RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   05-235 - Any new procode test arguments? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/81521-05-235-any-new-procode-test-arguments.html)

[email protected] December 15th 05 12:14 PM

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

wrote:
From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
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.


Considering that Len hasn't even started, that's hardly a surprise...


Duhhhh...like I've never, ever operated a radio transmitter?!? :-)


The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio
license. You haven't taken the first step on that path.

37 years ago. I lost privileges. You and Len did not.


The entire USA amateur service lost in a big way,


How? Extras did not lose any privileges back then. Others could
get back the "lost" privileges by taking a test or two.


Nobody lost any bands, power or modes except Novices, who
lost 2 meter 'phone.


Was it necessary to punish amateurs?


Who was "punished"?

but you find a way to personalize it.


The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time.


They affected everyone after you as well.


They did not affect you and they did not affect Len.


You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine.


Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother
to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of
"changes of 1968 or 1969."


That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio
license. But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much
time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't
going to get...

What the heck, I'd already started
15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating
environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any
amateur activity.


How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing.

And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you
had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else.....

Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is
"lowering the requirements."


Yes, it would be.


Does the Advanced and Extra licenses convey the modes and power privs
that the General license conveyed?


What do you think?


I think you know what I think.


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.


Which is one reason the rules were changed in 1968 and 1969.


Which is another reason that those license classes were arbitrary and
redundant at the time. They remain so today.


Not "arbitrary and redundant" for Jimmie. He made it. He loves it.

Problem is, Jimmie doesn't think that others can think differently
so he doesn't think about the thousands of newcomers who MIGHT want
to get into amateur radio.


Len, I don't have any problem thinking others can think differently.
That
doesn't mean I must agree with them.

Lowering the requirements has *not* brought sustained growth to the
Amateur Radio Service. There's a short-term surge of growth and then
the numbers start to decline again. Not just here in the USA, either.

The Morse Code test will probably be eliminated by FCC in the near
future. And we may see some short term growth. But I doubt the
growth will be sustained. You and others are already setting the stage
for more reductions in requirements - just as predicted.

And FCC was convinced that wasn't a good thing. FCC is still convinced
of the need for at least 3 license classes.


Yeh, yeh, yeh. Using the same logic, if the FCC were conviced that a
Morse Code exam were still a good idea, they would have a specification
for Morse Code in the regulations.


Nope.


Yep.


Yes.


There's no specification for a lot of things in Part 97, yet there's no
problem.

FCC specifically mentions the need for a 3 level license system in the
NPRM.


The FCC specifically excludes any definition or specification for Morse
Code.


NPRM 05-143 is SOLELY regarding the elimination of the code test
from the Commission's regulations for licensing in U.S. amateur
radio.


Not entirely true.

That NPRM is also an R&O which denies a whole bunch of proposals
made earlier. Many ideas such as free upgrades and new license
classes were denied by FCC.

NPRM 05-143 DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF with ANY NEW PROPOSALS


It denies many existing ones - particularly some that would create new
license
classes or eliminate old ones.

for
license classes, rank, status, title, privilege, prestige, or
honor and glory in the amateur service.


In any event, there's no evidence FCC will change the *written*
requirements,
number of license classes, the license class names or the associated
privileges,
any time soon.

Just because no one at the FCC is paying attention doesn't mean that
the present rules are worthwhile.


"No one at the FCC is paying attention"?


Just because they disagree with you?


It was just a guess. Why else would they allow such arbitrary and
redundant rules, exams, and license classes to exist?


POLITICS. The present system of U.S. amateur radio regulations, at
least up to the year 2000, was lobbied for by the ARRL. The
Reading Room at the FCC is full of documents attesting to that.


It's also full of documents from non-ARRL sources "lobbying" for
the same things.

But, Jimmie is a PARTY MAN. The league can do no wrong.


You are mistaken, Len. For example, I'm opposed to the "regulation by
bandwidth" proposal as written. I also opposed - twice - the ARRL's
proposals for free (no test) upgrades in license class.

Guess whose comments were cited by FCC in denying those free
upgrades?

You might want to read the current NPRM. Pay particular attention to
footnote 142...


Did you read Footnote 142, Len?

Asleep at the wheel.


FCC's not asleep.


Coma?


No to all the above. FCC just doesn't think that amateur radio
deserves their maximum-mission attention in their Congress-law-
mandated task of regulating ALL United States civil radio.


How do you know, Len? You're not FCC.

When the Commission does get around to regulating amateur radio,
it does so in Memorandum Reports and Orders which are extremely
detailed and explicit (and sometimes lengthy) to their task of
regulating all U.S. civil radio.


Then why the NPRM?

A problem with folks like Jimmie is that they are way too focussed
on their own agendas and their own personal desires to look at it
from the perspective of an agency governing for ALL the people,
not some smaller special-interest groups favoring morse code.


That's not *my* problem, Len...

Jimmie sees only what he WANTS to see. Such as "footnotes" which
he once thought were "wrong-format" things in other arguments.


Did you read footnote 142, Len?

That's true, as far as it goes. But it's also true that, presently, every
mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to Technician,
Technician Plus, General, Advanced, and Extra licensees.


I understand the reason for the split in privs between the Tech/Tech+
and the G/A/E licensees. The reason for that barrier no longer exists,
but the exam and licensing schema has not kept pace. Time to perform a
top-down review, starting with basis and purpose.


The time may not be ripe just yet, Brian. Let's wait until the
FCC decides what to do about NPRM 05-143 and issue a Memorandum
Report and Order on it.


I think it's very likely that Element 1 will simply be eliminated.
There may be
some Petitions for Reconsideration, but those will be denied. End of
that
story.

There's been two whole years of 18 Petitions commented on at length
since the end of WRC-03 and now NPRM 05-143 which can settle the
morse code testing for a license issue.


Probably. But you won't be satisfied with that, despite your frequent
claims of only wanting to eliminate the Morse Code test.

So by *your* logic (not mine), the General, Advanced
and Extra exams are arbitrary and redundant.


The Technician exam is weak on HF issues. What do you think?


The VEC QPC is responsible for generating written exam
questions and answers. VEC QPC is NOT an FCC department.


And wouldn't it also be true that the knowledge and skill required to operate
1,500 watts of CW on 14.026 MHz is EXACTLY the same knowledge and skill
required to operate 1,500 watts on 13.976 MHz?


Different service, but you're getting the point. Bravo!


Jimmie is just doing his "message-points wordplay" thing. It is
(or should be) absolutely NO difference in OPERATING any radio
transmitter physically. The only difference is in the human
regulations in regard to technical requirements.


Which means what? That hams should be allowed to operate on 13.976 MHz
if
nobody else is using it?

Why can't Technicians operate on 14.026? Why can't hams operate on
13.976?


And there you go with the ultimatums and strawmen.


Jimmie with newsgroup wordplay again. About this point, Hans will
jump in saying you are "simply mistaken" and babbling about how
the "IARU and ITU" are different or other semi-sweet non-sequitur.


Can't answer the questions, eh?

And while we're on the subject....


Why are hams only allowed 1500 watts output? Why not 3000, or
5000, or 10,000?


Go to Italy. They may have waivers.


The next World Radiocommunication Conference is in 2007. I don't
know if the location is fixed yet (WRC-03 changed location from
it's originally planned place). There's an FCC 8th Meeting on
WRC-07 changed to 25 Jan 2006...see the Federal Register of
today on details and contact person.

If Jimmie wants to really go high-power, it's his electric bill.
And his real estate broker's bill and re-locating his station.


?? Why??

Actually that's not true.
The 1998 ARRL proposal would have eliminated the 13 and 20 wpm code tests
and replaced them with a 12 wpm code test. IIRC, General code test would have
gone to 5 wpm in their proposal.


And moments prior to that proposal, the ARRL had NO proposal. But they
saw Carl and the NCI walking up the steps to the FCC office...


Actually, it was Carl Stevenson and Bill Sohl making an ex-partite
(?) presentation before the FCC. :-)


Was that before or after the ARRL proposal? IIRC, it was after.

Regardless, "the 1998 ARRL proposal" is OLD HISTORY. It doesn't
apply to anything NOW.


Brian brought it up.

You constantly bring up much older history ("My 3 Years") that doesn't
apply to anything NOW....

The current NPRM is 05-143 and concerning
the elimination of the code test for license testing. The ONLY
ARRL "proposal" is their Petition RM-10867 which was "granted in
part" as mentioned in NPRM 05-143.

But...Jimmie is a Believer in the league and thinks the league can
do no wrong.


You're simply mistaken about that, Len.

For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run
for
Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw...

I think you want the licensing standards lowered even more than
they have been already.


I want the necessary amount of regulation required, without arbitrary,
redundant, or superfluous license exams, license classes, and
privileges.


Sounds reasonable to me for what is essentially a HOBBY activity.


BTW, many of the exams are 49 or 48 or 47 questions because of the bad
questions presently in the QP.


That should be fixed.


We are self-regulating, after all.


Absolutely...by law in fact. The generation of ALL license test
questions and answers is performed by the VEC. Says so in
Part 97.


They are all approved by FCC, too.

The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES.


That ended 37 years ago. Why do you live in the past?


You're funny, Jim.


Jimmie lives in the past. Period. He has been bringing up
1998 "proposals" when he should be bringing up 2004 Petitions
on the current NPRM 05-143.


Who are you to tell me what I should do, Len? You're not in charge.

By WRC-07 Jimmie might STILL be babbling about "the ARRL
1998 proposal!" :-)


I'm simply pointing out where your line of reasoning leads.


You saw where it leads. It leads to the elimination of arbitrary,
redundant, and superfluous licensing exams, classes, and privileges.


Jimmie doesn't WANT to see where anything leads. shrug


Apparently my knowledge and skills intimidate you, so that you
have to attack me personally rather than argue facts and opinions.


Apparently they do not. The mode chosen to provide the example of
arbitrary privs was done for your ease of understanding, not mine. And
you quickly grasped the concept and took it to its logical extension,
which would mean a freefall of your prestige and stature in the amateur
community. That scared you.


Holy Judas H. Cottonpicker, but lil Jimmie done made hisself
more pompously arrogant (and egotistical) than anyone else!

The elimination of the code test for any U.S. amateur radio
license WILL REDUCE BRAGGING RIGHTS OF MORSEMANSHIP BY THE
PCTA MORSEMEN. Logical extension.


Just the opposite, Len.

NO PRIVILEGES ARE REMOVED by the adoption of NPRM 05-143 as an
R&O intact.


The change of zoning near your house did not remove any privileges from
you, did it, Len? It didn't make your taxes go up or require you to
change
your house in any way, right?

Yet you opposed it and kept trying to keep the 1960s zoning rules
unchanged
forever.

ALL that is left is the bragging rights to those who ONCE
passed a high-rate code test for their license.


Will my Morse Code skills disappear? I don't think so!

No one proclaimed you king either.


Remember, I am not the one seeking power and prestige through amateur
radio. I've been a proponent of the one license (classless) service
for a long, long time.


Ah, but Jimmie NEEDS the nobility of title and status and
prestige.


Is someone who expresses an opinion here somehow claiming a
royal role?


Only those who still believe in a feudalistic system of
rank-status-title-privilege in what is essentially a HOBBY.


That would be you, Len....

If I want better peerage, I go to my opthalmologist for an
eyeglass exam...so that I can "peer" at things better. :-)


I'm glad that you easily grasp the concept that these are, after all,
only our opinions. Not "Statements of Fact," nor "Assertions of Fact."
Expressing an opinion does not make one a liar.


...unless you are in a "discussion" with Dudly the Imposter.


But I'm not that person.

However, you need to realize that I advocate a review of ALL government
that presently exists, not just amateur radio. The review should start
with, "What is the purpose of government?" Refer to the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights often.


I'm with you on that, Brian.


Be careful what you ask for...

Unfortunately, some in here wish to abrogate those Rights in
favor of what They want... :-(


You mean like someone who writes "shut the hell up, you little USMC
feldwebel" in a public forum?

Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O
port?

You could probably drop the rhetoric about code tests.


WHAT?!? Jimmie drop rhetoric about code testing?!? NO WAY! :-)


- 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?



What happens to them now???


I'm asking what your one-class-of-license plan would do
for them. It's your plan, not mine.


Why? The FCC is presently dealing with it fairly.


Jimmie trying to paint you in a corner there. His brush is dry.


FCC has repeatedly refused free (no-test) upgrades.


So?


So you have to convince FCC to reverse that policy if you
want your plan put into effect.


Why? Why must I do what you say???

You are acting very king-like.


I know...some extras get like that...


Then please don't expect FCC to give free upgrades.


Did't state that, didn't suggest that. Why do you keep putting your
scarecrow out there?


His scarecrow must be there. His corn is green.


Don't expect FCC
to implement less than 3 classes of licenses. And don't expect
FCC to lower the testing standards any more than is already proposed.


What is proposed is the elimination of the code exam. You're welcome
to confine your discussions on rrap to that.


Jimmie was trying to read the secret writing between the lines.


IOW, you expect the FCC to agree with you on everything without
you having to convince them.


You expect the FCC to agree with me even if I should put forth a
convincing proposal?

Hi! You angry white males are all the same.


:-)


Len's the angriest white male I know.

Sigh...Jimmie is finally seeing the dawning of a new age and he
is vainly trying to shut everyone out of (his) sight.
Now, if
everyone could just accept Jimmie as the God-granted Ruler of
Ham Opinion, he wouldn't get so upset. Alas, others aren't so
inclined.


Boy is that a crock of bull****!

The hissy fits continue...

From you, Len. You're the King of that! ;-)



KØHB December 15th 05 02:31 PM

Where's the beef?
 

wrote

First, it assumes that hams with the various license classes
stay only in their respective subbands, in that you won't find
Extras in the Advanced and General parts, or Advanceds
in the General parts, etc. But that's not how it works.


You've got it all bass-ackwards, Jim. My "experiment" presumes that you won't
find Advanced in the Extra portion of the band, and you won't find Generals in
either the Advanced or Extra segments. Thus, if incentive licensing is working,
there ought to be a noticeable difference in operator/technical skills evident
between the opposite ends of the band segments.

As you so ably point out, that difference doesn't seem to exist. I rest my
case. No benefits of incentive licensing are observed in the real world.

wrote

I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the
Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals
may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the
Extras may be inclined to relax.


Dee, you should submit this as the funniest-rrap-paragraph-of-the-month.

73, de Hans, K0HB




Bill Sohl December 15th 05 02:43 PM

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote

One of the elements is self training and technical knowlegde. You
encourage that by using increased privileges (spectrum and power) to get
people to study and take
additional tests.


If it were working, it would be evident on the air. But I'll encourage
you to try a little practical experiment to see if you can detect the
results in the real world.

You'll need the following materials for the experiment:

1. A reasonable sensitive receiver, hooked to a working antenna.
2. A blindfold.
3. A set of earphones.
4. No extreme hearing impairments.
5. A comfortable chair.

Seat your self at the receiver, and tune it to the TOP of a popular band
with good propagation to the USA, probably 40 or 75 meters. Don the
earphones and plug them in. Set the receiver RF gain full open and the
AF gain at a comfortable level.

Now place your blindfold over your eyes.

Slowly tune the receiver down the band. If incentive licensing is
working, when you cross over the General/Advanced boundary and again when
you cross the Advanced/Extra boundary, you should detect a noticeable
increase in the "training and technical knowlege" of the operators
because of better/cleaner signals, more sophisticated technical
discussions, and other evidence of better training and technical
knowlege. If your ear does NOT detect this sort of evidence as you tune
across those boundaries, then you can conclude (as I have) that incentive
licensing is an abject failure.

73, de Hans, K0HB


As Jim has already so ably answered, you cannot tell that sort of thing at
all. There is no way to tell whether that signal is better/cleaner since
propagation variables can impact signal quality too. There is no way to
tell if a better signal is due to better knowledge or that the particular
ham chooses to have his equipment maintained by a third party. I would
expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions
simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where
the Extras may be inclined to relax.


I would expect better OPERATING skills, a higher quality of language
behavior and perhaps more technical discussions...but forget even the
technical discussions....the behavior and operating skill differences
are just not there.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK



KØHB December 15th 05 03:21 PM

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

"Bill Sohl" wrote



As Jim has already so ably answered, you cannot tell that sort of thing at
all. There is no way to tell whether that signal is better/cleaner since
propagation variables can impact signal quality too. There is no way to tell
if a better signal is due to better knowledge or that the particular ham
chooses to have his equipment maintained by a third party. I would expect
less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions simply because
the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the Extras may be
inclined to relax.


I would expect better OPERATING skills, a higher quality of language
behavior and perhaps more technical discussions...but forget even the
technical discussions....the behavior and operating skill differences
are just not there.


They're relaxing, Bill.




[email protected] December 15th 05 07:23 PM

One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
On 13 Dec 2005 09:25:02 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:


wrote:

Jimmie just said "major typo alert!"

He acknowledged a MAJOR mistake in posting as a "typographical
error" but that is apparently okay for him to do. It's not okay
for any of us to do it...if we do it, we get reminders of it for
the next five years, negative critique, accusations of "not
following up on 'promises,'" the whole magilla.


The fact of the matter is, Lennie, that more often than not, you
either refuse to admit your errors, or even worse, defend them with
lengthy, windy pontifications intended to obfuscate them.

Jim's character doesn't seem to permit him to act that way.

I see you're still using diminutives that aren't directed at you.
Of course your sock puppet does nothing to suggest otherwise to you,
yet presumes to chastise others for not engaging in such conduct.

What's that term you're always using...."double standard"...?!?!


why are you obsessed with dimutives stevie clearly you are dumb enough
to think being called stevie is worse than being called a pedophile
(you have said this more or less for months

Seems you NCTA "guys" have more than your fair share! (as if
there was any doubt.....)

Steve, K4YZ


everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

[email protected] December 15th 05 09:04 PM

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 4:14 am


wrote:
From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message


The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio
license. You haven't taken the first step on that path.


"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single
step"...some ancient Chinese proverb, I suppose.

Later on you will contradict yourself, but that is par for
your course.

I obtained a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 49 years ago.
First Class, one test, no repeats necessary.

WHY was it "required" that I obtain an amateur license?


37 years ago. I lost privileges. You and Len did not.

The entire USA amateur service lost in a big way,

How? Extras did not lose any privileges back then. Others could
get back the "lost" privileges by taking a test or two.

Nobody lost any bands, power or modes except Novices, who
lost 2 meter 'phone.

Was it necessary to punish amateurs?


Who was "punished"?


You tell us. You are the one into the dominatrix role.


but you find a way to personalize it.

The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time.

They affected everyone after you as well.


They did not affect you and they did not affect Len.

You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine.


Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother
to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of
"changes of 1968 or 1969."


That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio
license.


"Ana amateur radio license?"

Ah, but YOU already said I had some kind of moral imperative
to get an amateur radio license. Hypocrite.

But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much
time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't
going to get...


"Not going to get?" Who said that...besides YOU?

I'm just wanting the morse code test for an amateur radio
license eliminated.

Why are YOU "spending so much time and energy" trying to
throw **** on all of those desiring that test element 1
deletion?

What are you afraid of? Loss of your personal status,
title, and privileges?


What the heck, I'd already started
15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating
environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any
amateur activity.


How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing.


The amateur radio service does not require its licensees to
wage war and kill the enemy.

The military "field days" were not little outings in a park
once a year.

Amateur radio doesn't operate in an environment of high
explosive ordinance going off nearby.

And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you
had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else.....


To use a quaint and traditional military phrase, "****in-A!"

Yes, sweetums, I - and every other military person - had it
TOUGHER than you civilians safe at home.


Problem is, Jimmie doesn't think that others can think differently
so he doesn't think about the thousands of newcomers who MIGHT want
to get into amateur radio.


Len, I don't have any problem thinking others can think differently.
That doesn't mean I must agree with them.


Then why does your lofty highness insist all MUST agree
with YOUR opinions?



There's no specification for a lot of things in Part 97, yet there's no
problem.


Yes there is. License test regulations REQUIRE a code test for
any class having below-30-MHz operation privileges...BUT...the
FCC does not mandate all amateur USING morse code modes over
and above any other mode. All are optional.


NPRM 05-143 is SOLELY regarding the elimination of the code test
from the Commission's regulations for licensing in U.S. amateur
radio.


Not entirely true.


ENTIRELY TRUE.

That NPRM is also an R&O which denies a whole bunch of proposals
made earlier. Many ideas such as free upgrades and new license
classes were denied by FCC.


Are you totally without comprehension...or just partly?

NPRM = Notice of PROPOSED Rule Making.

An NPRM is simply a statement of what the FCC proposes to do.

A Memorandum Report and Order ("R&O") is the later ORDER
which establishes changes in regulations.

Since you are devoid of comprehension of the flow of
documents from the FCC, let me put down the order of things
as they happened:

1. WRC-03 action resulted in a revision of S25, the Radio
Regulations defining amateur radio. End of July 2003.

2. A total of 18 Petitions were sent to, and displayed to
the public by the FCC regarding revision to amateur
radio regulation changes as a result of WRC-03 actions.
Petitions shown to the public in two major groups
2003 to 2004 along with all Comments.

3. As a result of review of the Petitions and commentary
by the public on those Petitions, the FCC issued a
Notice of PROPOSED Rule Making...along with the reasons
the Commission had in deciding on what to put in that
PROPOSED Rule Makng. Released 15 July 2005. The end
of all Comments was 14 November 2005.

4. As of the latest Federal Register issue of Thursday,
December 15, 2005, there has been *NO* Memorandum
Report and Order released by the FCC concerning NPRM
05-143.

NPRM 05-143 DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF with ANY NEW PROPOSALS


It denies many existing ones - particularly some that would create new
license classes or eliminate old ones.


The Commission explained, in detail, WHY it reached its own
conclusions on what to put in the Notice of PROPOSED Rule
Making. Those conclusions were as a result of the 18
Petitions which had been presented to the public with the
public invited to comment on all 18 in the 2003-2004 time
period.

NPRM 05-143 does not, nor has any such Notice of PROPOSED
Rule Making ever done, establish any sort of ORDER to
change regulations. When such an ORDER is released, it
may be the same, may be different from the NPRM. That is
up to the FCC to decide. The FCC has the legal right to
make the final decisions on a Memorandum Report and ORDER.


In any event, there's no evidence FCC will change the *written* requirements,
number of license classes, the license class names or the associated
privileges, any time soon.


Irrelevant. NPRM 05-143 concerns itself solely with the
deletion of test element 1.



Just because no one at the FCC is paying attention doesn't mean that
the present rules are worthwhile.

"No one at the FCC is paying attention"?

Just because they disagree with you?

It was just a guess. Why else would they allow such arbitrary and
redundant rules, exams, and license classes to exist?


POLITICS. The present system of U.S. amateur radio regulations, at
least up to the year 2000, was lobbied for by the ARRL. The
Reading Room at the FCC is full of documents attesting to that.


It's also full of documents from non-ARRL sources "lobbying" for
the same things.


Tsk, bad spin on your part. The ARRL has remained an equivalent
of "City Hall" politics in the past...since the creation of
the FCC in 1934 and up until the beginning of the 1990s. It
has been clearly evident to disinterested parties in all that
time when the league got what the league wanted.



Did you read Footnote 142, Len?


Tsk, tsk, tsk, you don't like footnotes, Jimmie. You've said
so in the past.


No to all the above. FCC just doesn't think that amateur radio
deserves their maximum-mission attention in their Congress-law-
mandated task of regulating ALL United States civil radio.


How do you know, Len? You're not FCC.


It is very easy to see by any disinterested observer, Jimmie.

Go to the FCC website, go to the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau page, then through that go to the Amateur Radio page.
What is the latest date on important documents there? 2002.

There's not been ANY important issues put forth on that page
in three years. Not the S25 revisions at WRC-03, not the 18
Petitions, not the release of NPRM 05-143.

Now check around the OTHER radio services' issues, documents
and so forth and count them up anywhichwayyouwant. Far, far
MORE matters discussed by both the Commission and the Public
on those OTHER matters than amateur radio issues.


When the Commission does get around to regulating amateur radio,
it does so in Memorandum Reports and Orders which are extremely
detailed and explicit (and sometimes lengthy) to their task of
regulating all U.S. civil radio.


Then why the NPRM?


The Notice of PROPOSED Rule Making was in response to the public's
call for PETITIONS to change the amateur radio regulations after
the S25 Radio Regulations revisions at WRC-03.

NO Notice of Proposed Rule Making is ever a Memorandum Report
and Order. NPRMs do not change regulations. R&Os do.

Do you have to be led by the hand through this non-maze of
procedure or are you just being obstinate?



I understand the reason for the split in privs between the Tech/Tech+
and the G/A/E licensees. The reason for that barrier no longer exists,
but the exam and licensing schema has not kept pace. Time to perform a
top-down review, starting with basis and purpose.


The time may not be ripe just yet, Brian. Let's wait until the
FCC decides what to do about NPRM 05-143 and issue a Memorandum
Report and Order on it.


I think it's very likely that Element 1 will simply be eliminated.


Is your name Brian Burke? Are you having an identity crisis?



There's been two whole years of 18 Petitions commented on at length
since the end of WRC-03 and now NPRM 05-143 which can settle the
morse code testing for a license issue.


Probably. But you won't be satisfied with that, despite your frequent
claims of only wanting to eliminate the Morse Code test.


Jimmie Noserve, GIVE UP trying to tell me "what I will do."

You don't have the authority nor the qualifications to be ME
nor judgemental on "what I will do."



Why can't Technicians operate on 14.026? Why can't hams operate on
13.976?

And there you go with the ultimatums and strawmen.


Jimmie with newsgroup wordplay again. About this point, Hans will
jump in saying you are "simply mistaken" and babbling about how
the "IARU and ITU" are different or other semi-sweet non-sequitur.


Can't answer the questions, eh?


Jimmie, you present NO valid questions. Ergo, no valid answers
required.



Regardless, "the 1998 ARRL proposal" is OLD HISTORY. It doesn't
apply to anything NOW.


Brian brought it up.


No, you've continually barfed up League-speak in here as a
devoted postulant at the Church of St. Hiram.


You constantly bring up much older history ("My 3 Years") that doesn't
apply to anything NOW....


Tsk, tsk, tsk, that's an entirely different "discussion"
concerning overt LYING of military service by Dudly the
Imposter (aka "K4YZ").

I brought up a VALID example some years ago on why the
majority of military communications worldwide was NOT done
by morse code mode since 1948...for the reason being that I
was assigned at a major Army communications station serving
a theater command Hq and stayed there for three years.

YOU have NEVER done anything approaching that. In fact, YOU
have NEVER served in any military service of the USA.

Naturally you would be upset about anyone else doing something
big and important in HF communications. TS.



For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run for
Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw...


Is your Division mobilized and ready to ship out to fight
the War on Terror? Bon voyage.



Jimmie lives in the past. Period. He has been bringing up
1998 "proposals" when he should be bringing up 2004 Petitions
on the current NPRM 05-143.


Who are you to tell me what I should do, Len? You're not in charge.


Poor baby, can't get things straight on Commission procedure?

Jimmie, 98-143 was settled, made devoid by Memorandum Report
and Order 99-412 released in late December 1999. 98-143 is
OLD HISTORY. Defunct. Available only for archival study and
not applicable to NPRM 05-143.



The change of zoning near your house did not remove any privileges from
you, did it, Len? It didn't make your taxes go up or require you to change
your house in any way, right?


Irrelevant to RADIO REGULATIONS. Local zoning laws have NOTHING
to do with federal radio regulations. Give it up.


I'm glad that you easily grasp the concept that these are, after all,
only our opinions. Not "Statements of Fact," nor "Assertions of Fact."
Expressing an opinion does not make one a liar.


...unless you are in a "discussion" with Dudly the Imposter.


But I'm not that person.


Tsk, your behavior in here has always been similar to his.



Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O
port?


One military veteran can tell another military veteran lots
of things. Brakob, Burke, and myself are all military
veterans. YOU have NEVER been an military veteran.

Here's a quaint old military phrase given in the tradition
and sincerity of the military service: "Go **** yourself!"

That will take care of Saturday night for you...





Dee Flint December 15th 05 11:21 PM

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote

One of the elements is self training and technical knowlegde. You
encourage that by using increased privileges (spectrum and power) to
get people to study and take
additional tests.

If it were working, it would be evident on the air. But I'll encourage
you to try a little practical experiment to see if you can detect the
results in the real world.

You'll need the following materials for the experiment:

1. A reasonable sensitive receiver, hooked to a working antenna.
2. A blindfold.
3. A set of earphones.
4. No extreme hearing impairments.
5. A comfortable chair.

Seat your self at the receiver, and tune it to the TOP of a popular band
with good propagation to the USA, probably 40 or 75 meters. Don the
earphones and plug them in. Set the receiver RF gain full open and the
AF gain at a comfortable level.

Now place your blindfold over your eyes.

Slowly tune the receiver down the band. If incentive licensing is
working, when you cross over the General/Advanced boundary and again
when you cross the Advanced/Extra boundary, you should detect a
noticeable increase in the "training and technical knowlege" of the
operators because of better/cleaner signals, more sophisticated
technical discussions, and other evidence of better training and
technical knowlege. If your ear does NOT detect this sort of evidence
as you tune across those boundaries, then you can conclude (as I have)
that incentive licensing is an abject failure.

73, de Hans, K0HB


As Jim has already so ably answered, you cannot tell that sort of thing
at all. There is no way to tell whether that signal is better/cleaner
since propagation variables can impact signal quality too. There is no
way to tell if a better signal is due to better knowledge or that the
particular ham chooses to have his equipment maintained by a third party.
I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra
portions simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking
knowledge where the Extras may be inclined to relax.


I would expect better OPERATING skills, a higher quality of language
behavior and perhaps more technical discussions...but forget even the
technical discussions....the behavior and operating skill differences
are just not there.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Why would you expect a higher quality of language behavior? All amateurs
are required to know and adhere to the same rules regardless of license.
Language behavior is covered on the Technician test.

People with a talent for code will tend to be better than the typical
operator regardless of license. Some people, like myself, may choke during
a CW ragchew regardless of our CW skill or license level. People who
regularly DX will be able to finesse their way into getting the DX station
at low power and people who do not regularly DX will have a much rougher
time, again regardless of class.

What everyone overlooks is that the test is merely the basic required book
knowledge expected for each level. Experience is not tested for. The
person who goes straight to Extra will have no more experience and no more
operating skills than anyone else. However, he/she starts with more book
knowledge as a platform to build on. But anyone can choose to gain the same
knowledge. They do not have to wait until they are studying for a new
license.

Plus every amateur is free to pursue improving their skills. The license is
a starting point not a stopping point.

Actually the place that I see the difference in operating skills is on the
VHF bands in the VHF contests. When I review my contacts in those contests,
the large majority of them are Extra class operators. They seem to be the
ones to have the skill necessary to put together and operate a station
suitable to make long distance VHF contacts and the skill to do so.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




[email protected] December 16th 05 12:10 AM

Where's the beef?
 
KØHB wrote:
wrote

First, it assumes that hams with the various license classes
stay only in their respective subbands, in that you won't find
Extras in the Advanced and General parts, or Advanceds
in the General parts, etc. But that's not how it works.


You've got it all bass-ackwards, Jim.


No, just the opposite, Hans.

My "experiment" presumes that you won't
find Advanced in the Extra portion of the band, and you won't find Generals in
either the Advanced or Extra segments.


And you usually won't!

But you *will* find Extras in the Advanced and General parts of the
band, and
Advanceds in the General part of the band.

Thus, if incentive licensing is working,
there ought to be a noticeable difference in operator/technical skills evident
between the opposite ends of the band segments.


That difference, if it exists, would be diluted by the Extras in the
Advanced and
General sections, and the Advanceds in the General section. Muddies the
waters, as it were.

There's also the effect of the bandplans. The lower parts of the
subbands
are often where the DX and DXers hang out, so you hear more pileups and
less discussion. Many of the "watering holes" for various interests and
modes are intentionally placed in the General sections: AM is near
3885,
PSK31 is around 3579, QRP is around 3540, etc.

As you so ably point out, that difference doesn't seem to exist.


It's interesting that you suggest the experiment on 'phone, not CW ;-)

I rest my
case. No benefits of incentive licensing are observed in the real world.


There are other experiments to try. For example, look in the amateur
radio publications - particularly the most technical-
and operating-skill-emphasis ones like QEX and NCJ - and see what
license classes the authors of the best articles hold.

wrote

I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the
Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals
may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the
Extras may be inclined to relax.


Dee, you should submit this as the funniest-rrap-paragraph-of-the-month.

A good one!

But lemme tellya what I recall from the late 1960s....

I remember the howling and cussing over the coming
of the then-new regs. I was surprised that so many
hams that were older and more experienced than I
were so upset about having to take more exams.

You'd have thought that the Advanced and Extra
writtens were EE courses, and that the 20 wpm Morse
Code exams were world-class. Or something.

But after a bit of listening and questioning, the situation
became clear. Most of those complaining had been
licensed after the Great Giveaway of Christmas 1952,
and had little or no knowledge of how things were before
Generals and Conditionals got all privileges.

Many of those who complained the loudest had started
out as Novices, studied and practiced like mad during their
Novice year, and then upgraded to General or Conditional.
Once they'd gotten to the General/Conditional level, they
basically sat back and considered themselves "fully
qualified", and relaxed.

What really ticked them off was that FCC was saying there
was more to learn!

It didn't help their addytood when young squirts like me
started showing up with Advanceds and Extras....back when
Extras made up less than 2% of US hams....

What was even funnier was when some of the worst
complainers and moaners started
working towards the Advanced and Extra and found they
could pass those exams. They discovered that 20 wasn't
all that fast if you actually *used* Morse Code on the air
for a while, and that knowing the technical stuff in the books
well enough to pass the exams didn't take an EE degree.

Soon there were Advanceds and Extras all over the place
and it was no big deal.

Now the circle is complete...

73 de Jim, N2EY


[email protected] December 16th 05 12:32 AM

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message


[snip]


Is that why the FCC gives ALL power priveleges to their ENTRY LEVEL
LICENSEES?


Entry level licensees do NOT have all power privileges. Technicians with
code are an entry level license. On HF frequencies, they are limited to 200
watts output.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And 200 watts on VHF/UHF???


[email protected] December 16th 05 12:38 AM

Where's the beef?
 

KØHB wrote:
wrote

First, it assumes that hams with the various license classes
stay only in their respective subbands, in that you won't find
Extras in the Advanced and General parts, or Advanceds
in the General parts, etc. But that's not how it works.


You've got it all bass-ackwards, Jim. My "experiment" presumes that you won't
find Advanced in the Extra portion of the band, and you won't find Generals in
either the Advanced or Extra segments. Thus, if incentive licensing is working,
there ought to be a noticeable difference in operator/technical skills evident
between the opposite ends of the band segments.

As you so ably point out, that difference doesn't seem to exist. I rest my
case. No benefits of incentive licensing are observed in the real world.

wrote

I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the
Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals
may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the
Extras may be inclined to relax.


Dee, you should submit this as the funniest-rrap-paragraph-of-the-month.

73, de Hans, K0HB



At one time I noted that most of the violations were awarded to the
higher class licensees. I don't know if that was an artifact of the
FCC picking on them because they should know better, or if it had to do
with the kind of attitudes of so many of the Extra's display on RRAP
carrying over the the bands.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com