|
Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm firmly convinced that many of the people that think of Element 1 as the "great barrier" will be dismayed when they find out that there are other barriers to Amateur radio. "I tried but I'm just not able to learn the code." I heard it in the 1950's and I still hear it today. The global-standard copout which probably goes back to 1912. Putting together a station is probably harder for most people than learning Morse code. Putting together a *good* station is definitely so. Agreed. The upcoming wave of nocode Extras and Generals will have to face and resolve the same age-old problems us 20wpm OFs have faced for decades when it comes to put up or shut up time as it relates to actually operating in the HF bands. Like being able to spend the money it takes to acquire decent HF equipment, having the ingenuity and knowledge needed to home-brew decent antennas for constricted spaces for instance, ditto solving QRN and RFI problems, etc. Those have always been far bigger HF show-stoppers than the code tests ever were and will continue to be so. Those who want to get on HF badly enough will by one means or another. Those who can't be bothered with learning the code, spending the money, doing the learning and the physical work required to get on HF won't get on HF. In some huge percentage of cases those in this category are the same bunch who have been eagerly waiting for the code test "barrier" to completely disappear so that they can upgrade to HF tickets. I expect that after the smoke and flames die down there won't be any noticeable differences in the HF bands between now and 2010 as result of eliminating the code tests. Which is where the rubber actually hits the road. - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I'm firmly convinced that many of the people that think of Element 1 as the "great barrier" will be dismayed when they find out that there are other barriers to Amateur radio. "I tried but I'm just not able to learn the code." I heard it in the 1950's and I still hear it today. The global-standard copout which probably goes back to 1912. ah yes accusing everyone that disagrees of laziness we have been hearing that a long time too In 1912 there were reason you needed to be able to USE morse code, today there is no NEED to USE it at all and yte we test for for it awhile longer Putting together a station is probably harder for most people than learning Morse code. Putting together a *good* station is definitely so. Agreed. The upcoming wave of nocode Extras and Generals will have to face and resolve the same age-old problems us 20wpm OFs have faced for decades when it comes to put up or shut up time as it relates to actually operating in the HF bands. Like being able to spend the money it takes to acquire decent HF equipment, having the ingenuity and already got a decent rig, and one since it has VHF and UHF abilities I have been the air for years with knowledge needed to home-brew decent antennas for constricted spaces I don't need to to worry about constricted spaces I at least own 58 acress I don't think that even 160m will be a problem for instance, ditto solving QRN and RFI problems, etc. Those have always been far bigger HF show-stoppers than the code tests ever were and will continue to be so. and you make this statement why? it seems to have no point Those who want to get on HF badly enough will by one means or another. Those who can't be bothered with learning the code, cut not much longer spending the money, doing the learning and the physical work required to get on HF won't learnign how to operate hf before geting on it a weird and impossible idea get on HF. In some huge percentage of cases those in this category are the same bunch who have been eagerly waiting for the code test "barrier" to completely disappear so that they can upgrade to HF tickets. I can operate (physicaly not legaly) Now, indeed my station has operated on HF during a phone failure and power failure (some idoit and back hoe as I understand) my station Operated using the fact I make most of my own power already took someone coming over and "Blessing me" to do so I expect that after the smoke and flames die down there won't be any noticeable differences in the HF bands between now and 2010 as result of eliminating the code tests. Which is where the rubber actually hits the road. why 2010? given that there hearable deference in those band between now and 2000 (numbers down) just staying the same will be not a bad peice of work - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
an old friend wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I'm firmly convinced that many of the people that think of Element 1 as the "great barrier" will be dismayed when they find out that there are other barriers to Amateur radio. "I tried but I'm just not able to learn the code." I heard it in the 1950's and I still hear it today. The global-standard copout which probably goes back to 1912. ah yes accusing everyone that disagrees of laziness we have been hearing that a long time too In 1912 there were reason you needed to be able to USE morse code, today there is no NEED to USE it at all and yte we test for for it awhile longer I can't find any real reason why there is any need for testing for anything in Amateur radio any more. That doesn't mean that I don't support testing. It means that Hams and our regulatory bodies have to get together and form a consensus on just what we *want* Amateur radio to be. Do we want it to be a body of people with some form of technical knowledge? So be it. We can do that But we can indeed turn the Amateur bands into something else indeed. We can channelize them, we can eliminate experimentation, we can reduce maximum power levels, and we can ensure that only type accepted equipment is used. At that point, we can eliminate testing altogether. Putting together a station is probably harder for most people than learning Morse code. Putting together a *good* station is definitely so. Agreed. The upcoming wave of nocode Extras and Generals will have to face and resolve the same age-old problems us 20wpm OFs have faced for decades when it comes to put up or shut up time as it relates to actually operating in the HF bands. Like being able to spend the money it takes to acquire decent HF equipment, having the ingenuity and already got a decent rig, and one since it has VHF and UHF abilities I have been the air for years with Think about other people. knowledge needed to home-brew decent antennas for constricted spaces I don't need to to worry about constricted spaces I at least own 58 acress I don't think that even 160m will be a problem Does everyone? Think big-picture. Our own personal circumstances are not everyones. for instance, ditto solving QRN and RFI problems, etc. Those have always been far bigger HF show-stoppers than the code tests ever were and will continue to be so. and you make this statement why? it seems to have no point The point is that of the barriers to HF use, Morse code use is not the biggest. Those who want to get on HF badly enough will by one means or another. Those who can't be bothered with learning the code, cut not much longer spending the money, doing the learning and the physical work required to get on HF won't learnign how to operate hf before geting on it a weird and impossible idea Perhaps people should drive automobiles for a couple years before getting their licenses? I learned how to operate on HF by being Elmered by other hams. There still are things to learn before getting on HF successfully and safely. Of course, that could change if we change amateur radio into what some people apparently desire. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I'm firmly convinced that many of the people that think of Element 1 as the "great barrier" will be dismayed when they find out that there are other barriers to Amateur radio. "I tried but I'm just not able to learn the code." I heard it in the 1950's and I still hear it today. The global-standard copout which probably goes back to 1912. ah yes accusing everyone that disagrees of laziness we have been hearing that a long time too In 1912 there were reason you needed to be able to USE morse code, today there is no NEED to USE it at all and yte we test for for it awhile longer I can't find any real reason why there is any need for testing for anything in Amateur radio any more. then propose that to the FCC That doesn't mean that I don't support testing. It means that Hams and our regulatory bodies have to get together and form a consensus on just what we *want* Amateur radio to be. Do we want it to be a body of people one the basic you basic premise is in error The rules MUST reflect what is in the interest of the PUBLIC, these are a subset of the PUBLIC airwaves Public regulation must reflect public interests with some form of technical knowledge? So be it. We can do that But we can indeed turn the Amateur bands into something else indeed. We can channelize them, we can eliminate experimentation, we can reduce maximum power levels, and we can ensure that only type accepted equipment is used. At that point, we can eliminate testing altogether. Putting together a station is probably harder for most people than learning Morse code. Putting together a *good* station is definitely so. Agreed. The upcoming wave of nocode Extras and Generals will have to face and resolve the same age-old problems us 20wpm OFs have faced for decades when it comes to put up or shut up time as it relates to actually operating in the HF bands. Like being able to spend the money it takes to acquire decent HF equipment, having the ingenuity and already got a decent rig, and one since it has VHF and UHF abilities I have been the air for years with Think about other people. Every Tech I know with all mode abilities all have at least ONE rig also able to do HF look at what is on the market knowledge needed to home-brew decent antennas for constricted spaces I don't need to to worry about constricted spaces I at least own 58 acress I don't think that even 160m will be a problem Does everyone? Think big-picture. Our own personal circumstances are not everyones. you presented as a absolute need an ability that doesn't aply to some of us. In other words you are making stuff up that ain't always so your rant was flawed, I punched a hole in it for instance, ditto solving QRN and RFI problems, etc. Those have always been far bigger HF show-stoppers than the code tests ever were and will continue to be so. and you make this statement why? it seems to have no point The point is that of the barriers to HF use, Morse code use is not the biggest. IYO Morse code USE is no barrair at all, hasn't been in years testing is of course a barriar and it is the Biggest one I have read article in QST on operating with crumy antennas (I remeber an article focusing on that) then you rattle off a list of "Barriars" that don't exist in many tech shacks Those who want to get on HF badly enough will by one means or another. Those who can't be bothered with learning the code, cut not much longer spending the money, doing the learning and the physical work required to get on HF won't learnign how to operate hf before geting on it a weird and impossible idea Perhaps people should drive automobiles for a couple years before getting their licenses? nope a silly idea I learned how to operate on HF by being Elmered by other hams. There still are things to learn before getting on HF successfully and safely. Bull**** I have set up on HF on FD operating on battery with no help at all and manged fine BTW I suggest that myself ifone has the choice planing on you first major operating being FD or something like that where you will KNOW someone is on the Air Of course, that could change if we change amateur radio into what some people apparently desire. no It already exists - Mike KB3EIA - |
From: Mike Coslo on Aug 6, 4:33 pm
an old friend wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: ah yes accusing everyone that disagrees of laziness we have been hearing that a long time too In 1912 there were reason you needed to be able to USE morse code, today there is no NEED to USE it at all and yte we test for for it awhile longer I can't find any real reason why there is any need for testing for anything in Amateur radio any more. Translation: "Whahhh, whahhh...the FCC is taking away Test Element 1 which I passed so make them take away the other three Test Elements which I passed!" Jay-suss, Coslo, you are one mean and spiteful mumbler... Michael, WT Docket 05-235 is ONLY about Test Element 1. That doesn't mean that I don't support testing. It means that Hams and our regulatory bodies have to get together and form a consensus on just what we *want* Amateur radio to be. "Consensus?!?" BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! If there was a "consensus" POSSIBLE, there wouldn't have been EIGHTEEN PETITIONS, all different, on a "new" amateur radio in the USA! What you (and most MMMs) "want" seems to be a fantasy idea of some kind of "radio expertise" allowed to use on certificates, after your name, and rationalization for all your posturing and elitist posings. A fantasyland where all can tell of their mighty amateur exploits, of "fish stories" of "catching the rare one," and strutting around like the cure for the common terrorist for "Homeland Security." BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! Do we want it to be a body of people with some form of technical knowledge? So be it. We can do that But we can indeed turn the Amateur bands into something else indeed. We can channelize them, we can eliminate experimentation, we can reduce maximum power levels, and we can ensure that only type accepted equipment is used. At that point, we can eliminate testing altogether. More translation: "Whaaaah, whaaaah, I took a morse test and passed and that makes me Very Technical Knowledgeable and those who don't or can't are 'dumbed down!' Waaaa, waaaa..." Tsk, tsk, tsk. WT Docket 05-235 and any subsequent R&O based on that is NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE CONTENTS OF 97.1 in Title 47 C.F.R. In case you've forgotten, that's the DEFINITION of "amateur radio" from the FCC, the agency that regulates amateur radio. You MAY be talking about the ARRL's idea of "what amateur radio is all about" which seems to center around "working DX on HF with CW." or "working CW contacts on HF for an 'official' (ARRL) contest." Does WT Docket 05-235 TAKE AWAY EXPERIMENTATION? NO. Does WT Docket 05-235 MANDATE TYPE-ACCEPTED EQUIPMENT? NO. Does WT Docket 05-235 MAKE ALL THE BANDS "CHANNELIZED?" NO. Does WT Docket 05-235 MANDATE NEW RF OUT POWER LEVELS? NO. Putting together a station is probably harder for most people than learning Morse code. Putting together a *good* station is definitely so. Wow, "really HARD!" Walk into an HRO holding a little plastic card and point to what you want on display, saying "I want that." Ask for an antenna to put up and select from a large variety of them for ANY ham band. Swipe the card in their reader and Voila! it is YOURS. Take home the boxes, open them up, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS PACKED IN EACH BOX, and install. Whether or not that will be a "good" station depends on the balance in your card's account, how glorious a review it got in QST, and whether or not you bothered to read the install instructions. Agreed. The upcoming wave of nocode Extras and Generals will have to face and resolve the same age-old problems us 20wpm OFs have faced for decades when it comes to put up or shut up time as it relates to actually operating in the HF bands. Like being able to spend the money it takes to acquire decent HF equipment, having the ingenuity and already got a decent rig, and one since it has VHF and UHF abilities I have been the air for years with Think about other people. Tsk, tsk. THINK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE, yes. THINK ABOUT THE THREE OTHERS BESIDES YOURSELF THAT DO NOT WANT THAT CODE TEST!!! Coslo, the average NCTA v. PCTA ratio is hovering around 3:1. It varies from day to day, but the virtual "poll" in the Comments to WT Docket 05-235 make it GREATER than 2:1. You are only thinking of YOURSELF and winning message points in here... Perhaps people should drive automobiles for a couple years before getting their licenses? Oh, my, the "LICENSE" thing again! :-) Tsk, tsk, good old reducto ad absurdum technique. I learned to OPERATE as well as maintain HIGH-POWER HF Transmitters a half century ago WITHOUT ANY "LICENSE" WHATSOEVER and WITHOUT HAVING TO KNOW OR USE MORSE CODE. Those RADIO OWNERS AND OPERATORS using Part 95 radios "need licenses?" I learned how to operate on HF by being Elmered by other hams. There still are things to learn before getting on HF successfully and safely. I recall only a few days of "on the job training" in the Army with "elmering" (not yet in vogue as a term in ham radio then) being simply "do this, do that, dip the plate and peak the grid, do NOT hold onto this when in standby because it will KILL you." BFD. All the rest was PROCEDURE, how the frequency got checked, what the TTY order-wire stuff meant, regulations, and lots of specific other things. It was NOT "rocket science" and AMATEUR radio IS NOT A JOB. Repeat: AMATEUR RADIO IS NOT A JOB. If you screw up operating your own hobby radio, you will NOT BE FIRED and nobody will DOCK YOUR PAY. Of course, that could change if we change amateur radio into what some people apparently desire. Third translation: "Waaaa, waaaa, them damn no-coders are gonna take away the FANTASY I bought into...me, a big time national asset to homeland security and a 'serviceman' in the service of the nation!" Jay-suss, the Mighty Macho Morseman won't be "banned," the "bands" (a colloquial hamname for HF) won't change, and extras will NOT be forced to retest! Elimination of Test Element 1 will do ONLY ONE thing: FREE newcomers and "upgraders" of having to take a morse code cognition test. Nothing more. YOU won't have to give up a thing...except your fantasies pounded into your brain by the fearsome gods of all morsemen working in Newington. You won't even be excommunicated from the Church of St. Hiram! boo his |
From: Mike Coslo on Aug 6, 7:23 am
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: 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). I thought so to. But why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years ago, after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement? Institutional inertia. INCORRECT. 1. The LAW (try the Communications Act of 1934 for starters) doesn't work that way. 2. The FCC could legally do it just the same but would face later LAW in the Courts from all the outraged membership organizations, enough to delay everything for years more. 3. The ARRL lobbyists (both the law firm and the lobbying firm) were dead set against the FCC doing anything without "the League's Permission." Is there any chance that *any* pro-code-test discussion will have *any* effect on the outcome? Negative. ANY negative with another negative added to it will still be NEGATIVE. Suppose - just suppose - that after all the comments are in, the majority of commenters support at least some code testing. Will FCC change their position? I believe that the way the argument is framed is critical. It seems that the argument has been put forth about getting rid of a regulation. And we all "know" that regulation is a bad thing. Element 1 goes away. I consider the odds of it staying are about the same as a singularity popping up. WOW! Those SOUR GRAPES ripened FAST...you've already made gallons of WHINE out of it! Prosit. Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of Hams are of the same opinion? *Is* it a representative sample? Does that matter? No it doesn't' matter. I simply want to point out to people such as Bill and Jhxn that the comments are not even close to a statistically proper poll. I expect better out of Bill. Wow! You WHINE-tipplers better not drive anywhere...you are DUI. Tsk, is your definition of "representative sample" equivalent to WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN? Silly question, of course it is! Now, if the ARRL had conducted a "poll," it would be absolutely, positively, peachy-keen ACCURATE...even if the poll respondents were League members and good, God-fearing Morsemen of high rate! BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hee haw |
Mike Coslo wrote:
*Why* should there be any testing? Listen to 11 meters and see why. |
Bill Sohl wrote:
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 :-) And yet we'll wait hours or even days for a reply to a NG post. This form of communicating has to be about the slowest. 73 Bill, Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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? How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever build anything? Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit. however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there are examples of this already in some countries. If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. 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. A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a regulatory function for any testing whatsoever. Not so. Part 97 gives reasons Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden and eliminate the barriers? If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. AND, the international treaty still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge of radio, etc. There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including ours have worked their way around the rules. I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination. I disagree, but again.... If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. *Why* should there be any testing? If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your comments with the FCC accordingly. I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now, Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the testing requirements. If not, I am now. OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however. I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools available to people who feel otherwise. What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of and for what use? You lost me on that last comment. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message egroups.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.... They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread. 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. Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of Hams are of the same opinion? Yes I do. Some 10 years ago the ARRL conducted a survey of asking about code retention and the results then were pretty close. With 10 years now passed, lots of new hams, many older hams now SK, the results today would, I believe, show a majority in favor of ending code testing. I'm surprised, Bill. If a scientifically structured poll was made, I would likely accept the results, whether I agreed with those results or not. The comments in this case are largely useless as for any thing representing the majority of amateurs. You have a good thesis in your last paragraph, but that is your thesis, which you are willing to validate by an amazingly imprecise poll. And just how/who would you have fund and conduct a precise poll? Me? ARRL? FCC? *Is* it a representative sample? Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample? When I go to the polls, I know that my vote is counted (barring shennagins!) and if I vote for the winner, my candidate wins, if I vote for the loser, my candidate doesn't. Well here's the problem you face...FCC rules are not voted on by hams or anyone else via the comments filed. posting any comment on this issue has no effect on the outcome. I know that, you know that, and I choose not to comment for that reason. Your choice. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort? - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, did you just associate the word effort with NCI? This is more about the elimination of "effort." -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in
ink.net: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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? How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever build anything? Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit. however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there are examples of this already in some countries. If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. 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. A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a regulatory function for any testing whatsoever. Not so. Part 97 gives reasons Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden and eliminate the barriers? If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. AND, the international treaty still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge of radio, etc. There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including ours have worked their way around the rules. I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination. I disagree, but again.... If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. *Why* should there be any testing? If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your comments with the FCC accordingly. I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now, Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the testing requirements. If not, I am now. OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however. I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools available to people who feel otherwise. What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of and for what use? You lost me on that last comment. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Although there are some licences that don't allow homebrew, none of them allow full power, i.e. I don't think anywhere has banned homebrew altogether. Of course, there are different ideas of what reduced power means, i.e. 10w in the UK where full power is only 400w, versus 200w in Canada where full power is 2,250w! There may be more attempts to get a lower level licence in the US, maybe by Fred Maia, but the FCC has made it pretty clear in recent comments IMHO that they think the Tech is easy enough, so I don't think it will ever happen. End of story. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
From: "b.b." on Sat 6 Aug 2005 18:18
wrote: 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! [wasn't there in the Federal Register for 5 Aug 05 either...] 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... :-) That's impossible. FISTS is non-political, and all things Morse Code related are PURE! So that's impossible. Completely impossible. To morsemen minds, that's absolutely true. They think there is no better "music" than the on-off keying of an RF carrier wave by the mislabeled "international language" of morse code. ALL "interested in [ham] radio MUST test for that skill...to "show dedication and committment to the amateur community" (which consists of the individual mind of each morseman in their hive-collective). 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't need no steenking rules! :-) Bet Steve got "steenking Badges!" Stebie's cigar box of medals really needs an air freshener... 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. Same Stuff, Different Millenium. Poor feller hasn't learned to "play well with others" in six years. I've given up on optimism of his changing enough to get along with others. As Jeswald likes to say, "Ya 'jes cain't fix stupid." fix not |
From: Alun L. Palmer on Aug 7, 10:29 am
"Bill Sohl" wrote in "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your comments with the FCC accordingly. I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now, Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the testing requirements. If not, I am now. OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however. I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools available to people who feel otherwise. What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of and for what use? You lost me on that last comment. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Although there are some licences that don't allow homebrew, none of them allow full power, i.e. I don't think anywhere has banned homebrew altogether. Of course, there are different ideas of what reduced power means, i.e. 10w in the UK where full power is only 400w, versus 200w in Canada where full power is 2,250w! "Full power" is a very subjective term. That's NOT an issue in WT Docket 05-235 regardless of how many are trying to ignite differing wars of words in here. No problem on power output for those that learn what to do. I've operated 40 KW peak-power HF transmitters with as much ease as handling a 20 W peak-power HF transceiver on a manpack (AN/PRC-104). From RF power levels of around 100 W output, there's a proportional increase in possible damage to the human body with higher powers, plus a greater primary power demand (i.e., higher electricity bills), and greater cooling necessity in warm climates. Not to mention increasing out of pocket expenses whether the transmitter is home-built or ready-built. There may be more attempts to get a lower level licence in the US, maybe by Fred Maia, but the FCC has made it pretty clear in recent comments IMHO that they think the Tech is easy enough, so I don't think it will ever happen. End of story. The ARRL has blessed and sactified the "entry level license" as Technician class...which should be the end-all of that, should it not? :-) Curiously, the ARRL once upon a time lobbied long and hard to get the ORIGINAL "entry level license" of Novice and did get it. Yet, they fell down on the job of supporting it in following years. Novice class numbers have been decreasing for over a dozen years, longer than the existance of the no-code-test Technician class license. However, WT Docket 05-235 doesn't call for a "new license class" or change any class names or even talk about an "entry level." All it does is propose to eliminate the morse code test for ALL U.S. amateur radio license classes. WT Docket 05-235 is NOT about any "restructuring" of rules save for the regulations about Test Element 1. However, if the code test is eliminated, it will be the Death of Ham Radio As They Know It to the rabid morsemen and they will mourn its passing with mighty lamentations, sack cloth, and ashes. The majority of amateur radio hobbyists will continue on, adjusting to the new regulations, and possibly embrace NEWER things besides a primitive communications coding first used 161 years ago. old new |
an old friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I'm firmly convinced that many of the people that think of Element 1 as the "great barrier" will be dismayed when they find out that there are other barriers to Amateur radio. "I tried but I'm just not able to learn the code." I heard it in the 1950's and I still hear it today. The global-standard copout which probably goes back to 1912. ah yes accusing everyone that disagrees of laziness we have been hearing that a long time too In 1912 there were reason you needed to be able to USE morse code, today there is no NEED to USE it at all and yte we test for for it awhile longer I can't find any real reason why there is any need for testing for anything in Amateur radio any more. then propose that to the FCC Why do you and Bill keep saying that? I have made it clear on many occasions that I don't support such a thing. That doesn't mean that I don't support testing. It means that Hams and our regulatory bodies have to get together and form a consensus on just what we *want* Amateur radio to be. Do we want it to be a body of people one the basic you basic premise is in error The rules MUST reflect what is in the interest of the PUBLIC, these are a subset of the PUBLIC airwaves Public regulation must reflect public interests Heheh There is another argument in favor of no testing. If the public interest is having barriers removed, then there should be no testing in order to allow more people to become hams. Thanks for the point! with some form of technical knowledge? So be it. We can do that But we can indeed turn the Amateur bands into something else indeed. We can channelize them, we can eliminate experimentation, we can reduce maximum power levels, and we can ensure that only type accepted equipment is used. At that point, we can eliminate testing altogether. Putting together a station is probably harder for most people than learning Morse code. Putting together a *good* station is definitely so. Agreed. The upcoming wave of nocode Extras and Generals will have to face and resolve the same age-old problems us 20wpm OFs have faced for decades when it comes to put up or shut up time as it relates to actually operating in the HF bands. Like being able to spend the money it takes to acquire decent HF equipment, having the ingenuity and already got a decent rig, and one since it has VHF and UHF abilities I have been the air for years with Think about other people. Every Tech I know with all mode abilities all have at least ONE rig also able to do HF And none that I know do. look at what is on the market knowledge needed to home-brew decent antennas for constricted spaces I don't need to to worry about constricted spaces I at least own 58 acress I don't think that even 160m will be a problem Does everyone? Think big-picture. Our own personal circumstances are not everyones. you presented as a absolute need an ability that doesn't aply to some of us. Of course it doesn't apply to some people. It sounds like your idea of testing is to have a separate test for every facet of Ham radio. In other words you are making stuff up that ain't always so your rant was flawed, I punched a hole in it Okay, that is what you consider punching a hole in my argument?? So be it..... - Mike KB3EIA - |
Len:
I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:39:27 -0700, LenAnderson wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Aug 6, 7:23 am wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: 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). I thought so to. But why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years ago, after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement? Institutional inertia. INCORRECT. 1. The LAW (try the Communications Act of 1934 for starters) doesn't work that way. 2. The FCC could legally do it just the same but would face later LAW in the Courts from all the outraged membership organizations, enough to delay everything for years more. 3. The ARRL lobbyists (both the law firm and the lobbying firm) were dead set against the FCC doing anything without "the League's Permission." Is there any chance that *any* pro-code-test discussion will have *any* effect on the outcome? Negative. ANY negative with another negative added to it will still be NEGATIVE. Suppose - just suppose - that after all the comments are in, the majority of commenters support at least some code testing. Will FCC change their position? I believe that the way the argument is framed is critical. It seems that the argument has been put forth about getting rid of a regulation. And we all "know" that regulation is a bad thing. Element 1 goes away. I consider the odds of it staying are about the same as a singularity popping up. WOW! Those SOUR GRAPES ripened FAST...you've already made gallons of WHINE out of it! Prosit. Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of Hams are of the same opinion? *Is* it a representative sample? Does that matter? No it doesn't' matter. I simply want to point out to people such as Bill and Jhxn that the comments are not even close to a statistically proper poll. I expect better out of Bill. Wow! You WHINE-tipplers better not drive anywhere...you are DUI. Tsk, is your definition of "representative sample" equivalent to WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN? Silly question, of course it is! Now, if the ARRL had conducted a "poll," it would be absolutely, positively, peachy-keen ACCURATE...even if the poll respondents were League members and good, God-fearing Morsemen of high rate! BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hee haw |
John Smith wrote: Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! gee you are leting Me out of that hrrrrmph We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:39:27 -0700, LenAnderson wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Aug 6, 7:23 am wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: 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). I thought so to. But why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years ago, after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement? Institutional inertia. INCORRECT. 1. The LAW (try the Communications Act of 1934 for starters) doesn't work that way. 2. The FCC could legally do it just the same but would face later LAW in the Courts from all the outraged membership organizations, enough to delay everything for years more. 3. The ARRL lobbyists (both the law firm and the lobbying firm) were dead set against the FCC doing anything without "the League's Permission." Is there any chance that *any* pro-code-test discussion will have *any* effect on the outcome? Negative. ANY negative with another negative added to it will still be NEGATIVE. Suppose - just suppose - that after all the comments are in, the majority of commenters support at least some code testing. Will FCC change their position? I believe that the way the argument is framed is critical. It seems that the argument has been put forth about getting rid of a regulation. And we all "know" that regulation is a bad thing. Element 1 goes away. I consider the odds of it staying are about the same as a singularity popping up. WOW! Those SOUR GRAPES ripened FAST...you've already made gallons of WHINE out of it! Prosit. Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of Hams are of the same opinion? *Is* it a representative sample? Does that matter? No it doesn't' matter. I simply want to point out to people such as Bill and Jhxn that the comments are not even close to a statistically proper poll. I expect better out of Bill. Wow! You WHINE-tipplers better not drive anywhere...you are DUI. Tsk, is your definition of "representative sample" equivalent to WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN? Silly question, of course it is! Now, if the ARRL had conducted a "poll," it would be absolutely, positively, peachy-keen ACCURATE...even if the poll respondents were League members and good, God-fearing Morsemen of high rate! BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hee haw |
Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I'm firmly convinced that many of the people that think of Element 1 as the "great barrier" will be dismayed when they find out that there are other barriers to Amateur radio. "I tried but I'm just not able to learn the code." I heard it in the 1950's and I still hear it today. The global-standard copout which probably goes back to 1912. ah yes accusing everyone that disagrees of laziness we have been hearing that a long time too In 1912 there were reason you needed to be able to USE morse code, today there is no NEED to USE it at all and yte we test for for it awhile longer I can't find any real reason why there is any need for testing for anything in Amateur radio any more. then propose that to the FCC Why do you and Bill keep saying that? I have made it clear on many occasions that I don't support such a thing. then why bring it up unless Len is right and you are just whining about it That doesn't mean that I don't support testing. It means that Hams and our regulatory bodies have to get together and form a consensus on just what we *want* Amateur radio to be. Do we want it to be a body of people one the basic you basic premise is in error The rules MUST reflect what is in the interest of the PUBLIC, these are a subset of the PUBLIC airwaves Public regulation must reflect public interests Heheh There is another argument in favor of no testing. If the public interest is having barriers removed, then there should be no testing in order to allow more people to become hams. Thanks for the point! Indeed If it serves the public interest to end testing we should do that, But then the question is, does it serve the public interest to end testing? I don't think so clearly neither does Bill the arguement the less testing= more hams does indeed work to a point, but you have taken it to the absurd clearly the public interest is in having the ARS work fairly well and be as large as pratcical. It is also in the public interest of the US that we obey the ITU treaty (as amended over the years) which requires some testing. The currect tech pool (the only pool I am famier with personaly being a tech seem OK I would shift some stuff off and more of some other stuff on, but the result would be roughly as hard, so I am basicaly satified that thing are OK on that score with some form of technical knowledge? So be it. We can do that But we can indeed turn the Amateur bands into something else indeed. We can channelize them, we can eliminate experimentation, we can reduce maximum power levels, and we can ensure that only type accepted equipment is used. At that point, we can eliminate testing altogether. Putting together a station is probably harder for most people than learning Morse code. Putting together a *good* station is definitely so. Agreed. The upcoming wave of nocode Extras and Generals will have to face and resolve the same age-old problems us 20wpm OFs have faced for decades when it comes to put up or shut up time as it relates to actually operating in the HF bands. Like being able to spend the money it takes to acquire decent HF equipment, having the ingenuity and already got a decent rig, and one since it has VHF and UHF abilities I have been the air for years with Think about other people. Every Tech I know with all mode abilities all have at least ONE rig also able to do HF And none that I know do. how many tech you know with all mode rigs? I suppose there may be afew with multimode rigs and no HF but their are only rig comercail rig that way today The ICOM 910H ( i have one of those) ten tect used to have one I'll agree that going from FM only would be a jolt but YMMV look at what is on the market knowledge needed to home-brew decent antennas for constricted spaces I don't need to to worry about constricted spaces I at least own 58 acress I don't think that even 160m will be a problem Does everyone? Think big-picture. Our own personal circumstances are not everyones. you presented as a absolute need an ability that doesn't aply to some of us. Of course it doesn't apply to some people. It sounds like your idea of testing is to have a separate test for every facet of Ham radio. and that isa good or bad thing in your view BTW I do not suggest that having taken the say the QRP test that you can only run QRP etc In other words you are making stuff up that ain't always so your rant was flawed, I punched a hole in it Okay, that is what you consider punching a hole in my argument?? you calim all these hams need and don't have the rig many do all need to HOME brew an antenna you went on and on about the barriars. In the younger population base they buy SUVs costing as much 60+ K and buy them every few years a few grand is not much for something that will last quite awhile, takes a bit of nerve to take the step but it is hardly a Barriar equal to Morse Code So be it..... - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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? How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever build anything? Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit. however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there are examples of this already in some countries. If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. 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. A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a regulatory function for any testing whatsoever. Not so. Part 97 gives reasons Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden and eliminate the barriers? If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. AND, the international treaty still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge of radio, etc. There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including ours have worked their way around the rules. I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination. I disagree, but again.... If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. *Why* should there be any testing? If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your comments with the FCC accordingly. I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now, Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the testing requirements. If not, I am now. OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however. I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools available to people who feel otherwise. What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of and for what use? You lost me on that last comment. Yeah, after rereading it I wasn't very clear, Bill. I just fear that some of the Anti-Morse arguments might be adapted to gain other, less desirable changes in Amateur radio. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message legroups.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.... They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread. 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. Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of Hams are of the same opinion? Yes I do. Some 10 years ago the ARRL conducted a survey of asking about code retention and the results then were pretty close. With 10 years now passed, lots of new hams, many older hams now SK, the results today would, I believe, show a majority in favor of ending code testing. I'm surprised, Bill. If a scientifically structured poll was made, I would likely accept the results, whether I agreed with those results or not. The comments in this case are largely useless as for any thing representing the majority of amateurs. You have a good thesis in your last paragraph, but that is your thesis, which you are willing to validate by an amazingly imprecise poll. And just how/who would you have fund and conduct a precise poll? Me? ARRL? FCC? Oh, heck I don't know how! I'm not looking for a precise poll. My point is that comments on WT05-235 are only representative of the opinions of those who chose to comment. Standard disclaimer for an unscientific poll. I'd say the same if the results were the other way. No *way* could we work that data into anything statistically significant. *Is* it a representative sample? Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample? When I go to the polls, I know that my vote is counted (barring shennagins!) and if I vote for the winner, my candidate wins, if I vote for the loser, my candidate doesn't. Well here's the problem you face...FCC rules are not voted on by hams or anyone else via the comments filed. That is true, it's not my problem, and why I don't comment. posting any comment on this issue has no effect on the outcome. I know that, you know that, and I choose not to comment for that reason. Your choice. Quite! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bert Craig wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort? - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, did you just associate the word effort with NCI? This is more about the elimination of "effort." Just one of those little slips there Bert! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
There may be more attempts to get a lower level licence in the US, maybe by Fred Maia, but the FCC has made it pretty clear in recent comments IMHO that they think the Tech is easy enough, so I don't think it will ever happen. End of story. There is never an end of story, Alun! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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? How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever build anything? Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit. however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there are examples of this already in some countries. If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. 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. A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a regulatory function for any testing whatsoever. Not so. Part 97 gives reasons Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden and eliminate the barriers? If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. AND, the international treaty still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge of radio, etc. There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including ours have worked their way around the rules. I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination. I disagree, but again.... If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. *Why* should there be any testing? If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your comments with the FCC accordingly. I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now, Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the testing requirements. If not, I am now. OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however. I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools available to people who feel otherwise. What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of and for what use? You lost me on that last comment. Yeah, after rereading it I wasn't very clear, Bill. I just fear that some of the Anti-Morse arguments might be adapted to gain other, less desirable changes in Amateur radio. then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of decades - Mike KB3EIA - |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! John They won't get to it until they are over 40 themselves. Right now they are building their careers and raising families. Doesn't leave much time for the major commitment of being in charge of the ARRL. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
I was a boy scout leader in my late 20's into my early 30's, it was hard, my job made some allowances, heck, some of the people over me had kids in my troop. I think it can be done alright... Old pharts shine in positions like supreme court justices, you don't need the constitution to change all that much, indeed, in over 200 years it has been a real benefit NOT having much change at all... you just have to realize where you need young minds and where you need old ones... John On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:43:33 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! John They won't get to it until they are over 40 themselves. Right now they are building their careers and raising families. Doesn't leave much time for the major commitment of being in charge of the ARRL. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit. If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to pop the covers off our transmitters and make adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean operation. It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty equipment anymore. |
an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message om... 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? How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever build anything? Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit. however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there are examples of this already in some countries. If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. 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. A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a regulatory function for any testing whatsoever. Not so. Part 97 gives reasons Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden and eliminate the barriers? If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. AND, the international treaty still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge of radio, etc. There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including ours have worked their way around the rules. I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination. I disagree, but again.... If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every right to bring the idea forward. *Why* should there be any testing? If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your comments with the FCC accordingly. I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now, Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the testing requirements. If not, I am now. OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however. I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools available to people who feel otherwise. What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of and for what use? You lost me on that last comment. Yeah, after rereading it I wasn't very clear, Bill. I just fear that some of the Anti-Morse arguments might be adapted to gain other, less desirable changes in Amateur radio. then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of decades Didn't we cover this before somewhere? There is a long history of dancing around the treaty requirements. Like medical waivers for starters.... My notion of a book like "Now You're Talking!", and a signed affidavit by the prospective Ham could serve quite well for the "test" process. - Mike KB3EIA - |
John Smith wrote: Dee: I was a boy scout leader in my late 20's into my early 30's, it was hard, my job made some allowances, heck, some of the people over me had kids in my troop. I think it can be done alright... Old pharts shine in positions like supreme court justices, you don't need the constitution to change all that much, indeed, in over 200 years it has been a real benefit NOT having much change at all... you just have to realize where you need young minds and where you need old ones... It's like this "John": The ARRL is run by an elected, unpaid volunteer BoD. In any practical sense the ARRL cannot be changed from the outside but it can and has been changed from the inside. The "solution" is rather obvious isn't it "John"? So go round up all your ARRL like-minded member buddies and campaign to get one elected to the BoD to kick off the "revolution". In other words "John" "lead, follow or quit whining, trolling and sucking up pointless bandwidth" on the topic. John w3rv On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:43:33 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! John They won't get to it until they are over 40 themselves. Right now they are building their careers and raising families. Doesn't leave much time for the major commitment of being in charge of the ARRL. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John Smith wrote:
Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! We? Are you an ARRL member? Len certainly isn't. Dave K8MN |
Mike Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: cuting then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of decades Didn't we cover this before somewhere? There is a long history of dancing around the treaty requirements. Like medical waivers for starters.... nope you are simply in error. The waivers (only for speeds above 5wpm) needed no dance the old lang required only that Ham be tested for morse code, no speed was required, indeed we could if were dancing around the Treaty have said ok all Hams will tested we send every one of them a "." and if they answer that was E the requirement would have been met the higher speed tests were all the ARRL's idea, and they sold it to the FCC My notion of a book like "Now You're Talking!", and a signed affidavit by the prospective Ham could serve quite well for the "test" process. feel free to propose it and watch it get shot down. but if you truely believe that is all that should be required then you should be proposing it otherwise you are just blowing smoke - Mike KB3EIA - |
robert casey wrote: Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit. If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to pop the covers off our transmitters and make adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean operation. It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty equipment anymore. you know the last time the FCC busted a ham for faulty equipment |
an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: cuting then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of decades Didn't we cover this before somewhere? There is a long history of dancing around the treaty requirements. Like medical waivers for starters.... nope you are simply in error. The waivers (only for speeds above 5wpm) needed no dance Oops! I am indeed in error on that! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave:
When the arrl sees fit to serve amateur radio to its' best purpose, and the purpose of this country and its' citizens, I would be a fool not to be a member... I await future times... John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:31:56 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! We? Are you an ARRL member? Len certainly isn't. Dave K8MN |
Kelly:
I wish your mother would have told you it is not only pointless to attempt to control others, it is also impolite... not to mention fruitless... you guys, which attempt this meaningless control, make me ponder on what type of idiots you have surrounded yourself with, which would take orders? What do you call your little group, "Kellys' dummies?" Or, are you just pulling a fast one on us, and truth is they ignore you and march to their own drum? Are you sure you are an official in charge, or just self-appointed? I mean this all seems quite ridiculous, are you sure the world revolves upon your commands? I try to keep an open mind, even when ridiculous posturing people pose preposterous ideas. John On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:22:53 -0700, kelly wrote: John Smith wrote: Dee: I was a boy scout leader in my late 20's into my early 30's, it was hard, my job made some allowances, heck, some of the people over me had kids in my troop. I think it can be done alright... Old pharts shine in positions like supreme court justices, you don't need the constitution to change all that much, indeed, in over 200 years it has been a real benefit NOT having much change at all... you just have to realize where you need young minds and where you need old ones... It's like this "John": The ARRL is run by an elected, unpaid volunteer BoD. In any practical sense the ARRL cannot be changed from the outside but it can and has been changed from the inside. The "solution" is rather obvious isn't it "John"? So go round up all your ARRL like-minded member buddies and campaign to get one elected to the BoD to kick off the "revolution". In other words "John" "lead, follow or quit whining, trolling and sucking up pointless bandwidth" on the topic. John w3rv On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:43:33 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! John They won't get to it until they are over 40 themselves. Right now they are building their careers and raising families. Doesn't leave much time for the major commitment of being in charge of the ARRL. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
AOF:
Hey! You got proof the FCC is interested in an amateurs equipment? What, is it a gay organization now? John On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:40:09 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: robert casey wrote: Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit. If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to pop the covers off our transmitters and make adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean operation. It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty equipment anymore. you know the last time the FCC busted a ham for faulty equipment |
John Smith wrote:
Dave: When the arrl sees fit to serve amateur radio to its' best purpose, and the purpose of this country and its' citizens, I would be a fool not to be a member... I await future times... Sure, "John", let someone else do it all for you. Dave K8MN John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:31:56 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! We? Are you an ARRL member? Len certainly isn't. Dave K8MN |
John Smith wrote:
Kelly: I wish your mother would have told you it is not only pointless to attempt to control others, it is also impolite... not to mention fruitless... you guys, which attempt this meaningless control, make me ponder on what type of idiots you have surrounded yourself with, which would take orders? What do you call your little group, "Kellys' dummies?" Or, are you just pulling a fast one on us, and truth is they ignore you and march to their own drum? Are you sure you are an official in charge, or just self-appointed? Who is asking? I mean this all seems quite ridiculous, are you sure the world revolves upon your commands? I try to keep an open mind, even when ridiculous posturing people pose preposterous ideas. Well, there you go, "John". I'm trying to keep an open mind in reading your material. It isn't easy. Dave K8MN John On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:22:53 -0700, kelly wrote: John Smith wrote: Dee: I was a boy scout leader in my late 20's into my early 30's, it was hard, my job made some allowances, heck, some of the people over me had kids in my troop. I think it can be done alright... Old pharts shine in positions like supreme court justices, you don't need the constitution to change all that much, indeed, in over 200 years it has been a real benefit NOT having much change at all... you just have to realize where you need young minds and where you need old ones... It's like this "John": The ARRL is run by an elected, unpaid volunteer BoD. In any practical sense the ARRL cannot be changed from the outside but it can and has been changed from the inside. The "solution" is rather obvious isn't it "John"? So go round up all your ARRL like-minded member buddies and campaign to get one elected to the BoD to kick off the "revolution". In other words "John" "lead, follow or quit whining, trolling and sucking up pointless bandwidth" on the topic. John w3rv On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:43:33 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message . .. Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! John They won't get to it until they are over 40 themselves. Right now they are building their careers and raising families. Doesn't leave much time for the major commitment of being in charge of the ARRL. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com