|
Docket Scorecard
From: Michael Coslo on Oct 19, 6:31 am
wrote: John Kasupski wrote: I can recall back in about 1975 or so, there was a proposal for a no-code "Communicator Class" license. It was shot down, largely due to opposition by ARRL. By widespread opposition by the amateur radio community. And it wasn't a stand-alone proposal - it was part of an FCC proposed restructuring that would have resulted in a 7 class "two ladder" license system, less than a decade after the "incentive licensing" changes. 1975 was also when cb was booming and FCC proposing to convert 220 to "Class E" cb. 1975 is also THIRTY YEARS AGO. :-) It was along about the same time that computers first became reasonably affordable for home use. You might want to check the dates, costs, and capabilities of what you're calling a "computer", John. A "computer" is an electronic apparatus that calculates according to a predetermined sequence of operations stored in memory. The first "low-cost computers" were exemplified by the 1969-debut of the Hewlett-Packard 9100 programmable desk calculator. [not a single IC in that model, by the way] Magnetic-card storage of programs (size of a credit card of today). CRT display of alphanumeric register contents. Very expensive by hobby standards (unaffordable by most) but it set a pattern. The general format/design has been carried through to the current HP 33S ($55 through HP mail-order) handheld programmable scientific calculator. A generation of technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham radio and its code testing. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Makes PERFECT SENSE to those involved, from buyers to sellers and the growth of the personal computer industry. Made Bill Gates the richest man in the USA... :-) Those early small computers weren't much in the way of communication devices. Look up what a 300 baud modem for a TRS-80 cost... Not a problem to most, really. I started up a second time with a new Apple ][+ in computer-modem communications in early December, 1984, got on local BBSs and had a ball from then on. Thirty years ago, 300 BPS was considered "fast" (in comparison to the "standard" rate of 100 BPS). It took a few years of modem development to reach 2400 BPS (decried as "impossible" on voice-grade telephone lines by so-called "experts" in comms). Took a few more years and some heavy research into Coding and Information theory to hit the now-top-rate of 56 KBPS. Meanwhile the Co$t of that developement had to be paid by somebody and that somebody was the consumer, the buyer. Thirty years ago, the offshore production of consumer electronics was just starting to make an impact on the market for such things and had not gotten into the small personal computer area. Much of the hardware for that area was still built domestically then. The reverse is true now. I think its called technical time shifting, Jim. Somehow all those early computers were imbued with all the features that the new ones have. That Timex computer can do everything my G5 can do apparently! 8^) Timex-Sinclair was a LATE-comer into the personal computer market. The first established generation of personal computers were the Intel 8080 MCPU systems running CP/M (the first popular DOS). The Motorola 6800 MCPU and then the MOS Technology 6502 MCPU (as used in the first kit Apple, the Apple I, then the Commodore C64 ready- built) began to change that. The Apple ][ series had almost seized the whole personal computer market of 1980 until IBM struck in 1981 and then Apple screwed up on new series designs, beginning with the Apple III. CP/M systems had gone down the tubes by then. The whole argument does this sort of thing. Assuming that for some reason people make a conscious choice between Ham radio and computers (and apparently between a hobby and a vocation) doesn't make sense to me. If they had more in common, maybe, but computers as a hobby tends to involve surfing the net these days, and as a vocation it means either working with programs or programming. The two don't meet except at the edges. That's only from YOUR personal experience. Prior to 1991 and the Internet going public-access, there was NO "net surfing"...no Internet to surf. BBSs were well established and growing by 1990 with tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) actively communicating on BBSs and BBS netwroks. Nearly everything in TEXT form and imagery largely confined to still pictures and games of rather crude (by today's standards) imagery/art. Games were a very popular market item. Real computer afficionados were into programming, by BASIC, by Assembler, by Pascal, the few with the first hard disks using compilers for compiled-source programs. Technically-inclined young people have *always* had lots of alternatives. Look up "Williamson amplifier" and see how many "hi-fi" folks were building their own audio systems in the 1940s and later. Lots of other examples. Change "1940s" for 'late 1950s' for that "Williamson." :-) Having been in that area as a hobbyist and once a suscriber to Audio Engineering magazine in the 1950s, "hi-fi" was about the ONLY area (other than ham radio) for hobbyists of the 50s. The industry development of good, affordable ICs was only just beginning with the one-package microprocessor about to change that radically. Maybe people who are interested in radio would go into a radio type hobby, and people who are interested in other things would be doing other things. Simple sort of concept. If you re-write "radio type" into "electronic type" you would get a different picture of the three decades from 1975 to now. Or of course we could assume that the Morse code test was what kept people from being hams, and then try to explain away why the first batch of Hams who didn't have to take a code test are the group that comprises the biggest part of the recent drop-off? Seems a strange conclusion. "Recent" drop-off? :-) The number of U.S. licensed amateurs has been steadily shrinking for two years. Not much of a shrinkage but nowhere close to keeping up with the population increase. Despite the snarling denial of amateur morsemen, the no-code-test Technician class license added about 200 thousand new licensees to the U.S. amateur radio database since it began. Without them there would have been NO peak of numbers in July, 2003, and the total numbers would have SHRUNK before the new millennium was entered. Never mind the "lumping of no-coders with code-tested techs" happening after Restructuring, the tabulations elsewhere show that the 200K additions by NO-CODERS actually happened BEFORE Restructuring. In my youth the hottest thing for the techno-kids was - cars. Old cars, new cars, fixing up junkers, customizing, improving performance, you name it. For less than the cost of a new ham rig, a kid could buy an old car, fix it up with simple tools and easy-to-get parts, and get it on the road. Even kids without licenses or the wherewithal to have a car would help friends work on their cars, both for the experience and in the hope of rides once the car was running. No form of radio could compete with wheels. That "youth" is rather long gone...but southern California is still the doityourself/custom car place showing how it is done, today. :-) A good (enough) car was a "scarf magnet" for young male teeners deep into testosterone flow. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit manufacturers vanished around this time period as well). [a regretable time shift there...were NO Sinclair models in 1975] In 1977 I bought and built a Heath HW-2036 2 meter rig. Cost a bit over $300. Still have it and it still works. Heath lasted a while longer after 1977. Heath is still around. They make a nice wireless doorbell (we have two transmitters and three receivers), ready-built. That's about IT. :-) Anyone using Timex-Sinclairs for ham use? I doubt it. CQ magazine used to feature all kinds of adaptations of the Commodore C64 series. Let's see...spend weeks learning an arcane code from the 1800s and then spend hundreds of bucks building a station, or skip the testing and spend $200 or so on a computer. I built ham stations for a less than $100 in those days. You might want to see how little a $200 computer would actually do. And you needed a TV set or monitor to use it. In 1980 it should not have been a problem to obtain an old TV set (even black and white) to use as a display (what you call a "monitor"). :-) Without tearing it apart to make an 80m CW rig rock-bound on 3.579545454 MHz, it could still pick up NTSC TV 25 years ago (nobody had any serious plans for "digital TV" back then). Seems to me that the biggest thing they could be used for is learning Basic programming. Okay. That isn't valuable at all? Tsk, tsk. :-) Thousands voted with their feet, and the best of a generation or two or three said to hell with radio and went into computers instead. "The best of a generation" went into computers? Hardly. I missed that one. They didn't go into choo-choos. :-) Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as posted by N2EY every other week. It occurs to few that the guys who might have become hams 25-30 years ago if it weren't for the code test are now holding down good paying jobs in the computer industry and probably wouldn't be interested in a ham ticket now if you handed them one gratis. Apples and oranges. "Apples and oranges?" Sounds like more sour whine from morsemen. Agribusiness did not grow through morsemanship...:-) Who is lamenting anyhow? I wish those new old Hams would have stuck around, but beyond that, big deal. Mostly those hams just let their ham licenses expire. How about that? :-) What I take from the statistics is that an early generation of Hams got their licenses without a whole lot of actual interest in radio. These were the "honeydo" hams, who used 2 meter repeaters to get a shopping list or the like on the way home from work. Their interests lay along those lines. ??? Is "radio" only that region called "HF" in the EM spectrum? There is "NO technical interest" in the frequencies above 30 MHz? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Well along came cell phones, and the honeydo'ers went to that. Cell phones are a better technology for getting a shopping list than using a repeater. That can't be! Cell phones are absolutely useless as comm devices according to all the morsemen...the Jay Leno show "proved that"... in every single emergency situation, cell phones are "useless." :-) Another subset of the dropoff is Hams who were somewhat interested in radio, but became bored. They dropped off too. I'm getting a bit bored by all this blather myself... :-) My prediction of what will happen after Element 1 is history is that there will be more new hams, and a higher attrition rate. People with only a passing interest will become Hams. There is not likely to be a net gain. I won't pass judgment on this being good or bad. It is just different. Tsk, from the output in here, much more judgement has been passed than has gas. [or, they are one and the same...] As of 17 Oct 05, 48.57% of all individual U.S. amateur radio licensees were Technicians...MOST of them not having taken any code tests. Guess they don't count, huh? :-) So far on WT Docket 05-235, the number of filings in only three months averages 866 per month. On WT Docket 98-143 (Restructuring) they averaged less than 205 per month over an 11-month period. Guess the morse code test is "unimportant" and, since PCs are "only used for surfing the net," it doesn't have any impact on input to the FCC, right? :-) |
Docket Scorecard
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: John Kasupski wrote: There are some bargains out there. I routinely see 1.2 or 1.4 gb machines with monitors and keyboards for $100-175. That's driven mostly by "offshore" manufacturing, which used to mean Mexico or Japan but now usually means China. Assuming that for some reason people make a conscious choice between Ham radio and computers (and apparently between a hobby and a vocation) doesn't make sense to me. If they had more in common, maybe, but computers as a hobby tends to involve surfing the net these days, and as a vocation it means either working with programs or programming. The two don't meet except at the edges. I think the point is that computers somehow stole the spotlight from ham radio. Perhaps that's true - but would eliminating the code test have done anything to prevent it? Not really. If you are interested in becoming a ham, you find a way to become a ham. Most hams I know are computer users as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. Exactly. First off, the field of "computing" covers a lot of ground, of which communcations/networking is only one part. There's also word and document processing, accounting (in many forms), graphics and image applications (again in many forms), games, training/educational applications (like learning Morse Code...), and much more that can be done on a stand-alone PC. Plus all the associated hardware. Look at the things a ham might do with a computer. I use mine for Packet Cluster DX spots, routine logging, contest logging, awards tracking, propagation forcasting, RTTY/AMTOR/Pactor operation, satellite tracking, antenna modeling, electronic calculations and more. Equipment and parts inventory, circuit simulation, drafting (the dial scale of the Southgate Type 7 was drawn in CAD and printed on Mylar with an inkjet printer). Also retrieval and storage of all kinds of info (most of the HB-3 tube manual set is online, downloadable by type). Ham radio is communications, remote control, associated hardware, and not much else, really. Technically-inclined young people have *always* had lots of alternatives. Look up "Williamson amplifier" and see how many "hi-fi" folks were building their own audio systems in the 1940s and later. Lots of other examples. Maybe people who are interested in radio would go into a radio type hobby, and people who are interested in other things would be doing other things. Simple sort of concept. Yup. Or of course we could assume that the Morse code test was what kept people from being hams, and then try to explain away why the first batch of Hams who didn't have to take a code test are the group that comprises the biggest part of the recent drop-off? Seems a strange conclusion. Whole bunch of factors. For one thing, since FCC has been renewing all Tech Pluses as Techs for more than 5-1/2 years, you can't assume that a Tech isn't code-tested just from the license class. In my youth the hottest thing for the techno-kids was - cars. Old cars, new cars, fixing up junkers, customizing, improving performance, you name it. For less than the cost of a new ham rig, a kid could buy an old car, fix it up with simple tools and easy-to-get parts, and get it on the road. Even kids without licenses or the wherewithal to have a car would help friends work on their cars, both for the experience and in the hope of rides once the car was running. No form of radio could compete with wheels. That sort of thing has become a niche activity. Part of the reason is that cars are more complex and harder to work on. Another is that increased affluence, decreased average family size and the perception of a car as a necessity have made it more likely that parents will help a kid get a car, rather than the kid being expected to do it all on his/her own. I think most kids are still interesting in adding chrome doodads, lights, fancy tires and very hefty stereo sets which will shake a quarter mile of asphalt. Sure, but that's not the same thing as what I was talking about. Like when I helped Dan Mullen pull the cracked head from his Nova, clean off all the carbon and put on a rebuilt one. When we were both in high school. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit manufacturers vanished around this time period as well). In 1977 I bought and built a Heath HW-2036 2 meter rig. Cost a bit over $300. Still have it and it still works. Heath lasted a while longer after 1977. Anyone using Timex-Sinclairs for ham use? I dunno, but the old 2036 still perks. Lots of older ham gear is still perfectly usable today, where old computers are usually just curiosities. I had a 2036 but I had to keep a diddle stick handy for touching up the VCO periodically. Never had that problem. I later had the VF-7401, a bit better beast. They were still selling HW-16s in 1977 IIRC. Let's see...spend weeks learning an arcane code from the 1800s and then spend hundreds of bucks building a station, or skip the testing and spend $200 or so on a computer. More like $200 on a *modem*... Those early computers required that you learn all sorts of arcane 'codes' to make them work. A typo could cause all kinds of havoc, too. And the models changed relatively quickly so that what you learned on one system was usually not very useful on a newer one. The time spent to learn Morse Code is/was trivial compared to the time needed to get familiar with a new system. I went from an XT DOS machine to a 286 with Geoworks to a 386 with Windows 3.1 to a 486 with Win95 to a series of Pentiums with Win98 and 98SE/WinNT (dual boot) to my current "Winders XP (West Virginia variant) machines. After the Vic-20, I had a used XT. Replaced it with a new Dell Win95 200 MHz Pentium II in 1997. Since then, my computers have all been built from pieces salvaged from older machines discarded by their original owners. I built ham stations for a less than $100 in those days. Here are some pictures of a receiver (part of the Southgate Type 4) I built in the early 1970s for about $10. http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg Sweet! Remember that it was built more than 30 years ago by a teenager in his basement... http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX2.jpg I like the audio filtering... The 88 mh toroids were one of the few items bought new. Not easily found in old TVs... http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX3.jpg Izzat a bowl for the tuning dial? Yes. A plastic cereal bowl, to be exact. It's translucent, and the pilot lights shine light through it. http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX4.jpg http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX6.jpg The pictures are actually scans of old B&W photos. Almost all the parts came from old TVs, radios, and surplus military gear. Swords into plowshares. I had access to a machine shop so I cut and bent the chassis, brackets and panels from some sheet aluminum scraps, and machined some of the shaft extenders and adapters from brass rod. Do you still have it? Not in one piece. I used it for several years, then loaned it to a ham who had even less $$ than I. Meanwhile I built an improved model and lost track of it. The ham I gave it to used it for several years, then stored it in an attic without covering it up. The roof of that house was redone and all sorts of roof debris got all over it. Finally it was discovered and I got back the remains a few years ago. Tore it apart for the good stuff. The reason for the terminal strip and bunch of resistors on near the rear edge of the rx was to permit the use of tubes with odd heater voltages by changing jumpers. Quite clever. Thanks I have a homebrew amp in an ARC-5 cabinet which ran four 6JB6's. A load of 17JB6's became available at a couple of bucks each a few years back. I stocked up on them and changed the filament transformer to an 18v job. Good idea. Another trick with old rigs is to replace 6146s with 6883s or even 6159s, if you can find the higher-voltage tubes at low cost. Some rigs, like the Heath transceivers, have 12 volt heater buses so the change is easy. Some may scoff at the parts and methods used, but the fact is that the rx worked very well for its intended purpose. It was stable, selective, easy and fun to use and I had many many QSOs with it and its matching converter, transmitter and transmatch. I don't know why anyone but Leonard H. Anderson would scoff at the parts or the methods. You might want to see how little a $200 computer would actually do. And you needed a TV set or monitor to use it. Seems to me that the biggest thing they could be used for is learning Basic programming. Okay. I think you mean BASIC programming. And who uses BASIC today? Heck, most people with computers don't write software, they simply use applications written by others. Sure. Most folks want the computer to do something. They aren't necessarily interested in computing for computing itself as a hobby. Means to an end vs. an end in itself. And that's a key factor. Thousands voted with their feet, and the best of a generation or two or three said to hell with radio and went into computers instead. "The best of a generation" went into computers? Hardly. I missed that one. I guess someone who decided to become a doctor or nurse rather than go into computers wasn't 'the best' of their generation, huh? Didn't any of "the best" become teachers or ministers or heads of water companies? Sure, lots of examples. Including folks who went into the military, government service, and other vocations like electrical engineering.... Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as posted by N2EY every other week. It occurs to few that the guys who might have become hams 25-30 years ago if it weren't for the code test are now holding down good paying jobs in the computer industry and probably wouldn't be interested in a ham ticket now if you handed them one gratis. The fact is that most people 25-30 years ago wouldn't have been interested in a ham ticket back then either, with or without code test. Apples and oranges. Who is lamenting anyhow? I wish those new old Hams would have stuck around, but beyond that, big deal. What I take from the statistics is that an early generation of Hams got their licenses without a whole lot of actual interest in radio. These were the "honeydo" hams, who used 2 meter repeaters to get a shopping list or the like on the way home from work. Their interests lay along those lines. Nothing wrong with that, either. But it is radio as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Well along came cell phones, and the honeydo'ers went to that. Cell phones are a better technology for getting a shopping list than using a repeater. Some "honeydo" hams found themselves interested in radio beyond the honeydo aspect. Others didn't. Another subset of the dropoff is Hams who were somewhat interested in radio, but became bored. They dropped off too. Then there's the big ones: Antennas, the sunspot cycle, equipment costs, and lifestyles. My prediction of what will happen after Element 1 is history is that there will be more new hams, and a higher attrition rate. People with only a passing interest will become Hams. There is not likely to be a net gain. I won't pass judgment on this being good or bad. It is just different. Let's look at history, shall we? Say from the end of WW2 to the present time... After WW2, there were about 60,000 US hams - a tiny fraction of what we have today, even accounting for the lower population then. In the postwar years the number of hams grew rapidly, in part because some servicemen had learned radio theory and Morse Code in the military, in part because of increased affluence, improved technology, and pent-up demand. Lots of other reasons, too. By 1950 there were almost 100,000 US hams. Then in 1951 there came a restructuring that created new license classes and renamed the old ones. Supposedly the restructuring would have made it much harder to get a full-priviliges ham license, but in late 1962 TYPO: Should be "1952". The announcement was made in December of 1952 and became effective in February 1953. the FCC gave all ham operating priviliges to Generals and above. The growth of US ham radio continued until about 1964 at a rate that pushed license totals up to about a quarter million. Are you sure about that 1962 date? See above. Typo. General class licensees had all HF frequencies when I first became interested in amateur radio in 1961. All frequencies and modes were authorized to all General, Conditional, Advanced and Extra class hams by that Feb of 1953 change. Stayed that way until November 22 1968. Some see that era as a golden age for the ARS, and in some ways it was. But it must be recalled how big, heavy and expensive new ham equipment was in those times, the constant problem of TVI, etc. I had a solution for the expensive equipment problem: I never had new equipment until the 1980's. My HW-2036 and K2 are they *only* ham rigs I ever bought brand-new. But about 1964 the growth just stopped. The number of US hams hovered around a quarter million for several years in the 1960s, despite the booming population and general affluence. Then in 1968 and 1969 came "incentive licensing", which made it *harder* to get a full-privileges license. Inflation made equipment more expensive and times got tough with the stagflation of the 1970s. Yet from about 1970 onward the number of US hams grew and grew, reaching 350,000 by 1979, and 550,000 by the mid 1980s. *Before* there were code waivers, and when all US ham licenses required a code test! Imagine that. Do you mean that folks just hit the books, brushed up on their code speed and tested for the higher class licenses? Not just that - a lot of *new* hams got licenses after the requirements were *increased*. It was predicted in some circles that the incentive licensing changes would cause massive reductions in the number of hams, but the exact opposite happened. The numbers continued to increase in the 1990s. But even though the code and written testing requirements of the '90s were far less than what was required in the 1970s and 1980s, the growth slowed down. ...and I note that the NVEC is coming out with new question pools with far fewer questions. I wonder why *that* is. Did you read their "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper? Explains it all. They seem to miss the point that the kind of folks (particularly young people) who would be most attracted to ham radio are those who want a challenge. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Oct 19, 6:31 am wrote: John Kasupski wrote: Technically-inclined young people have *always* had lots of alternatives. Look up "Williamson amplifier" and see how many "hi-fi" folks were building their own audio systems in the 1940s and later. Lots of other examples. Change "1940s" for 'late 1950s' for that "Williamson." :-) You are mistaken, Len. The original articles by DTN Williamson appeared in the spring of 1947. They outlined both the theory of an improved design and a practical design that could be (and was) built by many audiofiles. You can read the original 1947 articles online at: http://www.dc-daylight.ltd.uk/Valve-...pril-1947.html http://www.dc-daylight.ltd.uk/Valve-...-May-1947.html Perhaps you meant the Ultra-Linear circuit, which came later. Having been in that area as a hobbyist and once a suscriber to Audio Engineering magazine in the 1950s, "hi-fi" was about the ONLY area (other than ham radio) for hobbyists of the 50s. Really? Radio control of models was being done by UHF cb as long ago as 1948. "SWLing" was one reason so many general-coverage receivers were built. Electronic music (as opposed to music reproduction) was on the scene with theremins, electronic organs and electric guitars - which led to synthesizers in the 1960s. The electronic hobby magazines like Popular Electronics and Electronics Illustrated in that era had no shortage of projects that were neither amateur radio nor "hi-fi". Maybe people who are interested in radio would go into a radio type hobby, and people who are interested in other things would be doing other things. Simple sort of concept. If you re-write "radio type" into "electronic type" you would get a different picture of the three decades from 1975 to now. Why would anyone rewrite what Mike wrote? Or of course we could assume that the Morse code test was what kept people from being hams, and then try to explain away why the first batch of Hams who didn't have to take a code test are the group that comprises the biggest part of the recent drop-off? Seems a strange conclusion. "Recent" drop-off? :-) The number of U.S. licensed amateurs has been steadily shrinking for two years. That's recent, compared to the long period of growth that preceded it. Not much of a shrinkage but nowhere close to keeping up with the population increase. Just like in the 1960s. Yet after the "incentive licensing" changes, the growth picked up again. There were folks back then who said amateur radio was dying out, and that the "incentive licensing" changes would kill it.... Despite the snarling denial of amateur morsemen, "snarling denial"? You're the chief snarler hear, Len ;-) the no-code-test Technician class license added about 200 thousand new licensees to the U.S. amateur radio database since it began. Without them there would have been NO peak of numbers in July, 2003, and the total numbers would have SHRUNK before the new millennium was entered. You seem to be saying that if it weren't for that license class, none of those people would have become hams. Yet in the 1980s the number of US hams increased by about 200,000 even though all US amateur radio license classes required a code test. Never mind the "lumping of no-coders with code-tested techs" happening after Restructuring, the tabulations elsewhere show that the 200K additions by NO-CODERS actually happened BEFORE Restructuring. And now they're all mixed up. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit manufacturers vanished around this time period as well). [a regretable time shift there...were NO Sinclair models in 1975] Tell it to John Kasupski. As of 17 Oct 05, 48.57% of all individual U.S. amateur radio licensees were Technicians... How does that percentage compare with what it was in 2000 and 2003, Len? MOST of them not having taken any code tests. How many? Guess they don't count, huh? :-) They're all counted in my twice-a-month postings of the number of current unexpired individual licenses. The total number of Technicians and Technician Pluses has dropped by about 15,000 since the 2000 restructuring - that's more than the entire 'shrinkage' of all the other license classes combined. Given that the Novice and Advanced classes are no longer issued, they are bound to shrink... So far on WT Docket 05-235, the number of filings in only three months averages 866 per month. On WT Docket 98-143 (Restructuring) they averaged less than 205 per month over an 11-month period. So? Back in the 1960s, the "incentive licensing" proposal generated more than 6000 comments to FCC, even though the number of US hams was only about 40% of what it is today, and practically all commentary was by US mail. Guess the morse code test is "unimportant" and, since PCs are "only used for surfing the net," it doesn't have any impact on input to the FCC, right? :-) Who said that? Not me. And note that by your own unchecked-for-accuracy comment count, the comments are almost evenly balanced between retention of at least some code testing and total elimination. |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor of keeping morse. Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing. WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%, the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a 52% majority in favor of the NPRM. I wrote: "if 5% were miscategorized" meaning if 5% were in the wrong category. Fixing that problem would remove 5% from one category and add 5% to another. Remove 5% from the anticodetest column and add 5% to the procodetest column and the majority changes. (SNIP of repeated "what if's) Why? Are any of them unreasonable? Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the issue in 1999 - do you really think the majority opinion matters now? Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change. True, but note how narrow it is. And note that the criteria used are quite vague in places. For example: Do the totals include reply comments as well as comments? If the same person submits multiple comments that are not identical, or comments and reply comments, are they all counted, or does each commenter get counted only once? How is it determined if a person submits a "valid address"? Why is the NPRM considered a comment? Why are the comments of an Australian not counted? Is citizenship a requirement to be counted? How about residency? Why? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. Ahem...this is a "preconditioning" artificiality of "reasons." [akin to the "do you still beat your wife?" question] Precisely so - and, it is indicative of the assumption that code testing is currently under review because it is perceived as a "problem". This is, of course, not the case. It's exactly the case, Leo. "Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre for the elimination or retention of the code test. The lack of love and worship of morsemanship should be enough. Agreed - the review of the requirement is based entirely upon an change of requirements in an international treaty. No, it isn't. Not in the USA, anyway. The treaty changed more than 2 years ago, yet FCC did nothing at all about it. 18 petitions/proposals were filed by various groups and individuals. The NPRM is in response to those petitions/proposals and their comments. FCC could have simply dropped Element 1 in August of 2003. I was surprised that they didn't, particularly after there were at least two proposals to do just that. If the treaty change drove the FCC, they'd have simply issued a Memorandum Report and Order saying Element 1 was no longer a requirement. But they didn't. The regulators create the rules and regulations which control the hobby - it is up to the amateur community to promote it and drive growth. Growth in numbers is one of the reasons repeatedly cited by those asking for an end to code testing. Another view would be that it was a problem that is being fixed way too late to repair the damage. How could it have been any different? The code test was a treaty requirement that FCC would not violate. The testing was minimized in 1990 by the medical waiver petition, which effectively made all classes available for a 5 wpm code test and a doctor's note. *Any* doctor could write such a note, or sign one written by the ham asking for a waiver. All it had to say was that it was harder-than-usual for the ham in question to pass the code test. Amateur Radio was a very popular hobby back when you and I were kids - today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things competing with it. When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more popular today than when I was a kid. There have indeed been massive changes in technology over the past half century. Instant communication on a global basis is available to almost everyone now, affordably and from virtually anywhere. So why should *anyone* get a ham license, test or no test? Sure, during natural disasters this capability is severely impacted - but in everyday life, amaueur radio can no longer compete for public interest as it once did. (why go through licensing and buy expensive radio equipment to talk with Uncle Bob in Peoria on ham radio, when you can call him up on Skype on the Internet with great audio and live colour full-motion video for free?) Exactly. So it's not the code test or written test at all, but other factors. I would think that the vast majority of the folks who are interested in the things that Amateur Radio offers are already a part of the hobby. Adding HF access might broaden the scope of those who did not gain access to HF via morse testing (for whatever reasons) - but to think for a moment that there are legions of wannabe hams who are waiting exitedly for morse testing to be abolished so that they can rush in and get on the air would be foolish. Yet that's what many anticodetest folks think and say. They aren't there. Looks like an agreement! Along with the common assumption that code testing is an impediment to new Amateur licensees (due to no access to HF without it), there is the companion assumption that licensing is also an impediment. The theory is that if licensing was removed (as it was with CB many years ago) that the floodgates would open and the bands would become overcrowded by the stampede of new amateur operators. This is, of course, nonsense - they aren't there either. Fifty years ago, perhaps - but not now. Fifty years ago there were maybe 150,000 US hams. Today there are over 650,000. Where did all that growth come from? Most of it happened in the 70s and 80s, btw. What many are concerned about is that the same problems that plague cb will also plague amateur radio if the license requirements are reduced too much. In the three years that I have held a license, I have met very few people who were interested at all in radio communications. That's been true for a long time - most people aren't interested in "radio for its own sake". Try this experiment - show a teenage kid an SSTV picture being received, and watch the reaction..... Depends on how it's presented. Why would anyone be impressed by SSTV after seeing the first pictures of astronauts on the moon's surface - in 1969, 36 years ago? We hams are becoming a rare breed as technology advances. Then what's the "new paradigm"? Eliminate all licensing? We've seen how well that worked... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
From: on Thurs 20 Oct 2005 02:29
wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Oct 19, 6:31 am wrote: John Kasupski wrote: Technically-inclined young people have *always* had lots of alternatives. Look up "Williamson amplifier" and see how many "hi-fi" folks were building their own audio systems in the 1940s and later. Lots of other examples. Change "1940s" for 'late 1950s' for that "Williamson." :-) You are mistaken, Len. The original articles by DTN Williamson appeared in the spring of 1947. They outlined both the theory of an improved design and a practical design that could be (and was) built by many audiofiles. Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie, NOT "was built by many 'audiofiles." :-) They hardly touched them, unlike myself who built one, then two of the "ultra-linear" variety (for stereo). How many did YOU build? [in 1947?] You can read the original 1947 articles online at: Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie, I read the ORIGINAL article on Comm Sats in Wireless World (by Arthur C. Clarke) in a 40s issue in the RCA Technical Library. It took a LONNNNNG time to get the FIRST geo-synchronous comm sat into orbit. :-) Ever have your hands ON and even IN any bit of space flight equipment, Jimmie? I have. From MARS Mariner '67 to the Apollo Program Solar Wind Spectrometer (part of ALSEP) to name just two. Ever watch any rocket engine being tested, Jimmie? I have, from the Rocketdyne Santa Susannah Field Test Area (Coca site). The Space Shuttle Main Engine combustion chamber is only the size of a small beach ball yet it generates 350,000 pounds of thrust at full throttle-up. Have you been to JPL, Jimmie? I have. JPL began in rocketry during WW2. Took them a LONNNNNGGG time to go from JATO bottles to the little "balloon-bounce" Mars rovers. They didn't get there reading old magazines. Radio control of models was being done by UHF cb as long ago as 1948. Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie...you are OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE entirely. In 1948 I had my AMA 19700 and was competition flying and deep into the model hobby activity. Not as you speak but you are going to spend weeks on this subject in an effort to pull your own MISTAKES out of the fire. In 1948 there were only the Raytheon RK61 superregens IN model aircraft for R/C back then. Built one of those, too, including making the rotary "escapement" solenoid stepper from plans in Model Aviation News (MAN is still published, by the way). Had to have one of the local model club members run the transmitter (Joe, who worked for the FAA at the Machesney Airport weather station). Jimmie, try talking of an area you were IN. You didn't even exist in 1948. :-) "SWLing" was one reason so many general-coverage receivers were built. You build one in 1948? :-) Electronic music (as opposed to music reproduction) was on the scene with theremins, electronic organs and electric guitars - which led to synthesizers in the 1960s. I built a Theremin in 1954 for a buddy in my Signal Battalion. All vacuum tube. He was a musician in civilian life. It worked but wasn't "comfortable" to listen to. But, nowhere in heck did those weird Theremins "lead to music synthesizers" LATER pioneered by Moog. Get your act together. The electronic hobby magazines like Popular Electronics and Electronics Illustrated in that era had no shortage of projects that were neither amateur radio nor "hi-fi". INCORRECT, Jimmie. The two major newsstand magazines for general electronics hobbyists in 1948 were RADIO CRAFT and RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS. Radio Craft later changed its name to Popular Electronics. So did RTN. Tsk, in 1948 to 1955, YOU were NOT doing much of anything as far as "electronics hobby projects." Could you hold a soldering iron when you were first born? :-) You are behaving like some 4-F civilian trying to tell a military veteran "all about militry life and culture." :-) "Recent" drop-off? :-) The number of U.S. licensed amateurs has been steadily shrinking for two years. That's recent, compared to the long period of growth that preceded it. "Recent?" :-) Oh, yes, I forget that you are oriented back to the "beginnings" of radio. There were NO "radio amateurs" licensed in 1895...anywhere in the world. The last 110 years has seen an INFINITELY LARGE growth of amateur radio to 2005, hasn't it? From ZERO to millions! :-) So, how was Reggie Fessenden's lab when you worked there as lab assistant in 1900? :-) Despite the snarling denial of amateur morsemen, "snarling denial"? You're the chief snarler hear, Len ;-) Sweetums, I BEGAN in HF communications in 1953, wasn't no morse code used in the ACAN 52 years ago, wasn't added later. Wasn't a single morseman working at ADA back then, still isn't out of Fort Shafter, Hawaii, for USARPAC using the Army callsign ADA. :-) Without them there would have been NO peak of numbers in July, 2003, and the total numbers would have SHRUNK before the new millennium was entered. You seem to be saying that if it weren't for that license class, none of those people would have become hams. Yet in the 1980s the number of US hams increased by about 200,000 even though all US amateur radio license classes required a code test. Snarl, snarl, Jimmie Morseman, we "here" you. :-) Quit trying to deny that no-code-test Technicians made a sizeable difference in the total U.S. amateur radio license numbers. They did. It is history. DENIAL gets you exactly nowhere except all wet downriver in Egypt. They're all counted in my twice-a-month postings of the number of current unexpired individual licenses. WHO CHECKS YOUR WORK ON THAT, Jimmie? :-) Do you have your OWN FCC database download and sorting program to derive those "statistics" or do you CRIB from other sources? And note that by your own unchecked-for-accuracy comment count, the comments are almost evenly balanced between retention of at least some code testing and total elimination. Jimmie, you poor thing, still in denial. You want to "check my work?" Go ahead. As of 19 October 2005 (1 PM EDT) there were only 2,612 filings on WT Docket 05-235. 30.18% were against the NPRM, 54.50% were FOR the NPRM. A 3:5 ratio is hardly "almost evenly balanced" on anything. :-) All you have to do is connect to the FCC website, go to the ECFS, start reading EVERY FILING on WT Docket 05-235 from 15 July 2005 until whatever date you wish to stop. Save ALL of those filings, Jimmie, because I'm just so sure that you will want to ARGUE the judgement on opinions in each and every one of them from now to the end of time. :-) [it would make a whole new newsgroup career for you!] Meanwhile, you can continue to TELL US ALL about the electronics hobby area, model aircraft flying, and all of that which happened before you ever existed on this Earth. yawn ex AMA 19700 |
Docket Scorecard
From: on Oct 20, 9:40 am
Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. Ahem...this is a "preconditioning" artificiality of "reasons." [akin to the "do you still beat your wife?" question] Precisely so - and, it is indicative of the assumption that code testing is currently under review because it is perceived as a "problem". This is, of course, not the case. It's exactly the case, Leo. PROVE there is a "problem," Jimmie. "Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre for the elimination or retention of the code test. The lack of love and worship of morsemanship should be enough. Agreed - the review of the requirement is based entirely upon an change of requirements in an international treaty. No, it isn't. Not in the USA, anyway. The FCC could NOT issue such an NPRM (as 05-143) prior to July, 2003 because of the international agreement to abide by the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R. The treaty changed more than 2 years ago, yet FCC did nothing at all about it. The FCC did MUCH about it, allowing for those 18 Petitions for change which you mention in: 18 petitions/proposals were filed by various groups and individuals. The NPRM is in response to those petitions/proposals and their comments. A significant amount of effort in 2003 and 2004 was taken up by the Comment period ON those same 18 Petitions. [that seems to be lost by the no-change-ever morsemen] FCC could have simply dropped Element 1 in August of 2003. I was surprised that they didn't, particularly after there were at least two proposals to do just that. Gotta love it...yet-another input from a self-appointed "FCC Insider" telling us "what they could and could not do!" If the treaty change drove the FCC, they'd have simply issued a Memorandum Report and Order saying Element 1 was no longer a requirement. But they didn't. Hello? Where is all the talk NOW about "getting a consensus?" It was once a big driver in decision-making according to the morsemen and the Believers of the Church of St. Hiram. :-) WT Docket 05-235 pretty well shows there is NO HOPE for any "consensus" on code testing in the USA. The regulators create the rules and regulations which control the hobby - it is up to the amateur community to promote it and drive growth. Growth in numbers is one of the reasons repeatedly cited by those asking for an end to code testing. By the PRO-code-test advocates, Jimmie, by the PCTA... :-) Us NCTAs have been saying the code test is an OBSOLETE REQUIREMENT for AMATEUR RADIO LICENSING. Oddly enough, the FCC agrees with that! [ sunnuvagun! ] Another view would be that it was a problem that is being fixed way too late to repair the damage. How could it have been any different? The Believers in code testing COULD have TRIED to compromise earlier but they did NOT. :-) The code test was a treaty requirement that FCC would not violate. Make up your mind. Earlier this post you said that the FCC could have voided the code test on its own. Which is it? The testing was minimized in 1990 by the medical waiver petition, which effectively made all classes available for a 5 wpm code test and a doctor's note. *Any* doctor could write such a note, or sign one written by the ham asking for a waiver. All it had to say was that it was harder-than-usual for the ham in question to pass the code test. Tsk, tsk, the morsemen still believe that morsemanship is an elemental base requirement for U.S. amateur radio... Amateur Radio was a very popular hobby back when you and I were kids - today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things competing with it. When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more popular today than when I was a kid. Tell us all about the late 1940s in electronics hobby projects, old timer... :-) There have indeed been massive changes in technology over the past half century. Instant communication on a global basis is available to almost everyone now, affordably and from virtually anywhere. So why should *anyone* get a ham license, test or no test? To get Status, Rank, Title of Nobility, a pretty certificate (suitable for framing), to show that they are "better" than others? :-) I would think that the vast majority of the folks who are interested in the things that Amateur Radio offers are already a part of the hobby. Adding HF access might broaden the scope of those who did not gain access to HF via morse testing (for whatever reasons) - but to think for a moment that there are legions of wannabe hams who are waiting exitedly for morse testing to be abolished so that they can rush in and get on the air would be foolish. Yet that's what many anticodetest folks think and say. ...and they are "simply mistaken" according to you... :-) Fifty years ago there were maybe 150,000 US hams. Today there are over 650,000. Where did all that growth come from? Most of it happened in the 70s and 80s, btw. Where was Jimmie "fifty years ago?" Interesting that Jimmie's claim of "most of the growth" occurring when HE was first licensed. :-) Jimmie tries his darndest to AVOID admitting that a large number (over 200 thousand) no-code-test Technicians became licensed after 1991. :-) What many are concerned about is that the same problems that plague cb will also plague amateur radio if the license requirements are reduced too much. Many of those same folks say that "morse code testing will save lives!" :-) They also say that ending code testing is a "bad thing!" Not to be outdone, some say it will be "the end of ham radio!" :-) Of course, to understand that, one has to go in and READ the 2,612 filings on WT Docket 05-235 that have been filed by midnight EDT 19 October 2005. In the three years that I have held a license, I have met very few people who were interested at all in radio communications. That's been true for a long time - most people aren't interested in "radio for its own sake". No? What is it then? Title, Status, Privilege, "official recognition" of being better than the average human for receiving a license? Then what's the "new paradigm"? Eliminate all licensing? We've seen how well that worked... Oh, no, dragging out that FALSE equation again: End of Code Testing = Ending ALL Testing Typical PCTA ploy. |
Docket Scorecard
From: on Oct 20, 3:53 am
wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: One of the reasons repeatedly given for the elimination of the code test is that it is supposedly a "barrier" to "otherwise qualified people" who would bring "fresh, new blood" and *growth* to amateur radio. Were all those people wrong? Only to old morsemen who can't grow and have old tired blood... "Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre for the elimination or retention of the code test. Tell that to NCI... WHY? I'm not afraid of any dues increas at NCI... :-) ARRL is very much concerned with growth and numbers. If the ham numbers decrease, their publishing business will suffer. The lack of love and worship of morsemanship should be enough. IOW, since *you* don't have a high regard for Morse Code skills, there should be no test... Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are jumping over tall conclusions thinking you are getting somewhere. You aren't. Having BEGUN in HF communications 52 years ago and NEVER having needed any morse code skill then or in all the years since, I just don't see why it remains an amateur radio licensing test. No other radio service bothers with using morse code for communications now, why should amateur radio still retain a code test because of one national membership organization and a bunch of old morsemen fearful of losing their exclusive radio playground? I don't know when Leo was a kid, but I know that when I got my ham license in 1967 at the age of 13, there were only about a quarter-million US hams - less than 40% of today's total. The US population back then was a lot more than 40% of what it is today. TODAY's laws are not governed by conditions of 38 years ago. You remain in total denial that no-code-test Technician licensees numbered as many as 200 thousand and that the present-day U.S. amateur radio license totals would be definitely smaller without them. Your problem, not mine. today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things competing with it. Such as? There was all sorts of competition when I was a kid, too. Not at the seminary for the order of the Church of St. Hiram. One thing for sure, you didn't have any interest in a military experience, did you? One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them. But what happened after that? You stopped the story at the most important part, Len. Soon to be a major motion picture? :-) 27 MHz cb was pretty well behaved at first. But by the mid 1960s that service had big problems with rules violations. When the oil embargoes of the early 1970s hit, cb became a major tool for truckers and others to avoid law enforcement of the 55 mph speed limit, weigh stations, etc. Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie...show us WHERE the truckers stay UNDER their "legal speed limit" of 55 MPH. Having gone cross country a few times since 1974 by motor vehicle (over 2000 miles one-way each time), the truckers do NOT obey those "55 MPH limits." The presence or absence of a CB in their cab has NOTHING to do with getting their cargo from one place to its destination...so they can quickly pick up another load and make another run...for PROFIT. The use of radio to intentionally violate local, state or federal law is clearly a violation of the Communications Act. So...what have YOU done about this "violation of the law," Mr. Holier-than-Thou Morseman? Did you join the PA Highway Patrol and get a spiffy uniform in which to catch all those evil violators? Did you join the FCC or the Federal Marshall's Service to ENFORCE THE LAW? I don't think you did. You LIKE to sit in here as a holier- than-most everybody person and talk down to others. Other violations (unlicensed operation, "shooting skip", failure to identify, use of power far above that authorized for the service) became more the rule than the exception on 27 MHz cb. Indeed, some began to use frequencies near but outside the authorized cb channels, including the 10 meter amateur band. Well? What did YOU do about it? CB on the old 11m band became a reality in 1958, 47 years ago. If this so offends you, why haven't you written a "sharp" report and submitted it to the FCC? Or the ARRL? Or your elected Congresscritter? IMHO, one of the main reasons for that behavior was the lack of any sort of license test for a cb permit. Oh, dear, I guess that shoots down about 100 million USA citizens who use little two-way transceivers called "cell phones!" No license, no TEST required for those! How about those evil, NO-LICENSE-REQUIRED R/C transmitters on their 72 MHz region channels? Aren't you worried about UNLAWFULL ACTIVITY there, perhaps causing TVI while we still have analog TV? How about NO-LICENSE-REQUIRED FRS transceivers? [etc., etc...] That's nice, Len. But how well did the cell phone work away from the major interstates? Very well, Jimmie. :-) Had you been ON THE ROAD you would have seen lots and lots and lots of cell site towers, some of them quite far away from the Interstate highways. In Wyoming. In Nebraska. In Nevada. In Utah. In many states. Or maybe not. The growth of US amateur radio in the 1980s (without a no-code-test license or medical waivers) was about the same if not greater than the growth in the 1990s. How do you explain that? I "explain that" by pointing out you are still in denial that all those no-code-test Technicians made a sizeable impact on U.S. amateur radio license totals. I "explain that" by pointing out you are wayyyy too deep into love/honor/obeying old, old morsemen "rules" of yesterday by trying to retain outmoded standards and practices in licensing. I "explain that" by telling you and other staunch old-timer morsemen that you will LOSE your self-perceived status as high- rate code-tested "experts" in radio if the code test is gone. So what are your new paradigms, Len? Besides "dump the code test"? To quote what another old-timer said, the amateur rules might open up with: "Here's your rules, have a nice day." :-) Problem really is, you old-timer morsemen fanatics just CAN'T envision amateur radio WITHOUT any code test. It is the "heart and soul of amateur radio!" according to a few Commenters on WT Docket 05-235. Should amateur radio become like cb? No test at all? We've seen how well that worked... Tsk, tsk, tsk...still using the "dropping the code test is the end of all testing" ploy, aren't you? Dumb thing to do, Jimmie. You've predicted a growth of 20% in a few years if the code test goes away. I "predicted it?!?" Did you get a GUARANTEE on the "prediction?" I can't read the future, Jimmie. You apparently can, knowing all of electronics hobby life before you ever existed. You are a Radio god and "know all." :-) Will you admit you were wrong if the code test goes away and there isn't that much growth? Tsk, tsk, tsk...still being the argumentative sore loser, aintcha? :-) Will YOU admit you are full of snit about the efficacy of morse code in radio even when all the other radio services have given up on it (if they ever used it from their beginning)? No, you haven't yet and all those other radio service HAVE given up on morse code for communications. It's predictable that you will NEVER apologize for anything you've said..."everyone else makes mistakes, but you never have." :-) I don't care one way or the other what the growth of U.S. amateur radio is AFTER the code test is eliminated. However, you think that idle speculation is some kind of "official prediction" so you want to make a Big Issue out of it. You already have. :-) Why are you sitting around playing with your computer in the middle of the day, being argumentative to others? Can't you play with your "Southgate" thingy, working DX on HF with CW? |
Docket Scorecard
From: on Oct 20, 9:15 am show options
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor of keeping morse. Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing. WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%, the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a 52% majority in favor of the NPRM. I wrote: "if 5% were miscategorized" meaning if 5% were in the wrong category. Fixing that problem would remove 5% from one category and add 5% to another. Remove 5% from the anticodetest column and add 5% to the procodetest column and the majority changes. Whoa! Whose tabulation are you talking about, Jimmie? My own voluntary tabulation doesn't have any "anticodetest" column nor any "procodetest" column. You must be using someone else's that aren't posted in this newsgroup... (SNIP of repeated "what if's) Why? Are any of them unreasonable? [ludicrously argumentative, they are... :-) ] Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the issue in 1999 - do you really think the majority opinion matters now? Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change. True, but note how narrow it is. Tsk, tsk...that shouldn't matter. The World According to Jimmie had the Restructuring NPRM Comments "favoring higher code test rates" than the across-the-board restriction to 5 WPM. THAT was a slim majority. PCTAs thought it "okay" since it favored code testing. :-) And note that the criteria used are quite vague in places. For example: Do the totals include reply comments as well as comments? They do, but the ONLY way to CHECK that is to READ THEM, Jimmie. ALL of them. A mere 2600+ filings. If the same person submits multiple comments that are not identical, or comments and reply comments, are they all counted, or does each commenter get counted only once? Yes, no, and maybe. :-) The ONLY WAY to CHECK that is to READ THEM, Jimmie. ALL of them. A mere 2600+ filings. How is it determined if a person submits a "valid address"? If the ECFS Comment submission ACCEPTS it and it appears on the record. Tsk, tsk, all "FCC Insiders" should KNOW that! Why is the NPRM considered a comment? What should it be considered as? :-) Why are the comments of an Australian not counted? NPRM 05-143 is about UNITED STATES radio regulations, Jimmie. Is Australia part of the United States? No? Why not? Is citizenship a requirement to be counted? How about residency? Why? Tsk, tsk, tsk...all that CHILDISH questioning, like a petulant four-year-old kid bothering Mommy. :-) Jimmie still has to CHECK it all out by READING ALL the filings on WT Docket 05-235. He should. He just can't accept "un- verfied" tabulations without his decreeing that everything comes out as he wants it. :-) |
Docket Scorecard
On 20 Oct 2005 14:44:47 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 20, 9:15 am show options Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: cut Why is the NPRM considered a comment? What should it be considered as? :-) Why are the comments of an Australian not counted? NPRM 05-143 is about UNITED STATES radio regulations, Jimmie. Is Australia part of the United States? No? Why not? honestly there is one I think your logic is off since it isn't a true vote and HF form the US does ( at least I am so informed) reach AU it is not inappropreate for them to comment on our HF reg or for we yanks to comment on their's but i don't think that it affect enough to want to go through all the coments myself. it is just a though on my part Is citizenship a requirement to be counted? How about residency? Why? Tsk, tsk, tsk...all that CHILDISH questioning, like a petulant four-year-old kid bothering Mommy. :-) Jimmie still has to CHECK it all out by READING ALL the filings on WT Docket 05-235. He should. He just can't accept "un- verfied" tabulations without his decreeing that everything comes out as he wants it. :-) _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Docket Scorecard
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: snip When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more popular today than when I was a kid. About the same time as you were - I was born in 1955. Comparing the total number of amateur licenses existing today is an apples-to-oranges comparison, and not a true indicator of the "popularity" of the hobby then or now. In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not our easy 5. Today, there are vast numbers of amateurs who hold licenses where no code test was required - around half of the total. How many amateur licenses would have been issued back then if a 'no code' license had been available? - I'd speculate that there would have been a lot! As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back then seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available anywhere on this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do! snip 73 de Jim, N2EY 73,Leo |
Docket Scorecard
Leo wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: snip When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more popular today than when I was a kid. About the same time as you were - I was born in 1955. Comparing the total number of amateur licenses existing today is an apples-to-oranges comparison, and not a true indicator of the "popularity" of the hobby then or now. In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not our easy 5. Today, there are vast numbers of amateurs who hold licenses where no code test was required - around half of the total. How many amateur licenses would have been issued back then if a 'no code' license had been available? - I'd speculate that there would have been a lot! indeed at least some more I would clearly have had a license 20 years beore I did without code test requirement As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back then seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available anywhere on this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do! or preahps worse think that Ham radio is CB radio (IMO CB is ok but it very limited compared to ham radio) snip 73 de Jim, N2EY 73,Leo |
Docket Scorecard
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: snip When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more popular today than when I was a kid. About the same time as you were - I was born in 1955. Then we're almost exactly the same "vintage". Comparing the total number of amateur licenses existing today is an apples-to-oranges comparison, and not a true indicator of the "popularity" of the hobby then or now. Why? I realize that we have to allow for the population increase. But when you do that, the inescapable conclusion is that the ratio of the number of hams to the total population is more now than it was in 1955, or 1965, or 1975, etc. Only very recently has the growth curve flattened out. In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not our easy 5. It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when the Technician lost its code test requirement. Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods. Today, there are vast numbers of amateurs who hold licenses where no code test was required - around half of the total. In the USA or Canada? Slightly less than half of US hams hold Technician licenses, but there's no way of knowing how many have passed the code test. How many amateur licenses would have been issued back then if a 'no code' license had been available? - I'd speculate that there would have been a lot! Maybe. And if the written test were trimmed down to almost nothing, there may have been more, too. And you'd think that increasing the testing requirements would have reduced the number of hams significantly, right? Yet here in the USA, the exact opposite happened in the 1970s. There's also the factor of how long somebody stays interested. And what they do when they have the license. As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back then seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available anywhere on this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do! But are you and your friends a representative sample? When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends with a ham. I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia that was mostly blue- and white-collar middle class families. Lots of kids, houses ranging from rowhomes to big single Dutch Colonials. Yet there were less than a dozen hams in the whole township then, all spread out, and about half were inactive or minimally active. In my high school (grades 9/10/11/12), which had over 2500 boys and emphasized math and science, there were perhaps a half-dozen hams in the 4 years I was there. The main problem wasn't code or theory, for those who were interested. It was space for an antenna and money for equipment. Most people, young or old, thought ham radio looked like a kind of fun thing, when they found out about it. But not enough to spend the necessary time and money to set up a station, let alone get a license. IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to TV or a movie. Maybe we're using the wrong term - perhaps instead of "popularity", what you are describing is better described as "visibility" or "recognition by the public". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: Comparing the total number of amateur licenses existing today is an apples-to-oranges comparison, and not a true indicator of the "popularity" of the hobby then or now. Why? "Why?" ...it shoots down your rationalizations for one... :-) I realize that we have to allow for the population increase. But when you do that, the inescapable conclusion is that the ratio of the number of hams to the total population is more now than it was in 1955, or 1965, or 1975, etc. Tsk, tsk...the "inescapable conclusion" obtained from comparison of filings on WT Docket 05-235 of 2005 is that the Belief in the efficacy of morse code is less than it was in 1975, 1965, or 1955. Only very recently has the growth curve flattened out. In the last two and a half years, this "growth" has been negative. In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not our easy 5. It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when the Technician lost its code test requirement. That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz. The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement. The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-) Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods. Riiiiiiight...ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and abilities! All one has to do is "work hard" in order to pass a federally-mandated morse test in order to transmit below 30 MHz as an amateur. Tsk. That is NOT required for General Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator license holders at HF and below. That is NOT required for UNLICENSED CB radio operators on 27 MHz, yet their signals can - during certain propagation conditions - be heard all over the world. Slightly less than half of US hams hold Technician licenses, but there's no way of knowing how many have passed the code test. A mere 48+ plus percent of ALL USA amateur radio licensees are Technician class. The Technician class (exclusive of the Technician PLUS class) is over TWICE as numerous as General class (most numerous of the "code tested" classes). There's also the factor of how long somebody stays interested. And what they do when they have the license. That's NOT a LEGAL requirement, is it? :-) The ONLY requirement I can find in all of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. as to "doing" when a person has an amateur radio license is to OPERATE LEGALLY ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS. Is there something I missed in Part 97 about "building from scratch," "devotion to morse code," or being an acolyte at the Church of St. Hiram? As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back then seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available anywhere on this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do! But are you and your friends a representative sample? Why not? YOU seem to hold yourself as a "representative sample" of the very model of a modern major marvel in amateur radio. :-) [apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan] When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends with a ham. In 50 years little has changed in that regard... :-) Where is the ARRL Public Relations effort when it is sorely needed? I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia that was mostly blue- and white-collar middle class families. Lots of kids, houses ranging from rowhomes to big single Dutch Colonials. Yet there were less than a dozen hams in the whole township then, all spread out, and about half were inactive or minimally active. "Typical?" :-) Tsk, didn't you claim to have begun amateur radio in another state? In my high school (grades 9/10/11/12), which had over 2500 boys and emphasized math and science, there were perhaps a half-dozen hams in the 4 years I was there. Ah, an "all boys" school. That may explain a lot...? In my high school in the middle west (northern Illinois), only three grades (we had a "junior high school" now known as a "middle school" for some kind of PC reason). We had a mere 900 or so of mixed gender and NONE were licensed as radio amateurs. [sunnuvagun!] At the Big 50th Reunion my high school class had in 2001, NONE mentioned anything about "getting a ham license" after graduation. However, to be fair about it, one did become the manager of a supermarket which had a meat department selling ham. The main problem wasn't code or theory, for those who were interested. It was space for an antenna and money for equipment. Amazing how the story changes as time goes on... :-) NOBODY had an "attic antenna" back in those ancient days? Tsk, the "beer can vertical" started in the 1950s... NOBODY managed to attend a Field Day exercise back then? [were there any parks to hold them in?] NOBODY scrounged for "old radio parts" to build a whole station for $100 then? Most people, young or old, thought ham radio looked like a kind of fun thing, when they found out about it. But not enough to spend the necessary time and money to set up a station, let alone get a license. Too busy playing with car fix-ups? They couldn't get part-time jobs to afford $100 to build a "Southgate" transceiver? Well, I have to give you slack on that. "Surplus" in the late 1940s was very inexpensive: $6 for a brand-new Command Set receiver, $12 for a brand-new Command Set transmitter, $18 for the Command Set antenna tuning unit and modulator...at H&H Electronics, co-owned by Gene Hubbel (then W9ERU, later W7DI and then SK...a VERY high-rate tested morseman). Tsk, I used my part-time earnings to buy and convert (to 110 VAC power) TWO Command Set stations...sold them quickly at a very modest profit by 1950. "Surplus" radios cost much more 30 years later. IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to TV or a movie. Really? Ernest Lehman didn't think so. He wrote a fairly popular novel entitled "The French Atlantic Affair" which was made into a two-part TV movie on one of the networks. Lehman was a respected award-winning screenwriter ("North by Northwest" is perhaps the most notable). Lehman was also a licensed ham. Of course, CB Radio has been featured in many a TV show and movie such as "Convoy," "Smokey and the Bandit," and (would you believe this title) "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie"...not to mention an essential part of "The Dukes of Hazzard" series. A later movie, "Frequency" used amateur radio as essential to enable communications time-travel between deceased father and son, but that was more science-fantasy in its plotline and didn't really showcase radio as much as the supernatural. Maybe we're using the wrong term - perhaps instead of "popularity", what you are describing is better described as "visibility" or "recognition by the public". Tsk. You should have a long heart-to-heart talk with ARRL Public Relations (excuse me, "Media Advisors") people on getting amateur radio more popular with the general public. ARRL hasn't done much in THAT regard for the last half century...they've spent most of their time preaching to the choir to try and enlarge their membership numbers (haven't done too well there, either, still only 1 out of 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs are members). But, you are NOT offering any possible solutions to either popularity, visibility, or recognition by any public. Your aim is to disrupt any talk of eliminating the code test by any means possible. NOT a democratic-principle effort on your part. But, it's par for the course in this newsgroup. |
Docket Scorecard
KØHB wrote:
wrote Heck, most people with computers don't write software, they simply use applications written by others. "Heck, most hams don't build radios, they simply use radios built by others." Hardware vs. software, but right you are, Hans. Of course some of us do build radios - and computers... but in late 1962 TYPO! 1952 the FCC gave all ham operating priviliges to Generals and above. No they didn't. Yes, it was 1952. Actually, the announcement of the change was in December of 1952 but didn't go into effect until February of 1953. Some privs (satelite stations, as at least one example) were reserved for Amateur Extras into the 70's. I checked my 1962 copy of the ARRL License Manual, which has a reprint of the entire FCC section on regulations for the amateur service, plus selected parts of the Communications Act. There's no mention of special privileges for Advanceds or Extras at all. No specific mention of satellite or repeaters, either. The rules changed in 1967 with the first phase of incentive licensing, so maybe somewhere in there the verbiage about satellites got put in. But other than some isolated privs like that, General, Conditional, Advanced, and Extra all had very similar "full" privileges going back to the early 50's. Yep. February 1953 to November 1968. Disincentive licensing changed that in the late 60's. November 22 1968 and again in 1969 - when Generals, Conditionals and Advanceds lost access to parts of some bands. I remember well - I'd just earned the Advanced in the summer of 1968, had full privilges for a few weeks, and then they were gone. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
My oh MY....he agrees. Must be on his meds finally.
Dan/W4NTI "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: KØHB wrote: cut I remember well - I'd just earned the Advanced in the summer of 1968, had full privilges for a few weeks, and then they were gone. and you are still taking no chance that the rest of us will know you were cheated back then I agree you were cheated and the ARRL with the FCC ****ed up and realy screwed Ham radio, and ham could we please move on to say this century sometime 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
Dan/W4NTI wrote: My oh MY....he agrees. Must be on his meds finally. more of your hate filled bile who peed in your cheerios Dany boy? I have always agreed that Jim and other got screwed back then but (he and others) are still whining about it after 37 years OTOH some good news it seems the last of the whing about how CB band freqs were stolen from the ARS seem to be finaly over (but with the last 5 years Dan/W4NTI "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: KØHB wrote: cut I remember well - I'd just earned the Advanced in the summer of 1968, had full privilges for a few weeks, and then they were gone. and you are still taking no chance that the rest of us will know you were cheated back then I agree you were cheated and the ARRL with the FCC ****ed up and realy screwed Ham radio, and ham could we please move on to say this century sometime 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
an_old_friend wrote:
I have always agreed that Jim and other got screwed back then I do not think I was "cheated" or "screwed" back then because the requirements changed. I knew they were changing, so I just went and passed the tests. Some, like W4NTI, were out of the country and didn't know the change was coming. but (he and others) are still whining about it after 37 years I wasn't "whining". I was simply relating what happened, to show that I was there and knew the dates that the new rules took effect. History is part of policy. |
Docket Scorecard
On 23 Oct 2005 05:14:39 -0700, wrote:
an_old_friend wrote: I have always agreed that Jim and other got screwed back then I do not think I was "cheated" or "screwed" back then because the requirements changed. I knew they were changing, so I just went and passed the tests. Some, like W4NTI, were out of the country and didn't know the change was coming. but (he and others) are still whining about it after 37 years I wasn't "whining". I was simply relating what happened, to show that I was there and knew the dates that the new rules took effect. if it looks like whinning sound like whinning it likey is whinning espp after the it is repeated enough times over the years History is part of policy. _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Docket Scorecard
On 22 Oct 2005 12:14:29 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm Leo wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: etc. IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to TV or a movie. Really? Ernest Lehman didn't think so. He wrote a fairly popular novel entitled "The French Atlantic Affair" which was made into a two-part TV movie on one of the networks. Lehman was a respected award-winning screenwriter ("North by Northwest" is perhaps the most notable). Lehman was also a licensed ham. thank been trying to remeber the title of that movie I will have to check if it avable in in DVD but on the tangent is my memeroy faulty or didn't those hams in voled (the land station was a Girl ham as I recall) violate FCC rules and use a Code in violation of the rules (except for the emergency nature of the transmisiion Get the BOOK version. The TV movie was so re-written (for the worst) that I'm surprised Lehman didn't lodge a protest with the WGA (Writers Guild of America). Truly a terrible adaptation for TV. As for casting...well, Chad Everett was the "lead." :-) [not even close for an Emmy nomination...] One reason for revision argues that the original book version had too much graphic sex in it (some, not a great deal), graphic violence (such as machine-gunning a bunch of tourists on the ship), alcoholism and drug use (by some peripheral characters). No kiddies involved in the book version, only adults. The solution to the dilemma of a hijacked cruise ship involved the Rand Corporation and a medical doctor who had taken his portable ham rig with him (which his wife didn't like). In the original book version, the hijackers (a large group of swingers, by the way) meet an unusual, topical end. ["topical," NOT tropical...] Check with Amazon on availability...of the book. Forget the DVD (if there is one). Ernest Lehman was interviewed in one of the independent ham publications, got a couple pages in CQ (?) with his picture in it. I'm surprised that all the name-dropping superhams in here haven't included his name in any "prominent show-biz hams" listings. Lehman died recently. You can do a regular search on that name and come up with many a hit on it. Of course, CB Radio has been featured in many a TV show and movie such as "Convoy," "Smokey and the Bandit," and (would you believe this title) "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie"...not to mention an essential part of "The Dukes of Hazzard" series. "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie, Lady Truckers" (the whole title) was an amusing two-hour TV movie starring Kim Darby and Annie Potts (might have been Potts' first big role) circa 1978. [Darby was "Sweetiepie" and Potts was "Flatbed Annie"] Morsemanship prior to around 1950 has been portrayed rather often, perhaps most noted in the various versions of the Titanic disaster of 1912. [I doubt anyone in here except James Micollis was alive in 1912... :-) ] It's hard to recall the large number of Westerns cranked out between the 1930s and 1960s that DIDN'T have a scene of a "telegraph office" with its clickety-clacking "sounder" on the sound track. The telegrapher nearly always had on an eyeshade and sleeve garters (must have had a lot of those available from Western Costume Co.). Those of us old enough to have enjoyed radio broadcasting of pre-TV times can well remember a "newscaster" beginning with a burst of beeping morse code and the voice "Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America, and all the ships at sea." For a WW2 adventure movie, try "Dam Busters," based on a real event of RAF bombers destroying German dams. Black and white, but the sound of a single morse code character (transmitted by each bomber after doing its thing) is very much IN the movie. [I don't remember which plane Jimmie flew on, but I'm sure he will recall all of it vividly] There are many, many motion pictures of the past which included a bit of morse code (largely the radio variety beeping) as PART of the movie. I don't recall any where morse code was the main plot ingredient, essential to success of the story. Might have been one somewhere, though, its unwanted print now decaying in a vault. |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
On 25 Oct 2005 10:03:42 -0700, wrote:
wrote: From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm Leo wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not our easy 5. It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when the Technician lost its code test requirement. That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz. Not in every country of the world. But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few other countries pf the world. might change? you still holding hope it will not change the only question is the date The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement. Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991. The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-) The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late 1992 or so. Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-) Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods. Riiiiiiight... Glad you agree! ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and abilities! Who said that? I wrote: "Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods." Is that not a fact? not it is not it can be flat out impossible cut Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if you consider upper and lower sideband as separate). not legaly premitted but it can and is done at greater ranges with out even the intetion of thse involved at times cut _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Docket Scorecard
wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005 10:03:42 -0700, wrote: wrote: From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm Leo wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not our easy 5. It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when the Technician lost its code test requirement. That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz. Not in every country of the world. But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few other countries pf the world. might change? Yes. you still holding hope it will not change Is that not allowed? the only question is the date It's not over till it's over. The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement. Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991. The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-) The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late 1992 or so. Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-) Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods. Riiiiiiight... Glad you agree! ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and abilities! Who said that? I wrote: "Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods." Is that not a fact? not it is not it can be flat out impossible You're right, Mark. It can be impossible for some people. For example, someone who doesn't know an alphabet probably can't learn Morse Code for that alphabet. Someone who is in a coma probably can't learn it either. Etc. But I find it hard to accept that people who can read, write, speak and understand the English language with a good deal of fluency at rates in excess of 100 wpm find claim it to be 'impossible' for them to learn Morse Code at 5 wpm. Or even 13 or 20 wpm. cut Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if you consider upper and lower sideband as separate). not legaly premitted but it can and is done at greater ranges with out even the intetion of thse involved at times cut Sure. But the point is that cb is not a long-distance radio service. Should amateur radio be patterned after cb? |
Docket Scorecard
wrote: wrote: From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm Leo wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not our easy 5. It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when the Technician lost its code test requirement. That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz. Not in every country of the world. But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few other countries pf the world. The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement. Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991. Oh no! Lennie got yet ANOTHER key Amateur Radio policy issue wrong...A MAJOR one, considering the nature of thios forum.... WHO wudda thunk it? The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late 1992 or so. Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-) More like a concious attempt to try and fold reality into his own distorted concept. Didn't work. Nice catch, Jim. Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods. Riiiiiiight... Glad you agree! ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and abilities! Who said that? I wrote: "Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods." Is that not a fact? Seems that since partnering-up with Markie, some of Markie's English comprehension issues have been rubbing off on Brain and Lennie, including changing complete words and phrases in order to fit their arguments even though they quote your original statement. Pretty lame. All one has to do is "work hard" in order to pass a federally-mandated morse test in order to transmit below 30 MHz as an amateur. No, one has to study effectively. And pass the required tests - Morse Code and written. I didn't have to work hard for either. It's pretty clear what your story is, Len. Here's what I think is behind all your verbiage he Back in the mid-1950s, you decided to try for an amateur radio license. The written test was no big challenge - you'd already been taught the basics of radio theory at taxpayer expense in the Army, and IIRC had a First Class 'Phone license as well. But the Army didn't teach you Morse Code because that training was reserved for radio *operators*, not technicians. And they were phasing out the use of Morse Code in the Army anyway, even though they would continue to use it for a couple more decades or so. Getting an *amateur* license back then required passing a Morse Code test. And you started studying Morse Code, but discovered that, for you, it wasn't as easy as most things you'd learned up to that time. Plus you didn't much like the fact that many you considered your inferiors were allowed on the amateur bands, but you were not, regardless of your commercial license or Army experience. Strange, too, that Lennie alleges that he was once proficient to "about 8WPM or more". Guess he was only THAT "proficient" if no one was looking...Kinda like he "knows" all these "facts" about Amateur Radio as long as he's got a mouse in his hand...He's scared to death of that VE exam... Then in 1958, 27 MHz cb was authorized, and you jumped on it. You had fun with it for a few years, tooling around in your radio-equipped little car. But then things changed on cb, the band became overrun with truckers and trucker wannabes, and the whole thing became a fad. He probably never got more than the five channels his Lafayette HB15 would allow him to go...Musta been frustrating with that tunable receiver to hear those others talking and not being able to "get back" to them. Of course you could have gotten a Novice license with your limited Morse Code skills - but there's no way you wanted to be a "Novice" anything, particularly considering that many if not most Novices then were 'teeners'...... He COULD have gone right to Technician... Tsk. That is NOT required for General Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator license holders at HF and below. Sure - but GROL licensees cannot operate Amateur Radio stations. Nor can they have their own stations at all unless they also qualify for a station license in some commercial radio service (like broadcasting). Ahhhh...He knows that, Jim...How many times have we had to remind him that he can't operate a single transmitter with that GROL unless it's got an FCC station license with it...Just like it says on the back of HIS GROL! That is NOT required for UNLICENSED CB radio operators on 27 MHz, yet their signals can - during certain propagation conditions - be heard all over the world. Sure...can be HEARD "all over the world". Now...try and pick a discreet signal out of the caucophony of 11 meters, Lennie... Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if you consider upper and lower sideband as separate). Do you think amateur radio should be just like cb? He wishes it were...then he'd be vindicated. Thankfully it's not. Slightly less than half of US hams hold Technician licenses, but there's no way of knowing how many have passed the code test. A mere 48+ plus percent of ALL USA amateur radio licensees are Technician class. You might want to check those numbers, Len. The Technician class (exclusive of the Technician PLUS class) is over TWICE as numerous as General class (most numerous of the "code tested" classes). So? The Technician class includes a considerable number of code-tested amateurs. I've signed quite a few CSCE's for guys and gals who passed Element 1 and "only" had a Technician. There's also the factor of how long somebody stays interested. And what they do when they have the license. That's NOT a LEGAL requirement, is it? :-) No, but it's an important consideration for the future of the Amateur Radio Service. The ONLY requirement I can find in all of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. as to "doing" when a person has an amateur radio license is to OPERATE LEGALLY ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS. From a legal standpoint, that's true. Is there something I missed in Part 97 about "building from scratch," "devotion to morse code," or being an acolyte at the Church of St. Hiram? Try reading the "Basis and Purpose" part with an open mind, Len. THAT'S a stretch, Jim. Lennie's about as flexible as a pane of glass. As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back then seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available anywhere on this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do! But are you and your friends a representative sample? Why not? Because they're a small sample. YOU seem to hold yourself as a "representative sample" of the very model of a modern major marvel in amateur radio. :-) I'd rather be me than you, Len ;-) Halleleuja on that one... [apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan] When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends with a ham. In 50 years little has changed in that regard... No thanks to "professionals in radio electronics who have had a lifelong interest in Amateur Radio..." I'm still waiting for Lennie to regale us with tales of all the kids he's "mentored" in an electronics career.... Seems Lennie's real poor with his "sharing" skills...No doubt part of the reason he so covets the Amateur allocations yet won't join in....If he can't "have it all" he doesn't want ANYthing..... Where is the ARRL Public Relations effort when it is sorely needed? I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia that was mostly blue- and white-collar middle class families. Lots of kids, houses ranging from rowhomes to big single Dutch Colonials. Yet there were less than a dozen hams in the whole township then, all spread out, and about half were inactive or minimally active. "Typical?" :-) Yes. Tsk, didn't you claim to have begun amateur radio in another state? No. You are mistaken - again. Show us where I made such a claim - if you can. It's Lennie that's in "another state"...of confusion...! In my high school (grades 9/10/11/12), which had over 2500 boys and emphasized math and science, there were perhaps a half-dozen hams in the 4 years I was there. Ah, an "all boys" school. That may explain a lot...? Such as? Jim has kids. What happened to you, Lennie? The all-girls school was right next door. Both schools are still there and still educating young people. The main problem wasn't code or theory, for those who were interested. It was space for an antenna and money for equipment. Amazing how the story changes as time goes on... :-) No change. NOBODY had an "attic antenna" back in those ancient days? That requires an attic. Not everyone has one. Row houses usually don't. Tsk, the "beer can vertical" started in the 1950s.. Did you ever build one? I did - from steel *soda* cans. ;-) NOBODY managed to attend a Field Day exercise back then? [were there any parks to hold them in?] I've been on the air at every Field Day since 1968. My score for this year is listed on the ARRL website. I was #1 in my category for the Hudson Division. Did anyone hear Lennie and his Part 15 rig on 20 meters? NOBODY scrounged for "old radio parts" to build a whole station for $100 then? I did. Built stations for a lot less than $100. Pictures of one of my receivers are on the HBR website. I built the 35W crystal controlled transmitter with a single 6146 from the 69 Handbook. Used a Heathkit HR-10B receiver that I built. After you add in some crystals and other accessories from a local hamfest, I think I got WN8OAH on the air for under $100 in 1972. Most people, young or old, thought ham radio looked like a kind of fun thing, when they found out about it. But not enough to spend the necessary time and money to set up a station, let alone get a license. Too busy playing with car fix-ups? Yes, for many 'teeners' of that time. They couldn't get part-time jobs to afford $100 to build a "Southgate" transceiver? You seem to forget how much $100 really was back in the 1960s. A week's gross salary for you, I'd expect....;-) Oh no, Jim...Now we will be subjected to yet another diatribe on how he was making "the big bucks" in "aerospace". Well, I have to give you slack on that. "Surplus" in the late 1940s was very inexpensive: $6 for a brand-new Command Set receiver, $12 for a brand-new Command Set transmitter, $18 for the Command Set antenna tuning unit and modulator...at H&H Electronics, co-owned by Gene Hubbel (then W9ERU, later W7DI and then SK...a VERY high-rate tested morseman). There's Lennie dropping Amateur callsigns as if it means something to him. That's nice, Len. But I didn't grow up in the 1940s. I was talking about the late 1960s and early 1970s. Tsk, I used my part-time earnings to buy and convert (to 110 VAC power) TWO Command Set stations...sold them quickly at a very modest profit by 1950. "Surplus" radios cost much more 30 years later. That's nice, Len. But I bet you never actually *operated* a Command Set station. I did. Converted both the receivers and transmitters. Had a complete setup of them before I was 16. What was "very modest" about Lennie's command set story was the quantity of truth, I bet... But I soon found I could build better receivers and transmitters. So surplus became a parts source for my projects. Hmmmmmmmmmm.....Reminds me...Lennie STILL hasn't ponied-up some pics or specifics on HIS "station", other than a 30 year old Icom receiver and an un-named scanner he listens to LAX ATIS on... It's not like it would be a technically challenging project, considering his seven AOL accounts and their allocated "webpages" allow the posting of multiple jpeg's or bitmap pics. IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to TV or a movie. Really? Ernest Lehman didn't think so. He wrote a fairly popular novel entitled "The French Atlantic Affair" which was made into a two-part TV movie on one of the networks. Lehman was a respected award-winning screenwriter ("North by Northwest" is perhaps the most notable). Lehman was also a licensed ham. And you're not. And obviously you were right in this case, Jim...Wonder where all that literary skill went to...?!?! Of course, CB Radio has been featured in many a TV show and movie such as "Convoy," "Smokey and the Bandit," and (would you believe this title) "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie"...not to mention an essential part of "The Dukes of Hazzard" series. Where it is depicted being used to avoid law enforcement and in violation of the Communications Act. Yep...criminals and rednecks...Those are the kinda folks I would want to be associated with! A later movie, "Frequency" used amateur radio as essential to enable communications time-travel between deceased father and son, but that was more science-fantasy in its plotline and didn't really showcase radio as much as the supernatural. And only the laws of nature were "broken". Not a redneck in sight. Then there's "Contact" in which the main character is a young radio amateur, and amateur radio operation is fairly adequately portrayed in the opening sequence. But the terms "amateur radio" and "ham radio" are not mentioned in the film! When depicted operating her amateur radio station in that film, the main character is well below the minimum age limit you would have imposed on US amateur radio, btw. Uh huh...And also played a very pivotal part in the character's developing scientific future. Again, all very positive representations. And let's not forget "The Anderson Tapes" (how ironic!) in which a bed-ridden youth in a high rise calls for help when thieves loot their flats...?!?! Again...very positive and technically accurate portrayals of Amateur Radio. Maybe we're using the wrong term - perhaps instead of "popularity", what you are describing is better described as "visibility" or "recognition by the public". Tsk. You should have a long heart-to-heart talk with ARRL Public Relations (excuse me, "Media Advisors") people on getting amateur radio more popular with the general public. ARRL hasn't done much in THAT regard for the last half century...they've spent most of their time preaching to the choir to try and enlarge their membership numbers (haven't done too well there, either, still only 1 out of 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs are members). You know this how? He doesn't. It's a bunch of bufoonery. But, you are NOT offering any possible solutions to either popularity, visibility, or recognition by any public. I've done so many time, Len. Ditto. I've set up at my kids grade school...Assisted at JOTA...done "PA" functions at Field Day sites...Taught classes... Hey Lennie...How many kids have YOU mentored in electonics..?!?! Even ONE...?!?! Your aim is to disrupt any talk of eliminating the code test by any means possible. Typical - when someone disagrees with you, you make claims that are simply not true. Notice, Jim, that he puts this at the END of a lengthy, windy post wherein he FIRST took great liberties to try and undermine any "good" references to Amateur Radio, with or WITHOUT the "code test" being mentioned....Seems he made QUITE A FEW refrences of his own that had NOTHING to do with "code testing". NOT a democratic-principle effort on your part. But, it's par for the course in this newsgroup. Sorry, that's just not true. Again, another lame swipe AFTER he has taken HIS liberties....That is par for HIS course... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Docket Scorecard
wrote: wrote: On 25 Oct 2005 10:03:42 -0700, wrote: wrote: From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm Leo wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not our easy 5. It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when the Technician lost its code test requirement. That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz. Not in every country of the world. But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few other countries pf the world. might change? Yes. you still holding hope it will not change Is that not allowed? no such implication was made the only question is the date It's not over till it's over. thankfully that is bull The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement. Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991. The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-) The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late 1992 or so. Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-) Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods. Riiiiiiight... Glad you agree! ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and abilities! Who said that? I wrote: "Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person and the training methods." Is that not a fact? not it is not it can be flat out impossible You're right, Mark. It can be impossible for some people. meaning your statement was not a fact For example, someone who doesn't know an alphabet probably can't learn Morse Code for that alphabet. Someone who is in a coma probably can't learn it either. Etc. But I find it hard to accept that people who can read, write, speak and understand the English language with a good deal of fluency at rates in excess of 100 wpm find claim it to be 'impossible' for them to learn Morse Code at 5 wpm. Or even 13 or 20 wpm. who are you talikgn about there? No one I have ever heard of cut Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if you consider upper and lower sideband as separate). not legaly premitted but it can and is done at greater ranges with out even the intetion of thse involved at times cut Sure. But the point is that cb is not a long-distance radio service. not my point Should amateur radio be patterned after cb? never said that |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com