| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#172
December 10th 05, 11:48 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Easier licensing
|
|
#173
December 11th 05, 06:20 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Easier licensing
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm, [the MAN who knows all about
military life!] wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message Well now, I just don't think ANY multiple classes should exist. ONE license. How about that? It's not as good as if there are multiple license classes. "Not as good" for whom? :-) For those who MUST be "better than others" at something? Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons: 1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio One can't go into an HRO, plunk down plastic, walk out with a working two-way radio? :-) Can't be *used* (legally) for amateur radio without the appropriate license. Now, now, "legality" was not part of the boundary conditions! "Legality" does NOT enter the picture if you are talking about LEGAL LICENSES. If one has a legal license then they ARE legal. Try to stay focussed. 2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would exist with a single license class that required the same knowledge Removing the artificiality of all that class distinction with carrot-stick "privileges" would erase all of that. Instead, new hams would just have to pass all the exams at once just to get started. Unless you want to lower the *written* test requirements even more. What are you talking about? With ONE license (NO "classes") there would be only ONE written exam, wouldn't there? Face it, Jimmie, all those classes GREW in order to satisfy some POLITICAL reasons within the amateur community. Such as? Back up your claim - if you can. Tsk, your little political heart have a malfunction? [need a "valve" replacement?] The "back-up" is the NON-ARRL history of amateur radio regulations, indeed ALL the radio regulations since 1912. POLITICS, little Jimmie. It's been pervasive in the very being of the league since 1914. A "one- party" system more or less in between the World Wars and on to the immediate post-WW2 era. By the 1970s other groups were being heard from and the league's virtual oligarchy was beginning to dwindle. Just the beginning of their influence, but it IS dwindling to the REAL law-makers. In the beginning there was only ONE license. The time of one-amateur-radio-license-class ended more than 70 years ago, Len. U.S. amateur radio licensing began in 1912 92 years ago. [historical fact] The FCC has been in existance for 71 years. [law of the land as of the Communications Act of 1934] Yes. Amateur radio licenses are earned by passing the required tests. Strange, the FCC says it GRANTS them. How much did you earn on your test? Was it fixed-fee or at an hourly rate? Did you get cash or was it by check? Did you have to file any W-2s on that earning? Sure. But you haven't earned any amateur radio license, Len.... I haven't gotten any money for it, true. :-) Neither do I (or did) live in Louisiana like Broose. :-) As far as the federal government is concerned, it is a NON-PAYING radio activity that is expressly forbidden to broadcast or engage in common-carrier communications. That's true. Whoa...if you agree to what I said, how can you say you "earned" your license? How did stamp collecting help with hurricane relief? Amateur radio provided shelter, food, clothing for hurricane victims? Geez, here I thought all they were doing was relaying health and welfare messages...some of the time. How many hurricane victims are you providing food and shelter for, Jimmie? Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY. But that's not all it is, Len. Grow up and accept that shouting the same old tired lines doesn't convince anyone. Hello? See the word "basically" in my quoted sentence? Come on, give us the old trite cliche phrases used by the league for years... Individuals engaged in that HOBBY are licensed because the FCC, the federal agency regulating all civil radio, think that licensing is a tool of regulation. That's partly true. Entirely true. FCC is NOT an academic organization, "grading" amateurs on their radio skills. Licenses are also required because the USA has entered into treaty agreements with other countries regarding radio regulation - including amateur radio regulation. Tsk, tsk, what is that but REGULATION? :-) In almost every human activity there are levels of achievement and recognition for same. "Recognition?" Tsk, now you are back to CLASS DISTINCTION again! Is achievement a bad thing? Tsk, "achievement" can be shown many, many ways. You could have little merit badges, for example. Those would look good on your amateur radio service uniforms. Both Office Depot and Office Max stores offer packets of gold stars, have both paperware and software products for certificates (suitable for framing). The complexity of the task of operating a radio transmitter is directly related to the transmitter. Some are designed to be very easy to operate, others are more complex. Whoooo...took a lot of brainpower to generate THAT phrase didn't it? :-) You're taking the experience of a few people and a few transmitters and demanding that it apply to everyone and all transmitters. That's just nonsense. Tsk, I thought it was an example. An example that I lived through. An example that you did NOT live through. Ah, THAT's the difference! You didn't do it, were unacquainted with it, ergo it "did not apply!" :-) How many 15 KW HF transmitters have you personally QSYed, Jimmie? How many 10 KW HF transmitters? 5 KW? 1 KW? Besides, you've already contradicted yourself. The "very ordinary young men" all had some form of technical training, and had been selected for the task. "Selected for the task:" Personnel requirements were for N number of warm bodies within X number of MOS ranges. :-) Tsk. Jimmie, you just don't understand how the military works. If you were a "warm body" in the area and came even close to the requirements of filling a TO&E (Table of Organization and Equipment) then you "got selected." The transmitters they adjusted were already set up, operating, and the procedures to use them completely worked out. Those "very ordinary young men" all had more-experienced supervision to teach them the tasks and make sure they did it right. Did you expect that everyone had to build everything themselves?!? Do you expect sailors to all get sheet steel and torches and build the ship they are going to serve on? Do you expect airmen to all get aluminum and engines and build the aircraft they are going to serve on? Do you expect choo-choo drivers to build their locomotives themselves? :-) And yet it took *days* of on-the-job instruction before they could be left to do the job on their own! Yes, ONE TO THREE DAYS, the latter for the slow-learners and goof- offs. :-) Even then, the more-experienced supervision was always on-call if a problem arose. That's usually the situation with EVERY military or civilian organization. :-) After some experience, the formerly-inexperienced BECAME the "experienced supervision" people. Len, you don't seem to be able to understand the concept of "amateur radio station", let alone "operating". Jimmie, YOU don't understand that every other radio service does NOT define either "station" or "operating" by amateur radio "rules." :-) Not even MARS! :-) UNLICENSED people by the thousands every day in the USA are OPERATING TRANSCEIVERS. Not operating in the amateur radio sense. Oh, you want PLMRS mobiles to send QSLs on "contacts?" Do you want "radiosport contests" among aviation radio or maritime radio services? Do you think policemen carrying neat little two-way radios subscribe to QST? :-) "Morse code operation in amateur radio" does NOT involve ALL "skilled operators." Yes, it does. Those operators have skills that you do not have, and I think that bothers the heck out of you. No bother at all to me, Jimmie. I just disregarded any NEED to learn morse code since I was never, ever required to use it in the military or in the much longer civilian life career I still have. It seems to really bother you that I'm better than you at Morse Code. Har! No. Whatever skills you have at morsemanship are overwhelmed by your posturing arrogance of superiority at that singular skill. :-) So? It's a test of Morse Code skill at a very basic level. Entry- level, nothing more. It nevertheless requires that the operator have the skills. That's the current law, Jimmie. It's just a political thing. Since no higher deity commanded that morse code testing be done for amateur radio licenses, ordinary humans must have done it. Whatever humans have done, humans can UNDO. VECs can delete sending tests at their option. Not delete - waive. Correction noted and accepted. I see you've waived bye-bye there...would have made it much easier on the readers. :-) The radios they USE are either owned by their employers (businesses, public safety agences as examples) or themselves (private boat or aircraft owners as an example). Some of those radios DO require a licensed person to oversee their operation and technical details, but some do NOT. Depends on the particular radio service. In amateur radio, a licensed amateur radio operator is required. You have a macro for that sentence? :-) Yes, Jimmie, I'm well aware of Title 47 C.F.R.'s Part 97. That's what I've been telling you all along. Well, there you go again with the posturing arrogance... Do you also tell your grandmother how to suck eggs? :-) Amateur USE is the same whether home-built or ready-built. That's nonsense. Oh? :-) In what way is it "Different?" Where it say dat in Part 97? "Adjustment" to meet the technical requirements of Part 97 is NOT USE. It's operating, Len. Tsk, tsk, ADJUSTMENT can be done by anyone in a non-radiating test. Takes NO "license" to perform a test-alignment-calibration such as done by factory folks on ham equipment. Radar isn't for communications. And the SGC2020 is dirt simple compared to most amateur radio HF transceivers - even the Southgate series are much more complex to operate. Oh, dear, here it comes with posturing arrogance again... The SGC 2020 full manual is available on the SGC website. I don't see any "Southgate" company in any search result. Maybe you can provide a link to a "Southgate" radio so that all can compare the two? In general aviation craft, the civil communications band transceiver IS simple. It should be since a pilot has to give their attention to FLYING, not playing ham. Add to that the civil navigation band receiver with OBS for VOR, the crossed needles for LOC and GS, the Marker Beacon lights, is NOT "simple." Sure it is. You have actually DONE all of that in a cockpit while aloft? How about in a cockpit on the ground? Or in a lab/workshop on the ground? Tell all what "OBS" means...or "LOC" or "GS" means. Tell us all how to acknowledge tower communications by voice, receive and read back flight plans, communicate with radar-guided air traffic control. Tell us what "squawk" means in pilot parlance. I've done all that...even after I gave up student flying. The regulations were changed so that radios which did not require technical adjustment would be used, and so the need for radio licenses could be included in the pilot's license. What?!? NO need for morsemanship to be a pilot?!? :-) Good heavens, shouldn't you be writing to the head of the FAA? On top of all that, the radio users cited above may not be FCC licensed, but they are trained, tested and often certified in proper radio procedures for the radios they use. "Certified?" They get neat little certificates (suitable for framing)? Wow! Yes - did you ever see an FAA pilot's license? No, couldn't afford to continue. I did pass the written test and have the confirmation document digitized. Need to see it? :-) No "moonies" in that. However, I once considered buying a Mooney single-engine, was wisely talked out of it to invest in a residence (the present southern house). For example, licenses to pilot aircraft with radios require that the licensee know and demonstrate proper aircraft radio procedures. The pilot's license cannot be obtained without such radio procedure knowledge. By the Federal AVIATION Administration, NOT the FCC. The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs. It doesn't?!? Oh, my, you ARE INCORRECT!!! :-) Hey, Brian, note that Jimmie wrote, in exact words, "The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs." That's a keeper. Mount it on a plaque, hang it on the wall, have a little spotlight on it! Pilots don't go chasing DX or engaging in contact contests or sending QSLs. Ignore a ham transceiver and all you do is miss a contact or two, maybe offend the person at the other end. Ignore an airplane's attitude or instruments and it crashes and the pilot is DEAD, perhaps with many more on the ground. Those instruments aren't radios, Len. Amateur radios don't go crashing through fences and killing kids in vehicles. [Southwest Airlines is improving their service. They didn't kill anyone going through the fence a Bob Hope Airport, but they did at Chicago's Midway] Yeah, they pay by plastic, perhaps follow the maker's instructions and fumble around until things sound right. Is there something wrong with using a credit/debit card? Or following manufacturer's instructions? Besides - it's something *you* haven't done. Tsk, tsk, tsk...something I HAVE done, sweetums. Years ago a bunch of us got together to give a friend his retirement and birthday gift, an HF transceiver. I had the "plastic" higher level and paid for it, another with a station wagon transported the boxes, yet another provided the Bird Wattmeter and dummy load and we all went through the instruction manual to make sure it worked. NON-radiating test, Jimmie. Perfectly legal. There are more than a few of us radio amateurs who design and build our own amateur stations. You haven't done any of that, Len, yet you pass judgement on us as if you are somehow superior. Oh, my, I couldn't possibly be more superior than your own posturing arrogance...and being a "manufacturer" of transceivers! [still haven't gotten beyond the uncased prototype?] "Modern" amateur band transceivers, transmitters, receivers, etc. are ready-to-play right out of the box. Those are aligned, tested, calibrated, ready-to-go. Sort of like the SGC 2020 private marine version SSB transceiver. :-) The modern amateur radio transceivers I use didn't come that way. Yes, yes, Jimmie, whatever YOU use applies to all other 700+ thousand U.S. amateur radio licensees. :-) None of the others USE anything but what you've USED? Six months of microwave school, a transmitter that was all set up and ready to go, an experienced instructor, and it still took you an *hour* of instruction? Yes. :-) Not having the SUPERIOR morsemanship skills nor the extensive amateur radio exprience (that automatically makes it possible to operate all transmitters everywhere of any make), we were all relegated to mere mortal human learning processes. :-) By the way, part of that Signal Schooling was radar fundamentals. That was because of the close similarity of radar electronics to the electronics used in radio relay equipments coming after WW2. Absolutely NONE of it prepared us for operating ANY of the HF transmitters (36 of them at first) at station ADA in 1953. NONE of it prepared anyone for teletypewriter operation, for operation of the VHF and UHF radio relay equipment, for operation of the "carrier" bays. NONE of it involved learning of the General Electric commercial microwave radio relay equipment that ADA would use for primary communication link of transmitters to the rest of the station...we got a two-week "course" by two GE tech-reps to "prepare" us for that in late 1954. Some might say your behavior was closer to "monkey-see, monkey-do"... Careful, Jimmie, you are going ape-**** in your nastiness. Been eating bananas again? Oh, I get it, you did the OOK, OOK thing! Did you finally find the "gorilla of your dreams?" :-) Reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of determining the validity of a logical process. Tsk, you've reduced yourself to ridiculous there... It means that the intent of the original license was that the licensees would operate to check out and develop new technologies and methods, rather than ragchewing, DX chasing, contesting, etc. ...and you've done that, right? :-) Describe for us your EME station. Describe for us your fine developmental work in new solid-state amateur radio designs (other than building an Elecraft kit). And just what is YOUR experience at ham bands of 220 MHz and up? More than yours, Len! I've only listened to the predecessor of the Condor Net in Newbury Park, CA, demonstrated by one of the ham-licensed employees there. At Teledyne Electronics, my employer during the late 70s. It was the first state-long network to use all tone switching for routing without using any microprocessor control. Especially right after WW2. More than yours, Len! Tsk, you didn't exist until some time AFTER WW2, Jimmie. Who is sneering? Not me. The Technician failed in its original purpose. That's a fact. That's only an OPINION, Jimmie. Tsk, better learn some acting skills, redirect that sneer. You can do it with practice. Right now the combined numbers of no-code-Technician and Technician Plus classes make up a bit more that 48% of ALL U.S. amateur radio licenses granted. Almost HALF, Jimmie. 48.1% - 318,462 out of 661,800 as of December 9. Tsk, tsk, tsk. That doesn't agree with www.hamdata.com figures. Oh, yes, you are quoting NON-grace-period figures derived from elsewhere as "official." Heavens, I have to keep taking THAT into account, don't I? :-) But that percentage is *down* from what it was 5 years ago, right after the rules changes. Well now, www.hamdata.com figures also show the totals of EXPIRATIONS versus NEW (never before licensed) licensees. Expirations still exceed the NEW licensees and have for the last year. And for more than 5-1/2 years, the only choice new hams have had for their first license class is the Technician, General, or Extra. Duuhhhhh...stating the obvious again, aren't you? Oh, my, you DO have to try NOT to talk down to everyone. It help you lose your posturing arrogance of superiority... ...because it has NO code test. How do you know that is the reason, Len? I asked around. :-) If, on a sampling basis, ten out of ten answer "it was the lack of a code test," then I'd assume it was because of that. Of course, as a dyed-in-the-woolies morseman, you are not expected to accept that. TS. So you let a *name* - a single *word* - stop you from getting an Amateur Radio license. A long time ago another called me a "sunnuvabitch." I put him down with a bleeding nose and lip. Certain words DO have an effect on people, Jimmie. A word of advice: Avoid street fighting...you ain't good at it. You're not even a beginner in amateur radio, Len. You haven't even begun there.... Oh, my, that old thing again. Jimmie, TRY to learn to write "licensed" before "amateur radio," then you will be correct in your beloved nastygram. I was an amateur radio hobbyist beginning in 1947, including modifying some WW2 surplus ARC-5 receivers and transmitters for AC power operation as well as BC radios. I didn't bother with getting a LICENSE then, Jimmie. I didn't bother with getting ANY federal radio operator license until 1956 and that one was a Commercial one. First class, one sitting. I'd like to see you try to throw rotten tomatoes at me in real life, Len. You're really brave in the cyber-world, a continent away. Tsk, tsk, Jimmie, getting worried? :-) Fear not. You aren't worth getting involved in with force of any kind. However, I am what I am in-person or on-computer. You don't like that? TS. You mean like somebody who thinks the zoning ideas of 1960 should still apply 30-40-45 years later? In most cases, absolutely YES. :-) Does local residence zoning affect radio of any kind? I think not. Residences are for LIVING in, Jimmie. It is HOME. on entering military service No. The ONLY aptitude test given in regards to radio was a morse code cognition test given to all recruits. Ah - and you didn't make the grade on that one, eh? Explains a lot. I'm glad I didn't make a good aptitude there. Would have wound up in Field Radio and had to go through the remainder out in the boonies somewhere. :-) So you all had various electrical/electronic training from the US Army. None of you were 100% self-taught in the area of radio/electricity/electronics. You have some kind of point to make but all you are doing is carving a sharp stake our of balsa wood. It isn't to the point. :-) We had a separate group for outside-plant telephone people...the "pole cats" who put up the poles for wire antennas and strung the wire. So you didn't have to do that sort of thing. Ever climbed a wooden pole with hooks and belt, Len? Those "hooks" were called "spikes" or "boot spikes." The belt wasn't supposed to be used until reaching wherever height one was supposed to be working at. Yes, I did do that a couple times. Wasn't my job but thought it fun to do once or twice. :-) Tsk. Try NOT to TELL ME what I or any contemporaries were doing, Jimmie. You don't know dink about it. IOW, I have stated exactly how it was. HAAARRR!!!! You still don't know dink about it. You weren't there. You and the others had significant "radio-electronics" background before you got to Japan, and did not have to start from scratch. We had adequate sanitary facilities. No scratching. The supply clerk had flea powder to issue if needed. :-) But all had various training *in the army* before they ever got to Japan. Some went to microwave school, some went to Field Radio School, some went to tele-typewriter school, a few went to inside-plant telephone school. Inside-plant WHAT, Jimmie? There were variations in that. :-) Exactly! Amateur radio is totally different. I should certainly hope so! The military is all about war- fighting and defense of the country. Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY. There IS a difference! :-) They didn't hold any hands or coddle lower ranks if that's what you mean...guffaw! Not at all. I mean that you were not on your own. Not quite. :-) In soldier training which we did on a constant basis off-signal-duty, we would often be very much alone. Usually as recon observers. Sometimes we would be the walkie-talkie carriers on patrol exercises. (AN/PRC-9s for us at the time, -8 or -10 for others) In the presence of lethal AC primary power it was customary to have at least two on duty at a particular place for safety reasons. Yet there were always experienced people around if really needed. You were part of a team, not all on your own. Jimmie boy, the military is all about TEAMWORK. But when you started, you didn't have to work anything out on your own. Right...my high school neglected to teach me how to KILL the enemy. IOW, you had everything you needed. That's a good thing! Usually. Spare parts were scarce only a very few times. We had "three hots and a cot." :-) We had deprivations but you won't understand them. :-) What, to QSY a BC-339? A BC-340? An LD-T2? Simple task. The PW-15 was a bit more difficult due to the large double- shorting links for the final tank (15 KW conservative RF output, looked like it was built for three times that). Piece of cake to anyone with a normal memory. Or a notebook. And after being shown how to do it several times. "Notebook?!?" Geez, fella, where did you think all this took place, some ivy-league school?!? As a matter of fact, notebooks and diaries were discouraged at the time and generally confiscated if found. True. There were applicable ARs and SRs on the subject forbidding such things on one's person or in possessions. That was to foil enemy M.I. efforts in case of capture or being overrun. Jimmie, I WAS THERE, YOU WERE NOT. And yet I have a very good understanding of what went on. Sigh...no you don't Jimmie. Tsk, it's useless to explain military service to you...you think it is nice and sanitary and like the movies and TV... When it comes to operating an amateur radio station as a teenager, *I* was there, Len, and *you* were not. Yes, yes, you were the teen-age hero of radio. Did you engage in "seven hostile actions" too? :-) What "incentives" did we have? Name them. Promotion - more pay - more interesting work - better duty.... "Better duty?" Same basic job at same place, more responsibility, more attention to running tasks rather than doing them. We had "permanent passes" off-post at all ranks. "Interesting work?" I thought it was "interesting" from day one. :-) "More pay?" Yes, in a way. As a Sergeant E-5, with overseas bonus, my monthly pay got as high as $156!!! :-) [big Ben Stein "wowwwww" there... :-) ] Also the negative incentives - somebody who didn't do the job right could wind up in the infantry... I don't know of any case where that happened. I'm sure you do because you "know exactly how it was." :-) Do the job poorly and your duty switched without being reassigned. Do the job really badly and you could wind up in a court-martial. Er, we didn't practice "decimation" a la the old Roman Legions. :-) Guess what? Civilians have a similar situation - except civilians can usually quit at any time. Guess what, sweetums, I've been a civilian since 1956. Try as I might, I can't see any civilian occupation where anyone "closes with, and destroys, the enemy." Not even the police departments get that drastic. Destructive environmental testing and building demolition isn't about "destroying the enemy." Describe YOUR "EME" station, Jimmie. I don't have one, Len. Neither do you. But I know what it would take to build and operate one as a radio amateur. Wow! Really something! I've got a couple documents on building a JPL Deep Space Network earth station. Explains a lot of it in those. Mars and the Jovians are a bit farther out than the Earth's moon. A "Goldstone" antenna isn't allowed in my residential zoned neighborhood and I don't have a few million bucks to spend on one. Maybe I'm supposed to wait for a big Lotto winning? My whole point is that amateur radio is a completely different environment, and your military radio experiences don't necessarily prove anything about amateur radio. Jimmie, "your whole point" is spent in a fruitless exercise to get me to cease and desist posting in here...because my opinions are contrary to yours on your radio hobby. HF radio is HF radio. It doesn't matter what label you attach to it...military, civilian, commercial, amateur...the physics of it are the SAME regardless. Regulatory statements about USE are (and have almost always been) POLITICAL insofar as allocations of use and "classes" of operator licenses...in any civilian radio service in the USA. Now you consider yourself superior to almost everyone! No. I don't consider myself "superior" to anyone. If you get that perception, TS, I'm outspoken and don't use gratuitous phrases of praises in newsgroups. Certainly to anyone who disagrees with you. Poor baby...afraid of losing your assumed ranking as one of the pontifical arrogant old-line parrots of league phrasing? [Dave Heil tops you in that category] All the military radios I've seen that are/were meant to be used by "line outfits" were made as simple to operate as possible. That paradigm goes all the way back to the WW2 BC-611 "walkie talkie". "Handie-talkie," Jimmie. The "walkie-talkie" was the SCR-300 (R/T being BC-1000). Both designed by MOTOROLA. Tell us YOUR experiences WITH "line" outfits. I've worked in a line gang. Have you? I think not! I could care less if you have worked in a chain gang. Be civil and acknowledge that YOU MADE A MISTAKE. It's like the same mistake you made earlier saying that "the FCC doesn't license radio amateurs." :-) Most radio amateurs are essentially self-taught, in their spare time, using their own resources. What they could learn in a week or two of intense formal training might take a month to a year of part-time self-study. WTF is this "intense" formal training? The microwave school you went to, Len. How many hours a day/week? For how many months? All paid for by the taxpayers, right? The taxpayers would be out the SAME amount of money if I hadn't gone to this "intense" school of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week...:-) BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Intense?" Hardly. I've worked far longer hours for the SAME pay as a civilian. No, we didn't sleep intense. We had wooden barracks buildings left over from WW2, then quonset hut barracks also left over from WW2. :-) Fort Monmouth's "permanent" billets were still in construction in 1952. It's not my problem if you picked your employers poorly, Len. Good employers see the value in training their people. I picked "wrong employers?!?" HAAARRRR! Hughes Aircraft Company, Thompson Ramo-Wooldridge, Teledyne Electronics, RCA Corporation, Rockwell International. My major employers. Little bitty shack-type employers, yah? :-) And the compensation you did get was continued employment. That's the way it works! No ****? Wow! Revelations! BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Jimmie, a salary is what one gets as "compensation for work performed." A paycheck is, in reality, a legal document attesting to that. Do you get "compensation" for your amateur radio "service?" Try working 35-38 hours a week, taking 5 engineering courses (one of them at the graduate level) per term, and getting everywhere without a car (home, job and work were all separated by several miles). Oh! Travail and suffering you must have gone through! You got me beat. I worked 40 to 48 hours a week but never took more than 3 courses at night per semester. [there's such a thing as trying to keep a social life at least puttering along on standby for one day off a week instead of ossifying to some kind of reclusive social dummy...:-)] Well, I did have a CAR! Wow, how fortunate of me, a veritable "luxury" in the Los Angeles area where things tend to be separated by MANY miles. :-) Wanna see a picture of my 1953 rebuilt Austin-Healey two-door sports car? Had that for much of my 15 calendar years of college-level schooling. I have it digitized, can send it e-mail. :-) Then there was grad school, after I'd been out of college for a decade. Full time plus work, school at night, etc. At least I had a car.... Ooooo, ooooo! Spare me the soap opera stuff. Your buddy (Dudly the Imposter) will call you some kind of remedial English or immigrant "night school" person! :-) -- Now about your one-class-of-license idea: BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Tsk, tsk, you've been busy, busy, busy trying to tear me down and NOW you want a "discussion?!?" BWAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Jimmie boy, since you "know all about military life," I'll just comment in typical words OF the military in their finest tradition - "Go shove it up your ass, Jimmie Noserve!" |
|
#174
December 11th 05, 07:03 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary. The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate steps. The ONLY alternative? :-) If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes. Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the General class license. Then they were taken away. Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is "lowering the requirements." Jim sees what Jim wants to see. It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-) Then call it something else. "Amateur" While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the best way to do things. Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too much like the traditional union concept of work with levels of apprentice-journeyman-master. Not really. Yes, REALLY. No, not REALLY. Amateur radio is NOT an occupation. Who said it was? If a person can meet the requirements of the higher class licenses, they can go right to General or Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances. Says who? The only Guild I have a card for doesn't require those levels. That's an extraordinary circumstance. Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to Generals and Extras. While that number is small compared to those who start out as Technicians, it proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both upgrading steps. Why does one have to "upgrade" through license classes? One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box". You haven't. One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher. Then the FCC implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements. Sorry you feel that way. "Upgrading" can be done for oneself, to keep abrest of technology advancements (see the old "Amateurs Code" on that). How about keeping abreast of correct spelling? ;-) Thanks, Steve. ;^) If there were only ONE license, there would be no "upgrading" via licenses, would there? Right. And if there were only one license, regardless of what it would be called, its test(s) would have to contain everything that is now contained in the three written tests for the Amateur Extra. Otherwise the standards would be reduced. No, it wouldn't. Strawman. The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES. So what you propose is that all new amateurs would have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an amateur radio license. Is that what you want? You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs. You're the one who loves unnecessary licensing requirements. |
|
#175
December 11th 05, 07:53 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
From: on Dec 11, 11:03 am
wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary. The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate steps. The ONLY alternative? :-) If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes. Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the General class license. Then they were taken away. Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is "lowering the requirements." Jim sees what Jim wants to see. Jimmie need help of opthalmologist...he have astigmatism. It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-) Then call it something else. "Amateur" Ummm...yes, that's what I answered. Too obvious to be "seen," I guess... Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to Generals and Extras. While that number is small compared to those who start out as Technicians, it proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both upgrading steps. Why does one have to "upgrade" through license classes? One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box". You haven't. One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher. Then the FCC implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements. Sorry you feel that way. Confusion reigns there. Must be the weather... If there were only ONE license, there would be no "upgrading" via licenses, would there? Right. And if there were only one license, regardless of what it would be called, its test(s) would have to contain everything that is now contained in the three written tests for the Amateur Extra. Otherwise the standards would be reduced. No, it wouldn't. Strawman. The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES. Not applicable to Jimmie-discussions. He get Extra license, be "superior." He typify "superior" class, elite. Nobility? Blue blood is thicker than water. So what you propose is that all new amateurs would have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an amateur radio license. Is that what you want? You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs. You're the one who loves unnecessary licensing requirements. Brian, that wasn't the point. Jimmie try more misdirection by trying to start yet-another controversy over "what I want." That can be expanded with his imaginary helium to "reach the threshold of [newsgroup] space." He tried the same bull**** with my remark on "extra out of the box" five years ago in here...that I "WANTED" one...and the same thing on my Reply to Comments of Mikey D. on WT DOCKET 98-143 six years ago with "my WANTING an age limit on licensing." Tsk, Jimmie complains that I "don't *read* what he wrote" and then takes my postings so far out of context that we might as well all be in outer space and/or the Twilight Zone. Okay, in that spirit of misdirection in here, let me pass on an EXACT QUOTE of Jimmie's made on 10 December 2005: "The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs." Offhand, I'd say that Jimmie "wants" amateurs to be UN- LICENSED! :-) Let's see if he can "tapdance" a few time-steps on that one? |
|
#176
December 11th 05, 08:25 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Easier licensing
|
|
#177
December 12th 05, 02:01 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
On 11 Dec 2005 11:03:08 -0800, wrote in
. com: wrote: wrote: snip It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-) Then call it something else. "Amateur" Actually, I really like this idea of a single-class license. I might even get one if it should ever be implemented, with or without code. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#178
December 12th 05, 03:15 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
Frank Gilliland wrote: On 11 Dec 2005 11:03:08 -0800, wrote in . com: wrote: wrote: snip It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-) Then call it something else. "Amateur" Actually, I really like this idea of a single-class license. I might even get one if it should ever be implemented, with or without code. One license class is all that's needed. Perhaps after some elapsed time, people will quit saying that they are Extra's or Advanced, or or or..., and focus on being a good ham. |
|
#179
December 12th 05, 03:33 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote: From: on Dec 11, 11:03 am wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary. The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate steps. The ONLY alternative? :-) If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes. Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the General class license. Then they were taken away. Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is "lowering the requirements." Jim sees what Jim wants to see. Jimmie need help of opthalmologist...he have astigmatism. He have a stigmup tis bottom. It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-) Then call it something else. "Amateur" Ummm...yes, that's what I answered. Too obvious to be "seen," I guess... Not enough "prestige." Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to Generals and Extras. While that number is small compared to those who start out as Technicians, it proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both upgrading steps. Why does one have to "upgrade" through license classes? One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box". You haven't. One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher. Then the FCC implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements. Sorry you feel that way. Confusion reigns there. Must be the weather... When it reigns, it poors. If there were only ONE license, there would be no "upgrading" via licenses, would there? Right. And if there were only one license, regardless of what it would be called, its test(s) would have to contain everything that is now contained in the three written tests for the Amateur Extra. Otherwise the standards would be reduced. No, it wouldn't. Strawman. The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES. Not applicable to Jimmie-discussions. He get Extra license, be "superior." He typify "superior" class, elite. Nobility? Blue blood is thicker than water. Just thick. Need thinner. Coronary imminent. So what you propose is that all new amateurs would have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an amateur radio license. Is that what you want? You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs. You're the one who loves unnecessary licensing requirements. Brian, that wasn't the point. Good. I'm glad I was able to bring Jim back around to the discussion of policy. Jimmie try more misdirection by trying to start yet-another controversy over "what I want." That can be expanded with his imaginary helium to "reach the threshold of [newsgroup] space." Wonder how Coslo's BBS is coming along? He tried the same bull**** with my remark on "extra out of the box" five years ago in here...that I "WANTED" one...and the same thing on my Reply to Comments of Mikey D. on WT DOCKET 98-143 six years ago with "my WANTING an age limit on licensing." Tsk, Jimmie complains that I "don't *read* what he wrote" and then takes my postings so far out of context that we might as well all be in outer space and/or the Twilight Zone. Okay, in that spirit of misdirection in here, let me pass on an EXACT QUOTE of Jimmie's made on 10 December 2005: "The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs." He presumes that the VEC does? Like so many Morsemen confuse "ARRL" with "FCC?" Offhand, I'd say that Jimmie "wants" amateurs to be UN- LICENSED! :-) Let's see if he can "tapdance" a few time-steps on that one? Jim has his back in a corner. He's losing major ground on his lifetime achievement of being an Extra, and the worst is probably just around the corner. |
|
#180
December 12th 05, 10:26 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary. The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate steps. The ONLY alternative? :-) If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes. Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the General class license. From before 1936, until 1951, full amateur privileges in the USA required a Class A license. (15 years including the WW2 shutdown) From 1951 until 1953 full amateur privileges in the USA required an Advanced or an Amateur Extra license. (2 years) From 1953 until 1968 full amateur privileges in the USA required a Conditional, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra license. (15 years) (the requirements for full privileges were lowered in early 1953) From 1968 until the present time, full amateur privileges in the USA have required an Amateur Extra license. (37 years) Then they were taken away. 37 years ago. I lost privileges. You and Len did not. Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is "lowering the requirements." Yes, it would be. Why does one have to "upgrade" through license classes? One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box". You haven't. One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher. And FCC was convinced that wasn't a good thing. FCC is still convinced of the need for at least 3 license classes. You might want to read the current NPRM. Pay particular attention to footnote 142... Then the FCC implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements. And it would be. The standards were reduced in the Great Giveaway of 1953. You want a repeat of that. Some years back, QCWA proposed to FCC that all hams who had held a General, Conditional or Advanced before the changes took place in 1968 should get an automatic upgrade to Extra because they lost privileges then. FCC said no way. Sorry you feel that way. Why? Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult? If there were only ONE license, there would be no "upgrading" via licenses, would there? Right. And if there were only one license, regardless of what it would be called, its test(s) would have to contain everything that is now contained in the three written tests for the Amateur Extra. Otherwise the standards would be reduced. No, it wouldn't. Strawman. If you're willing to reduce the standards, the testing could be reduced. It's clear that's no problem for you. The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES. That ended 37 years ago. Why do you live in the past? Would you like to go back to the General test of 1968? Testing at FCC offices only unless you lived more then 175 miles from an exam point, no CSCEs, no published question pools, 30 day wait to retest. Oh yes, and 13 wpm code, sending and receiving. So what you propose is that all new amateurs would have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an amateur radio license. Is that what you want? You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs. Who said I "loved" it? You're the one who loves unnecessary licensing requirements. none of the license requirements I support are "unnecessary". You're the one who supports lowering the standards again and again. -- So let's see what you're proposing: - Full amateur privileges for the testing of a General license, without any code test. - All existing Generals, Advanceds, and Extras get full privileges. Some Technicians and Technician Pluses who passed the Tech written when it was same as General get full privileges too. Two questions: What happens to existing Novices and Technicians who haven't passed the General written? FCC has repeatedly refused free (no-test) upgrades. FCC has said that the optimum system for the future is a 3 level system, but that they'll keep the closed-out classes until they disappear by attrition. How will you convince them to do otherwise? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| DX test Results | Shortwave | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
| DX test Results | Broadcasting | |||
| DX test Results | Shortwave | |||
Linear Mode
