last For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on RF exposure and electrical safety to use low power battery-operated rigs. Ditto my last For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on transistors and ICs to use vacuum tube rigs. Ditto my last Etc. Suppose someone wanted to operate a low-power Morse Code amateur radio transceiver on 7020 kHz. Just a simple 50 watt transceiver and dipole antenna, with key and speaker. To operate legally, such a person would need an Extra class license, which requires passing tests that include all sorts of stuff that is unnecessary for the legal and correct operation of the above station. But not one of those subject areas stands alone as a pass/fail gate as does the CW test. THAT is the difference. You want some questions added to the pool regarding morse as a mode, no problem. That is, however, not the same as having a single stand-alone morse profficiency test. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
John Smith wrote: Kelly: Logic, it is a way of life! YOUR way of life "John". Which obviously has nothing to do with normal human logical processes. .. . . are "they" still coming to get you "John" . . ? John w3rv |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Bill: Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols... Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to certify ability to use digital modes? How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics in voice mode? Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the case now and has always been the case. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Kelly:
Don't get upset with me, either the majority wants to dump the CW test, and the FCC, or not, I am but one person... try to gain a perspective here man, "CW religious zealot-ism" can be thought of as a way of life to, I don't think anyone is going to hinder your member ship in "The Brotherhood of the Dead Key", there is room for ya man, somewhere... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:56:24 -0700, kelly wrote: John Smith wrote: Kelly: Logic, it is a way of life! YOUR way of life "John". Which obviously has nothing to do with normal human logical processes. . . . are "they" still coming to get you "John" . . ? John w3rv |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ast.net... On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one looks at the comments already filed) appear to be running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
K2EY:
I think the majoritys' will is what is occurring, and no, I don't think a minority is going to be able to stop the majority here, perhaps if you got a group together called "Gay Hams for Morse!" it might float, for some reason the homosexuals are able to enforce their will on others effectively, perhaps a study of their methods and their adoption could lead to success. John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:21:19 -0700, Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? |
Bill:
Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed" with a slow typist there? It sucks, yes, I would allow for having one come up to speed before using IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed. That same system would work well for Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a "newbie frequency" until they get up to speed and have range of the whole cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me! John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Bill: Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols... Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to certify ability to use digital modes? How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics in voice mode? Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the case now and has always been the case. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be. Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew. Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy beltway-style actually works. Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane w3rv |
b.b. wrote: Same stuff, different day. And at the end of the day, Steve's still an idiot. Being an "idiot" is not a detriment to one's character. One man's idiot is another man's genius. However a liar is a liar, and Brainie Boy, you're a liar. Proven. Archived. Steve, K4YZ |
Phil Kane wrote:
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Yep. In fact they let us know that back in '99. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? The majority didn't get what they wanted back then. More than half of those who commented wanted at least 2 code test speeds but we got 5 wpm across the board. Still, it will be worth commenting just for the principle of the thing. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Isn't democracy grand? ;-)
Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Bert Craig wrote: Isn't democracy grand? ;-) That it tis, my friend...that it tis! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Bill: Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed" with a slow typist there? Sure. No problem. It still worked. It sucks, yes, No, that's your opinion only. I would allow for having one come up to speed before using IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed. I don't think the FCC has domain over internet. Who'd enforce your rule/requirement? That same system would work well for Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a "newbie frequency" until they get up to speed and have range of the whole cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me! Have you found the CW segments of HF heavily populated with very slow operators? Doesn't seem to be any problem today. Do you expect that to change if the code test is ended completely? What you (John) suggest happens by default now. While there are no "newbie frequencies" (although the novice segments could be viewed in that light), in reality, no one, including yourself, is forced or required to engage with another ham who operates code (or keboard) at a speed that is too slow for your liking. The choice is yours. No pretest needed. Additionally, having passed a test in no way guarantees continued profficiency. I passed 13 wpm over 10 years and haven't use code in probably 8 years or so. You'd probably not want to have a CW QSO with me now :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK --------- On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Bill: Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols... Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to certify ability to use digital modes? How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics in voice mode? Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the case now and has always been the case. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
wrote in message ups.com... Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be. Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew. Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy beltway-style actually works. Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT. w3rv Bottom line here... 1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143). 2. Thousands of comments were filed with various rationals in support of code testing....the FCC in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every pro-code test argument.... 3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test was because of the international treaty requiring a code test. 4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of any code test requirement in the international treaty with almost unanomous agreement by the countries to do so. 5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty. The FCC, now has an open comment period for discussion of the proposed change. 6. Unless some great new and profound reason to retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235 comment process, any prospect of keeping any code test is just not going to happen. The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs have been rehashing) have no chance of winning out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc. 7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't going to happen either. For two reasons: (a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and (b) The majority of current comments are actually running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total elimination of code testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bill:
Sounds like there is no problem then, let the "key bangers" hold to their own "key banger club", I don't think the new cb'ers on phone are going to bother them. If there are happy with their numbers on key, great! Seems like you won't mind any cb'ers which might like to try a key and head over towards you at 1wpm, good luck! Sounds to me like the whole problem is just an imagined one! Can't imagine why some jerk ever even mentioned some problem, damn fool! John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:32:52 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Bill: Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed" with a slow typist there? Sure. No problem. It still worked. It sucks, yes, No, that's your opinion only. I would allow for having one come up to speed before using IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed. I don't think the FCC has domain over internet. Who'd enforce your rule/requirement? That same system would work well for Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a "newbie frequency" until they get up to speed and have range of the whole cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me! Have you found the CW segments of HF heavily populated with very slow operators? Doesn't seem to be any problem today. Do you expect that to change if the code test is ended completely? What you (John) suggest happens by default now. While there are no "newbie frequencies" (although the novice segments could be viewed in that light), in reality, no one, including yourself, is forced or required to engage with another ham who operates code (or keboard) at a speed that is too slow for your liking. The choice is yours. No pretest needed. Additionally, having passed a test in no way guarantees continued profficiency. I passed 13 wpm over 10 years and haven't use code in probably 8 years or so. You'd probably not want to have a CW QSO with me now :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK --------- On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Bill: Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols... Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to certify ability to use digital modes? How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics in voice mode? Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the case now and has always been the case. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
From: "Bill Sohl" on Fri 5 Aug 2005 13:50
wrote in message Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be. Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew. Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy beltway-style actually works. Bottom line here... 1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143). Bill, there was also discussion 15 years ago in FCC 90-53 on the creation of the no-code-test Technician class. 2. Thousands of comments were filed with various rationals in support of code testing....the FCC in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every pro-code test argument.... That's true enough but is not acceptible to the MMMs in here. 3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test was because of the international treaty requiring a code test. Well, there was undoubtedly a lot of heated discussion from a lobbying group for a noted membership organization... presumably that is since we in this "democracy" don't get to actually observe such. :-) However, the final word was in 99-412, the R&O establishing this recent restructuring. 4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of any code test requirement in the international treaty with almost unanomous agreement by the countries to do so. The bellweather of that was the IARU's decision to support optional code testing by administrations beginning in 2000. U.S. hams tend to be a bit bigoted about their "preeminence" in amateur radio so they don't look at much of what the rest of the world is deciding by theirselves. 5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty. The FCC, now has an open comment period for discussion of the proposed change. Well, the Federal Register for 5 Aug 05 doesn't have any mention of either 05-143 or 05-235...in fact doesn't have any mention of the FCC at all. Neither have I had any response to a query to the FCC on whether or not the Comment period has "officially" started. We will have to assume that it has started since, on the 13th day of opening of an ECFS slot (for 05-235), there are almost 700 Comments! 6. Unless some great new and profound reason to retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235 comment process, any prospect of keeping any code test is just not going to happen. The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs have been rehashing) have no chance of winning out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc. Well, we didn't have the Homeland Security angle in '98. :-) [that Department didn't exist then...] 7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't going to happen either. For two reasons: (a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and The process of rule making is abundantly clear to those who wish to see examples on the FCC website...or bother to look in volume 1 of the 5-volume printed version of Title 47 C.F.R. One does NOT need to go to law school to understand 99+ percent of that. Hundreds of examples of the recent past in civil radio to observe. Too many have the false idea that "ham regs" are established as if done in a local club or membership group. Not so since the laws ARE laws, not "by-laws" and must follow legalities of much precedence, possible review by the courts later, and their effect on ALL citizens, not just the clubhouse folks. Amateur radio is really a very small part of the activity of the FCC...one indicator is that the "Amatuer" page from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau page doesn't have any "headline" entries after 2002...obviously there were a lot of things happening after 2002 but 455 12th St SW folks just haven't bothered to update it. (b) The majority of current comments are actually running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total elimination of code testing. On the 13th day of commenting on 05-235, whether "official" or not, the ratio of For:Against on the NPRM is hovering around 3:1 in favor of For as of about 1 PM Eastern time with 680 entries. That's an overall average of 52 comments a day. Note: The above doesn't take into account the "in-betweeners" who agree that "lower-class" licensees should not be code- tested but Extras or Extras and Generals should be code-tested. In-betweeners account for about 10 percent of total comments. Those in-betweeners could be taken into the For side or the Against side but a rather clear majority FOR the NPRM would still ensue, the ratio still ABOVE 2:1 in favor of FOR. Now it is predictable that someone will rationalize "the sampling is too small" or that "we must wait to see the 'true' trend" but that is still little more than spite on their part. Morse code testing is a HIGHLY polarized subject and there has been a two-decade growing opinion to get rid of it as a federal regulation. It should now be abundantly clear that the MAJORITY feels it should be eliminated. What is most strange to me is that there is so little mention of the Against side on establishing an "ex-officio" (i.e., not by federal regulation) radiotelegraphy award or certificate of merit by a NEW group to demonstrate the alleged efficacy of morsemanship skills. I can see only two commenters hinting at that. Now if morsemanship is so darn good, so superb, so attractive to all who try it, then it would be natural to assume at least one new group to spring into existance pushing for morsemanship. All that appears in the comments Against are the tired old cliches and morsemyths which have been seen by me for a half century. Those old warhorse maxims just haven't done the job to attract enough. Those who have made it through the federal tests rationalize that "it is still good" but they are just whistling in the graveyard...they are in the MINORITY now and they are (as they should be) very uncomfortable. dit rid |
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be. Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew. Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy beltway-style actually works. Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT. w3rv Bottom line here... 1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143). 2. Thousands of comments were filed with various rationals in support of code testing....the FCC in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every pro-code test argument.... 3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test was because of the international treaty requiring a code test. 4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of any code test requirement in the international treaty with almost unanomous agreement by the countries to do so. 5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty. The FCC, now has an open comment period for discussion of the proposed change. 6. Unless some great new and profound reason to retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235 comment process, any prospect of keeping any code test is just not going to happen. The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs have been rehashing) have no chance of winning out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc. 7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't going to happen either. For two reasons: (a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and (b) The majority of current comments are actually running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total elimination of code testing. Whoa Bill, slow down before you pop something, take a deep breath and relax. It's only ham radio and it's only USENET. I fully agree, the code test game was over years ago. Cheers, Bill K2UNK w3rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com